All I wrote, is what the modern analogy would be. Even if it wasn't explicitly clear, I'm trying to imply that soldiers aren't generally held responsible for horrors like Auschwitz because they have little control over it.

Entering without permission is invasion. Plain and simple.

.

Well, primarily because we took out the entire government that we instituted without first making sure people had a plan on how to continue after Sadam was removed?

That we started.

There are far bigger atrocities being committed that we don't so much as talk about on the news, much less go help out in. The WAR in Iraq is not an act of altruism.

We're trying to take three groups of people with a thousand year old violent feud to form one cohesive government. We've also help set up yet another corrupt government which replaced Sadam's government, which we put in power to begin with. Maybe we should STOP helping?



It wouldn't be a peace keeping force that would've prevented Auschwitz, it would have been an army. The high ranking Nazi officials said, "Had they shown military force to oppose us when we took the Rhineland, we would have stopped. "

... He's concerned about the US invading force. What you just said essentially is telling him to go join the Iraqi resistance and kill US soldiers.

You might want to phrase things more carefully.

To clarify, I'm not justifying what Sadam did or supporting him in any way. I'm a pacifist to the end, but if anybody deserved to be attacked, he would be one of them. I'm saying what we did was heavy handed and blundering, and done plainly without giving a damn about the Iraqi citizens.

Also Sternn, politics aside, bringing up political opinions when you're talking about a non-war related death is a bit insensitive. Any other thread is fine, but that was tactless.

Actually I'm suggesting that he consider volunteering his time or his money to some organization that would help these people out. Have you never heard of the Peace Corps? Granted it's an American-based organization, but surely they must have some kind of equivalent in his country.

As far as I know, the Peace Corps are not currently in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Peace Corps generally do not make a habit of occupying warzones until well after the war is over.

I didn't think you wanted him to kill US soldiers, but your phrasing was awful.

Sorry about the late reply. Haven't been on Gnet for awhile. You're right about the phrasing. That is why I try not to respond to something when my 'Irish hair catches fire.' I prefer to wait until I calm down a little bit, so I can think more rationally. I suppose I will also have to apologize to Cpt. Sternn at some point for 'reaming him out a whole new rear axle', although I still don't agree with him; however, I suppose we can agree to disagree, in an effort to be civil.

I agree with the fact he made valid points, but disagree on when he chose to mention them. It's a tragedy that all those people in Iraq have to die on either side, but it is likewise a tragedy that the people at Fort Hood had to die.