quote:
Yes, it is your money. You may do with it as you will.
Thank you.
quote:
However, consider this. Would I be a better person if I attacked an abusive husband in his own home, killing some of his family members in the process.
That's a bad analogy because it grossly overestimates how many Iraqis we killed. "Some" of his family? How large is the household? What percentage does that imply? 40% of the entire civilian/family population? More?
How many people are there in Iraq? How many civilians did we kill?
What percentage of the population is that?
How many people would Saddam have killed anyway if allowed to remain in power?
Another flaw in your analogy is this. You implied it was "his" home. Saddam never had a right (by Western standards) to rule Iraq, he was not chosen by the ballot or by legitimate Iraqi law he was chosen by a coup. Therefore it was not his "home", it was somebody elses' home he took by force.
A better analogy would be a prolonged hostage situation in some building with a large number (at least 100) of people inside. Let's say that there is a terrorist in there who has already killed or tortured ten people (my guess) and the rest of them are forbidden to leave, live in fear, and have every aspect of their daily lives ruled by this terrorist. Then you send in a SWAT team to kill the terrorist and one or two hostages is accidentally (and regrettably) killed in the crossfire.
That's the war in Iraq, though I think 1% of all the population of Iraq is still a gross overestimate of civilian deaths.
Now as for this money issue. I pointed out to you that it was our money to do as we please, and you agreed. I think though that you missed the implication of that. You have no right to hold that against us because it is indeed our money to distribute (or not distribute) as we choose. You cannot criticize us for redirecting funds because we do not "owe" those funds to anyone.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-06-2003]
™ Version 4.2
