re: So we're "occupiers," which means it's OK for Iraqis to kill and mutilate American civilians over there. Oh wait, as long as you refer to those civilians as "mercenaries," it's OK, right? Don't forget that the terrorists are nothing more than "freedom fighters," so it's OK for them to kidnap and kill American and other Western prisoners, right?
It's not "OK" to me, but it's probably "OK" to most of them. And the Iraqis opinions means a lot; mine means nothing.
re: My point is that you liberals love to bring up "shades of grey" whenever you characterize the actions of the enemy, but when it comes to Bush and abuses on our side, the argument becomes rather black-n-white.
There wasn't a lot of grey area in those pictures. It's impossible to defend that kind of action on any level, and still claim the moral superiority to unilaterally decide to overthrow another country. There is a obvious moral contradiction that's not lost on the Iraqi's or the rest of the world.
As for the "actions of the enemy", the folks that don't support this war (who you automatically label liberal) seem to be much more upset by the "actions of the enemy", and the subsequent US deaths, than the hawks who think the casualties are justified by some perceived end.
re: Based on that, I'm not surprised that you missed that point and thought I was making excuses for the reprehensible behavior of our soldiers.
It just seems that you think those soldiers (and their officers) were less culpable because of what some Iraqi's have done. Sorry if I misread that.
John |
