oaknet wrote:
] I am inclined to agree. And on that very basis bombing Iraqi
] cities filled with innocent civilians was morally
] unacceptable. Or was it somehow more acceptable because we
] didn't video each innocent "collatoral" man, woman and child's
] execution under US/UK fire?

[ Hear hear. That's among the reasons i opposed the war, because wars are atrocities, probably in all cases, so the net postive outcomes better be obvious and overwhelming. Such conditions might not exist, which is a solid anti-war stance, but anyway, they clearly didn't exist in this case. All the reasons boiled down to "Saddam is a dick." ]

] If we can
] bomb a marketplace or a wedding and retain our moral base,
] then why not these other murderers?

[ Can't. Those things are wrong. "We" as a nation, have lost a lot of our moral standing. "We" as individuals, can only be responsible as far as out influence and our voice. If you believe US imperialism is a-ok, then yeah, you're more culpable for the atrocities than someone who forsaw the bullshit and opposed the war on that priniciple. Whatever, it's a big argument, but you're basically right. Wars suck, and the winners write the accounts of it. That's changing with increased media presence... someday maybe accountability will be inherent. -k]

RE: CNN.com - Report: U.S. hostage beheaded - Jun 18, 2004