Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
Here are just a couple of problems with using the logic "we must support the war no matter what as long as our troops are there":
1. That logic could be applied to us attacking Canada and murdering all the children there for no good reason. If we just accept that you must support any war where our troops are deployed, then you lose any objectivity toward why the troops are being used. The very fact that they are being used could justify any use of them. It makes no sense.
|
Mr. Fiction, comparing Iraq and Canada is an incredible stretch of reality.
Sure, if we invaded Canada for no good reason, then of course protests would be justified. But in this case, in the case of a vicious militant dictator, who has already commited many deplorable acts of violence against his own people, and the people of Saudi Arabia, the fact that he should have been taken from power long ago makes it more palletable.
There's been evidence presented that he is involved with harboring terrorists. It's just a matter of accepting that evidence. Given the man's history of violence, and refusal to abide by set rules for many years, I believe the evidence is there.
Also, we're not going in there to kill their children. Watch the movie "Black Hawk Down". Our troops aren't animals, even though war is like a wild animal.
Maybe there wouldn't be so many soldiers against this war if there weren't so many civilians telling them it's wrong. What soldier in his right mind wants to go to war without public support?
