The reason why the rest of the world refuses to accept the situation in Iraq as a liberation and in stead perceives it as a cynical battle for control over resources is that:

  1) the invaders are not prepared to suffer losses on par
     with their 'enemies'

  2) more people have died under the 'liberators' than 
     would have died in many years of previous occupation

  3) the situation in Iraq is still viewed through the 
     terms of lives lost by the invaders instead of lives
     lost by those 'liberated'

  4) there would not be as much or more accent on 
     protecting Iraqs oil resources as there has been 
     on saving Iraqi lives

If you liberate someone you place yourself in a position of sacrifice, you're willing to go the distance in order to protect those you liberate. A hostage rescue team goes in knowing full well they're going to try to protect the lives of the hostages at all cost. A hostage team that would go in to protect their own lives at significant extra risk to the lives of the hostages would not get much recognition, even if they would save the occasional hostage.

These are the people who authorized, and continue to authorize, having troops there?

Do you not hold the government ultimately culpable for this? Claiming Bill Kristol et al started the war is just asinine.

I didn't say that.

>Do you not hold the government ultimately culpable for this?

Of course the government is ultimately culpable.

> Claiming Bill Kristol et al started the war is just asinine.

Bill Kristol et al created the meme for invading Iraq.

Good thing that none of my friends went, your friends do not have to go either.

wow...if you delete your post, i promise i'll delete my quoting you to remove the evidence of your ignorance.

ignorance is not the same as factually incorrect. if i said to an obese woman "you are looking fat today," though correct, i would either be behaving purposely mean or ignorant to social norms.

similarly, someone telling another person [the people you love who have chosen to defend your country in war have done so needlessly] is ignorant to social norms.

since you are not american is it safe to assume you personally know zero american soldiers at war right now?

> not the ones who have to actually fight it.

The nazis probably said the same.

I think it's laughable to try to draw a comparison between soldiers messing[0] up and causing collateral damage and the Holocaust.

[0] edit: unnecessarily foul language

That's not what you said. You said...

> the blood is on the hands of the people who started and continued the war > not the ones who have to actually fight it.

I disagree with that statement. With the same argument, one can justify all war killings. Even the act of Nazis. We don't bring in Godwins law when discussing and comparing war and killings.

You can certainly make an argument that they're the same, but I think there's a pretty clear practical distinction between the two.

I don't find people do much discriminating between different groups of Nazis. The infantry perpetuated violence and death just as much as the death-camp members. After all, what do you think they did to the newly-conquered populations those polite infantrymen rounded up?

There's also a difference between the world 100 years ago and today. We live in a more civilized, more peaceful time. The violence in Iraq is some of the broadest and most destructive of our day.

The whole point of this video is about killing of innocent man, women and children by shooters who wanted to kill. Not soldiers killing soldiers. Whether they were rounded up or not, or put on a train or not shifts the focus.

The discussion is not about does this resembles the Nazis or not. It's about: are we looking for a justification for this killing by falling so low on the morality ground, that the same logic can even be used by the Nazis for justifying their killings.