>BTW, no argument on that point.
>
>And therein lies the conflict I've had about all this - Hussein was vicious, yet the # of American lives lost over there is coming close to the # we lost on 9/11.
>
>I've been pretty hardcore conservative for a long time, but right now I don't know what the answers are.
>
>
>Kevin

Kevin;

I guess the loss of life is more distressing dependant upon the reason. When we were enjoying the Vietnam War (I am a veteran) after I got out of the service and in college, we would talk about the head count (dead) for the week, year and total for the war.

We would say things like, “More people were killed by drunk drivers this year than in Vietnam”. Our statement was one that you might understand better if you were in Vietnam. Call it ironic or whatever as we did not like this entire business.

The matter of how many died for whatever reason or event is rationalized. I guess drunk driving is an American privilege to be enjoyed. Getting killed in a war is different. It gives the same result.

There was a time when someone driving DUI who killed one or more people would be given a slap on the wrist and allowed to drive without any jail time. That is changing and the courts are being tougher on DUI killers. Perhaps our attitude towards war should change too.

By the way political attributes seem to change with time. There was a time when the Democrats were known as “war mongers, and the Republicans were “peaceniks”. It was the liberal Democrats who got us into wars – WWII, Korea, and Vietnam as an example. Now they attribute the Republicans with being the conservative party – the party of war!

My point is that I do not believe you have to be a liberal or conservative or a member of a specific political party to embrace war or peace. I truly hate labels, as they do not define the way a person thinks. We are all too complex to do that.

Being a conservative should not mean you are for or against the war. That decision is yours and has nothing to do towards your political leanings.


Tom