I think I referred to Germany's takeover of Czechoslovakia in 1939, and the British acquiesence to that.

Other references were made to the Munich Pact, though, and that was 1938. And Chamberlain supporting Hitler's aggression in the Sudetenland is similar to Blair supporting Bush.

And, pray tell, how is it an attack by the most modern military in history, will cause 45 civilian casualties and NO combatant casualties on either side.

Sounds a bit like cavalry and indians, doesn't it. A bit like a slaughter.

And you say, naively, those are unaviodable. The Brits told us, Americans shoot first and ask later what they shot at.

At least we used to be taught it was important WHO you killed. Not just killing.

In one man's opinion, it is amoral to not do everything possible to avoid killing innocent civilians to protest killing innocent civilians. In one man's opinion, only an amoral person could disagree with that.

And it ain't being done in a case where there are 45 civilians dead with NO combatant casualties on either side.

Arf (they call themselves "sapians"!)