Quote:
Originally posted by the
I'm curious why you feel it IS a fair approach if one is against ALL wars, but it's not a fair approach if one opposed to this particular war and is making the argument with regard to this particular war.
Do you view it as a fair approach if one is against ALL (unwarranted/unjustified/unnecessary) wars?
Help me to understand that distinction you are drawing.
|
If one is a pacifist and truly anti-war then their position is that all war is wrong and thus the loss of lives is their "proof". They make no distinctions between wars run by their party or the other party, war to them is wrong period and thus they can be genuine in saying the loss off life alone is reason to end one.
In this case we have folks that back our action in Afghanistan, Clintons various mini wars, and will no doubt support the future military acts of a future president from their party. They did not and will not agonize publicly that those acts should not have taken place due to the casualties. This is hypocrisy.
If a war is wrong because 3,500 men have died, then how can you ever support another military action with unavoidable loss of life?
When we started this deal we knew there would be casualties, it was unavoidable. If there were 350 deaths instead of 3,500 their song would be the same. It's not that they argue the casualties are too high for the environment or mission, it's not an argument at all...just a cheap shot guilt trip to paint the opposition as monsters for political gain.