<DIV>"In this case, what better way to avoid the emotional >discomfort of tens of >thousands of unnecessary deaths from the invasion of Iraq than to >focus on civilians >killed in the aftermath of the war by the 'bad guys'?  Ya see, we're >not perfect, but *them >guys* are Really BAD!!! >Then we can come up with all kinds of fantasies, like 'maybe we can >get the US gov't to >do it better"..........there just has to be some way we can be the >good guys after all.... >After all, we liberated the Germans and the Japanese don't forget!! --i think the position I was referring to (which had nothing to do with whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a crime) is advocated by larkin, unless i'm misreading something in his responses to me...i didn't think of much anyone else outside of the person hari was responding to, thus his horror at my statement that the only deaths that matter in the US are those of American soldiers or that the deaths of American soldiers are the only reason the issue of Iraq remains controversial in the US...or a possible source of anti-war mobilisation in the US..... steve</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, you did "mis-read" me. My point, which I believe Doug and others share, is that we need a more nuanced position on how to get out of this mess if we want more than 15 people to show up at the next antiwar rally. The pro-Ba'ath apologetics that ANSWER and others engage in don't cut it.</DIV><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools?tool=1">Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard</a> - Read only the mail you want.</a>