655 000 killed
Out of context: Reply #46
- Started
- Last post
- 194 Responses
- PonyBoy0
let's look at 'war'... it's definition if-you-will...
... in the end - the side w/the most casualties (military/domestic) wins....
... right?
---If we're going to start judging a 'WAR' by an 'acceptable amount of deaths' then... well...
... it isn't war.
---
Take the recent hezbollah / Israel 'war' for example...... many folks threw a fit saying that Israel's actions were more in tune w/an 'over reaction' than that of a country defending itself in a 'war' scenario where BOTH SIDES are fighting...
... one side is obviously stronger and WILL WIN... which is what war is... right?
---
btw... I HATE WAR... and death... so don't try and attach me to the clowns who STARTED this war nor do not get confused that I'm in any way shape or form backing all these deaths...
I'm mearly pointing out that with War comes death - lots and lots of it... domestic and military. The side that has the most death and destruction loses. That's the way it's always been... and always will be - unless someone comes up w/a 'clever way' of making war humane.
This war in Iraq is going to have sooooo much more death attached to it before any stability ever (if ever) reaches that country...
... this is unavoidable now because of the insurgency and not so much the suni/shiite relationship inside the country (which too is an issue - but it's an issue much grander than just Iraq - the two sects aren't ONLY in Iraq and both sects have support in and outside of the country - expect to see that 'issue' to grow more-so than just an internal Iraqi civil war (you know... kind of like it already is now... :) )...
someone have a link w/a 'paraphrasing' tutorial?