[Will]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Again, I will endeavor to be more precise in the future. I forget that people often take statements literally, and not in the spirt for which they were typed.

I should have been more specific, and I was not, I stand corrected, and do apologies if I have offend those people. However, the essence of what I said does stand true. If they opposed the war, then it can be said, even if it is proven to be inaccurate, that they supported the continued human suffering that the Iraqi people were enduring by not supporting action to stop that suffering. [/QB]

So by not supporting a specific action to stop "human suffering" (not necessarily of the Iraqis), a person is therefore guilty of not supporting any action to stop "human suffering"? That is flawed logic, I'm afraid. It is quite possible for someone to believe that war is not the way to end "human suffering", and that another path can be found.

To attempt a horrible analogy that takes things to extremes (and borrowing from all the wife-beating occuring earlier in the thread):
If I do not support vivisecting the husband for beating his wife, and thus removing the threat of the husband beating his wife, then I must support the continued beatings -- even if I merely support putting him in a small concrete room for a period of time, and restricting his activities after release from said room (ie, no alcohol, counseling, curfews, community service, whatever...).

Hmm, hope that made sense...