Quote:
Originally posted by lendaddy
If the same number of US soldiers had died over the same period doing some humanitarian mission they would not be using it as a reason for withdrawl (though admittedly some on the right would).
|
True, but what's the point? I think just about everyone knows that soldiers can die, and that most accept those deaths, if they are dying for a just cause/one that serves the US interests.
No one is going to argue deaths of soldiers as a basis for withdrawal for a cause they support.
Quote:
Originally posted by lendaddy
My point is that it shouldn't be used as an emotional leverage tool when debating the mission (considering how historically miniscule it actually is).
|
I don't agree, I think it's fair game for detractors to argue. Not only are there the 3K, but remember, there is absolutely no end in sight. I don't think most war detractors argue the past (the 3K already dead), but really focus more on the future deaths. Given that this war has no foreseeable end, that number is arguably infinite, unless some solution is determined.
Quote:
Originally posted by lendaddy
The war is not right or wrong because X number of people have died in combat. It's either right or wrong period.
|
Detractors have no problem with that issue. The war is wrong.
I don't see how you can say that the number of US soldiers that have died, and that continue to be at risk for death, is not a relevant ground for argument by a person who thinks the war is wrong.