My comments have been in regard to civilians. The Iraqi military has been the oppressors. The very same people that the Iraqi populace would have to kill to become free. I'm sure in your twisted logic its OK for Iraqi people to kill these killers and die by the thousands while trying and most likely failing as they did before, but its not OK for us to take them out with far fewer civilian casualties. Sorry folks you make no sense. It is precisely because you are reacting on an emotional level rather than attempting to make any rational evaluation of the situation.

The miltary has to be taken out to free the Iraqi people. You would rather sacrifice thousands in a fruitless repeat of the last revolt than alllow the US to do the job for them at a far lower civilian cost. No stand which requires a higher cost in civilian lives is a moral one in my book. You are simply the same type of folks that enabled Hitler and other ruthless dictators by failing to look at the big picture and make the tough decision to fight when needed.

The proof of an enabler is the inability to provide any justification for war. If you claim accidental civilian deaths are willful that is even further proof you are an enabler because no war in modern times has ever been faught without civilian casualty. You look at one death as a reason not to fight and steadfastly ignore the cost of lives your inaction will cost. History considers the early European response to Hitler moral cowardice for a reason. It's not because they weren't well intentioned it is because they couldn't make the tough choices needed.

Regards,
Mark