FORGET the armour issue, and the press-accuracy issue. You did NOT reply to my moral bottom line
which is, once again:
that one should have a damn bloody good reason for the justifying of the deaths of thousands of people on both sides - especially when that person themselves, or their close ones, are not the ones directly involved.
There is no mention of the armoury issue in this. And I don't watch TV news or read the papers very much. What is about this paragraph of mine you don't understand? I am saying what people have said for a long time now: YOU MUST HAVE A DAMN GOOD REASON FOR STARTING A WAR WHICH INEVITABLY INVOLVES CASUALTIES AND SUFFERING ON BOTH SIDES.
Maybe there WAS a good enough reason; however I'm not YET convinced. And Tom: I DON'T TRUST IDEOLOGUES.
Read my posts properly and don't misrepresent my position or my complaints.