Cummings, I attacked the very principle of putting the deaths of 2,000 young Americans "in context," and the portion of your post that addressed that issue was: "The piece which prompted you to post this attack was written to put some historical context in place as the emotion drivel media focus on 2000 casualties alone...In that context, it drove the point home rather clearly."
Maybe you should read what I wrote, stop whining about how the sky could have fallen if we hadn't gone in and made it more likely the sky would fall, and stop whining about people who can't seem to put 2,000 dead "in context."
If you want to respond on point then let me know and we'll talk about how it is that men like you who claim to care so much for "for the thousands of women and children who were being tortured and killed for years in Iraq" (no emotional aspect to that is there?) can put the deaths of our soldiers "in context" by pointing out basically, "hey, lots of people die."
So that you don't have to look it up, here's the crux of that post:
"Cummings, re: "2,000 Dead, in Context.."
What intelligent logic is behind that inquiry? Should we put the number of Vietnamese Lt. Calley killed in that small Vietnamese village "in context?" Should we put the number of 9/11 dead "in context?" Should murderers be allowed to defend their murders by employing the "in context" defense of; "I only killed ONE, JUST ONE. Where's the justice?"
Those who use such morally specious arguments are the dregs of humanity. And those who parrot them are in the same league.
Try to "get it." We sent those 2,000 men and women to a war we started in Iraq. They went because we asked them to go. They died because we sent them. They aren't coming back. They're rotting pieces of torn meat. Their families are forever wounded. The lives of their friends and lovers are forever changed. They and their fellow soldiers killed a lot of men and women over there. FATE DIDN'T TAKE THEIR LIVES, WE DID.
The question is not "how many," the question is "was it justified." That question is three-pronged. Was there a reason for war that justified the expenditure of the lives of our children? Was there no other way to achieve the mission that justified the war? Was the mission "doable?" If ANY of the answers to those question are "no," then the war cannot be justified and NOT ONE LIFE should have been sacrificed.
It's that simple. |
