H.E. Pennypacker said:
I never said anyone deserved to die. I said it was fair for someone who supported the war to die, because they realized the consequences would include someone attacking them. As I said before, it is not fair to kill someone who was against the war. This has nothing to do with voting or not voting for Blair, or who took the country to war.
Read what I said. Killing you would not be fair, but killing someone that supported the war would be fair. I don't know about the people that died yesterday, so I won't say anything.
I am not going to answer a hypothetical question. If I were to do that, there would be another one, and one after that. It would not end. This has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. It is about Iraq, England, and the war.
I believe people should be responsible for their actions and beliefs. That's all.
Well, in order to attack someone or something, you have to be pretty close, right? Therefore, it makes sense to be living there.
Instead of saying its a pathetic point, why not reply to it?
That's not what I said. Maybe you have a problem reading.
Why the coalition went to war is for another thread. Please don't bring up Saddam Hussein.
If my family members died, I'd be very upset, because I know none of them support the war. However, if one of them did support the war, I'd say "I love you, but you asked for it."
It would be better phrased as "anti-corrupt establishment." I am all for governments, just not corrupt ones. I am not going to blame the actions of the govt. on the people.
That's not why I live in the USA, but okay. If someone voiced their unpopular opinions out on the street, trust me, they'd die. The govt. won't kill them, but angry people will. So, is there really that much of a difference...if an angry govt. kills people or angry mob of people?