> Nobody has assumed that. People have argued that (a) there would
> have been a second Al Qaeda strike that would have killed even more
> people, and (b) the Taliban government of Afghanistan was worth
> overthrowing even at the cost of perhaps 1000 civilian lives.
But why does that justify 5000 deaths, largely of noncombatants? Yes, that is cause to go after Al Queda, but that is *not* the same as killing thousands of Afghans.
Luke:
> Well, let's assume (as Marc Herold did) the Taliban's estimates are
> accurate. If so, the number dead would be somewhere around 5,000
> --horrible, but probably justified given the apparent end results.
How else is it assumed the deaths are justified unless those killed are a direct threat to the lives of Americans?
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.