Keith Devens .com

Two points:

Despite the recent rhetoric, we invaded Iraq to address our own national security concerns and not to liberate the Iraqi people.

Personally, I am amazed how little collateral damage has occurred. However, it is not 'hypocritical' to be upset about civilian casualties. One the one side you have deaths that result from the leader of another country, on the other you have deaths that result from the overt actions of your own country (which a U.S. citizen has greater responsibility for) or culture (the West).

I was opposed to the war because I thought it was unwise and politically poorly handled, not because I thought it was unjustified. So far, we've ended up doing less damage to our relationships in the Middle East than I've feared. I hope things continue to go this well.

I have to agree with the above point about hypocriticalness, you can be upset with the casualities and not be a hypocrite. That said I have to agree with the guy you quoted, I don't see how people can be outraged at civilian casualities, when the coalition has gone out of it's way (risking the lives of it's own people) to protect them. I mean, it's a war, innocent people are going to get hurt. Especially when one nation treats the people as cattle. Surely we should be blaming saddam when civilians are killed because Iraqi soldiers where firing from their house.