dlowan wrote:Bill wrote: 20% of Iraqi citizens are little girls, 14 years old or younger. That's 5 million good reasons to fight for democracy.
Just as a starter you tried that one before.
It's not going to go away, Deb, because it is what I believe.
dlowan wrote:I pointed out that Iraq was pretty enlightened re women's rights (oddly) and NOT a theocracy before we cae in and chased many into the arms of the mullahs.
I'm sorry, but that argument is just as useless now as it was then.
We are already in Iraq. You cannot argue against why we need to finish what we started by saying we shouldn't have started. We don't have a time machine. At this point in time are you suggesting we should pull out? If so, there
are 5 million good reasons why you are wrong.
dlowan wrote:And - small difference which obliterates your example, Bill - Iraq is AN OFFENSIVE WAR, an INVASION - not a defensive war.
You missed my point. I was presenting a hypothetical to show that millions of innocents could be killed and it still wouldn't match the heinousness or culpability of the terrorist's intentionally targeting innocents for murder. You seem to be having trouble keeping that separation. Let's not lose track of where this tangent started. I pointed out Arafat was a ruthless killer and you responded:
dlowan wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:dlowan wrote: Yes - indeed- but, caught up with Israel's own history of terrorism, have we?
Yup, but this thread is about Arafat. Hence the "Israel's guilt or lack thereof notwithstanding" in the original post. :wink:
Hmmm - good try.
I have been toing and froing with the intent thing, you know.
Intent is no minor detail. Your attempts at drawing a parallel between deliberate murder and collateral damage will forever fail. To do so denigrates the actions of too many decent leaders and soldiers alike
AND lends undeserved legitimacy to the targeting of civilians for murder (terrorism). It is wrong on both counts. You can effectively argue that civilian losses may outweigh the human cost of not intervening in the first place without doing so.
dlowan wrote:Please comment on how many innocents we may slaughter in an invasion not sparked by an act of saggression against us. Let's try and keep it simple and truthful, eh?
If I could set a number for you, I would have. My repetition of the 5 million little girls statistic is reflective of my believe that ruining there lives is the alternative to successfully overcoming their would-be oppressors. If I were to set a number limit, it would be enormous.
Theoretically, globally,
billions of people will be born into lives of horrible oppression if we continue down the beaten path. If it took a 100 million people martyred on the way to ending such oppression permanently,
billions of lives would be saved. Where would you draw the line?