Quote:

Prometheus said:
The fact that you attempt to rationalize and trivialize over 1,000 deaths as some form of agreeable "statistic", sickens me, and completely negates any intelligent point you may or may not have had. What a victimized fantasy world you live in, wbam....





Why the hell does everyone treat those soldiers' lives like they were the lives of small children!?

They were grown up, responsible people who made their own choices, and one of them was to act as defenders of this country.

Your and everyone else's particular highlight of the fact that a certain number died makes this argument all the more despicable. It shows me very clearly that you're the one who's insensitive to their deaths, and using them as you're immunity from argumentitive scrutiny is all the more evidence of your jerk-off persona.

If I was one of the thousand that died in the war, I sure as fuck wouldn't have wanted to be remembered as a 'meaningless casualty'. Death is meaningless, that's a fact, but trying to use that one saying as your single priority for WAR does not work.

I will say, however, that the toll can exceed a tolerable number depending on the size of the campaign. For example, in Iraq's case, if over 2.5 thousand were dead, then I'd be pissed.

1000 is a big number, but even if it was 800 or 500, your tone of anger would still be the same...Heh, if it was 1.5 thousand, it'd still be the same. You'll use any number you could clutch for and say that the principle of death is enough to justify your disgust and still blind yourself to the fact that this was war. People die in war, and there's an expectancy of death. Get over yourself you fucking tourist.