I'm ... stunned.
Oct. 29th, 2004 03:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheSo, while the Allies have killed somewhere around 100,000 people in Iraq in a little over a year and a half (and that doesn't count the preventable deaths attributable directly to the ten years of sanctions, by the way), Saddam killed more than 400,000 in his ... what, 20 years of power? 30?
Ha! Our moral superiority (as measured in bodycount) is once again vindicated!
We are measurably less Evil than Saddam! Take that you pinko anti-war traitors!
Just don't ask about comparisons of deaths per annum. This is for the Iraqis' own good, after all. Just like Vietnam.
Ha! Our moral superiority (as measured in bodycount) is once again vindicated!
We are measurably less Evil than Saddam! Take that you pinko anti-war traitors!
Just don't ask about comparisons of deaths per annum. This is for the Iraqis' own good, after all. Just like Vietnam.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Could (2)
Date: 2004-10-31 03:21 pm (UTC)Which, in a populated area, is a War Crime. The difference is, It's Us Doing It. Yay Us!
It is still a godsdamned War Crime. Firing into a crowd because there might be a murderer in it is still murder.
How is deliberately bombing a popular restaurant (because a 'terrorist' might be in it) any different? How is declaring the entire non-urban area of Iraq, and bombing without surveillance anything that moves in it (in a region, no less, where nomadic families and tribes still inhabit) any different?
What about, in the early stages of the 'war', the strafing of the columns of would-be refugees, because there might have been Ba'athists in them? How is that different from shooting up a crowd to get one man who might be there?