Source(s)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/casualty.html
2007-11-11 05:14:48 · 15 answers · asked by . 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm afraid it is. That's the problem with the world. It are never the evil people that are in the majority, it's the majority of otherwise good decent people who live their life and ignore evil.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
2007-11-11 05:36:52 · answer #1 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
have you ever observed that it relatively is the Israel return and forth section? In an interview interior the Beirut on a regular basis celeb on June 12, 1974, Lord Caradon reported: "it could have been incorrect to call for that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967 as a results of fact those positions have been undesirable and synthetic. in spite of everything, they have been basically the places the place the squaddies on the two section befell to be on the day the combating stopped in 1948. They have been basically armistice strains. it relatively is why i did no longer call for that the Israelis return to them, and that i think of we've been good to no longer." .
2016-10-16 03:30:00 · answer #2 · answered by mcclune 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. How about 500 million killed in WWll. War takes lives, innocent of not. Freedom costs lives!
2007-11-11 05:19:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Had not heard that figure of 1.2 million it seems excessive.
I can see 150k during the war and about 100k afterwards but 1.2 mill? seems an exaggeration to me.
2007-11-11 05:28:09 · answer #4 · answered by r1b1c* 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am far more concerned about Americans killed in those conflicts.
I am sorry for all the English killed in the blitz too, but I am more concerned about the Americans who died to stop it.
Sorry, you asked.
2007-11-11 05:25:40 · answer #5 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one seems upset by that as far as I can tell. The interesting thing is we debate body counts rather than the point of the question.
Its as if well............
In my estimation of things Iraq should cost 32,000 human lives, ya thats about right well more like 32,531 yes thats the better number any more than that might disturb me a little.
2007-11-11 05:33:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
There may be a price to pay somehow in not caring for the death of people.
I don't know them; I knew them only a little; I knew them but not closely; I was close to them, but they were not family; they were family but not close; they were family but better them than me.
2007-11-11 12:24:03 · answer #7 · answered by johnfarber2000 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OOO! The Guardian? I trust them about as far as I could through a '57 Chevy.
2007-11-11 05:21:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
More Anti-War propaganda.
Please list factual sources to support your opinions.
2007-11-11 05:35:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Both
2007-11-11 05:21:29 · answer #10 · answered by Tigger 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋