
Size of armies, duration, numbers of casualties both absolute and as a
percentage of those involved, geographical area and numbers of countries
too, are all measures of size.  In this case I'd say the relevant
statistic would be the number of combatants (total troops) compared to
total casualties from among the total civilian population in the
affected geographical area.


Vietnam and Korea might make good comparisons.


Western news in general, but in particular the American "mass media":
CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.  The general tone of the news during the whole
war was one of "those poor, poor Iraqis" along with "look how precisely
this cruise missile blew this building to bits".


I agree.


Perhaps so.  And maybe the atomic bomb was a mistake too.  But that's easy
to say from our "enlightened" viewpoint here in the 90's, right?  Back
then, it was *all-out* war, and Germany and Japan had to be squashed.
After all, a million or more British had already died, hundreds of 
thousands of French, a couple hundread thousand or so Americans, and 
millions of Russians, not to mention a few million Jews, Poles, and 
other people of slavic descent in German concentration camps.  All 
things considered, the fire-bombings and the atomic bomb were
essential (and therefore justified) in bringing the war to a quick
end to avoid even greater allied losses.

I, for one, don't regret it.


Sure.  And it's the people who suffer because of them.  All the more
reason to depose these "entrenched political rulers operating in their
own selfish interests"!  Or do you mean that this applies to the allies
as well??


I make no claim or effort to justify the misguided foreign policy of the
West before the war.  It is evident that the West, especially America,
misjudged Hussein drastically.  But once Hussein invaded Kuwait and 
threatened to militarily corner a significant portion of the world's
oil supply, he had to be stopped.  Sure the war could have been
prevented by judicious and concerted effort on the part of the West
before Hussein invaded Kuwait, but it is still *Hussein* who is
responsible for his decision to invade.  And once he did so, a
strong response from the West was required.


Well, it's not very "loving" to allow a Hussein or a Hitler to gobble up
nearby countries and keep them.  Or to allow them to continue with mass
slaughter of certain peoples under their dominion.  So, I'd have to
say yes, stopping Hussein was the most "loving" thing to do for the
most people involved once he set his mind on military conquest.

I mentioned it.

If we hadn't intervened, allowing Hussein to keep Kuwait, then it would
have been appeasement.  It is precisely the lessons the world learned
in WW2 that motivated the Western alliance to war.  Letting Hitler take
Austria and Czechoslavkia did not stop WW2 from happening, and letting
Hussein keep Kuwait would not have stopped an eventual Gulf War to
protect Saudi Arabia.


Sure.  What was truly unfortunate was that they followed Hitler in
his grandiose quest for a "Thousand Year Reich".  The consequences
stemmed from that.

What should I say about them?  Anything in particular?



So?  It was the *policemen* on trial not Rodney King!!  And under American
law they deserved a jury of *their* peers!  If there had been black
officers involved, I'm sure their would have been black jurors too.
This point (of allegedly racial motivations) is really shallow.


So?  It's "hard to imagine"?  So when has Argument from Incredulity
gained acceptance from the revered author of "Constructing a Logical
Argument"?  Can we expect another revision soon??  :)  (Just kidding.)


I have to admit that I wonder this too.  But *neither* the prosecution
nor the defense is talking.  So one cannot conclude either way due to
the silence of the principals.  


OK.  It certainly seemed to me that there was excessive force involved.
And frankly, the original "not guilty" verdict baffled me too.  But then
I learned that the prosecution in the first case did not try to convict
on a charge of excessive force or simple assault which they probably
would have won, they tried to get a conviction on a charge of aggravated
assault with intent to inflict serious bodily harm.  A charge, which
news commentators said, was akin to attempted murder under California
law.  Based on what the prosecution was asking for, it's evident that 
the first jury decided that the officers were "not guilty".  Note, 
not "not guilty" of doing wrong, but "not guilty" of aggravated assault 
with the *intent* of inflicting serious bodily harm.  The seeds of the 
prosecutions defeat were in their own overconfidence in obtaining a 
verdict such that they went for the most extreme charge they could.

If the facts as the news commentators presented them are true, then
I feel the "not guilty" verdict was a reasonable one.


Thanks mathew, I like the quote.  Pretty funny actually.  (I'm a 
Monty Python fan, you know.  Kind of seems in that vein.)

Of course, oversimplifying any moral argument can make it seem
contradictory.  But then, you know that already.  

Regards,