tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5522083.post115489854558069342..comments2008-07-25T01:21:46.178-05:00Sethnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5522083.post-1155136042291555972006-08-09T10:07:00.000-05:002006-08-09T10:07:00.000-05:00The quintessential point is not how many soldiers are killed in a conflict, but whether or not their deaths are brought about in a just and moral war or one that is the opposite.<BR/><BR/>If the War in Iraq is just, though casualties should of course be limited, the deaths of untold thousands would be acceptable. If the war is not just, even one death is one death too many.<BR/><BR/>But there is another point. The French ultimately failed in Vietnam. It looks increasingly doubtful that we will emerge victorious from Iraq. Will failure render the deaths of American soliders meaningless? I hesitate to answer.A Wiser Man Than Ihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405864709965908573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5522083.post-1154961165788843452006-08-07T09:32:00.000-05:002006-08-07T09:32:00.000-05:00I mostly agree with you. Compare World War I memoirs to those from the present conflicts and you will see in the first men living in squalid conditions in wet and muddy trenches, forced to run in the face of terrible machine gun fire with no protection while in the second you will see men sitting in air-conditioned trailers firing missiles from afar. But therein lies a necessary point: is the carnage truly any less in present wars, or is it simply more one-sided?Cody Beckmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13021278716220785300noreply@blogger.com