--
Harmon Seaver:
> > > Not inside the cities they can't, not without tons of
> > > collateral damage, which will crucify Dubbya and Blair.
James A. Donald:
> > No one (except the US military which hopes to rule an
> > intact Iraq) least of all the protestors, care how many
> > Iraqis get killed. Who recollects how many Iraqis were
> > killed the last time around?
On 23 Mar 2003 at 23:36, Bill Stewart wrote:
> I got thrown off of Federal property for holding a sign about
> it near the entrance when there was a pro-war rally going on.
OK, you recollect how many Iraqis were killed the last time
around. However "tons of collateral damage" is not going to
crucify Bush and Blair, and to suggest that it would is to
treat virtue as weakness.
I am enraged whenever I see people speaking as if the US desire
to avoid civilian casualties was a form of weakness, a
manifestation of weakness and fear This view, this
interpretation of US behavior, is so widespread that perhaps
the most effectual thing the US could do to prevent future
random terror attacks is to round up one hundred million.
innocents and slaughter the lot. Everyone loved the commies
for doing that, so if the US wants to be loved, perhaps it
needs to do the same.
If the US trys to avoid civilian casualties, this is not out of
fear and weakness. Indeed, when we observe the recent past, it
seems that it is failure to commit sufficient murder that
provokes these attacks. The US does not suffer bad
consequences from killing innocents, but from its failure to
kill sufficient innocents.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Hu6ELr3jUIu3oEIpUP+J4+eT2MmE73JlaP2gGpR3
4KKD7h+egCTl5Lbm/b7SZ67vmhXn3fpWObKHp2b2Y
