Double standards

I hate double standards. That is probably why I hate the war in Iraq. \nI recently read an article on www.MSNBC.com talking about how the U.S. soldier death toll has reached 2,000. I sympathize with these soldiers and their families, as I would with soldiers from any nation, for the simple reason that for the large part they are young men and women who otherwise would have been disconnected from the ulterior political motives their nation had to send them into combat. \nBut I could not help but be disturbed by the fact that an estimated 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died as well. \nCivilians. Did you read that? Not enemy combatants or terrorists. \nCivilians. Thirty thousand fathers, mothers and children. \nBut no, you never read any headlines about that. I wonder why. Is it because the life of an Iraqi child killed sleeping in her bed when a bomb dropped on her house is worth less than an American soldier who willingly volunteered to go into combat? \nWhat does anybody care about 30,000 dead innocent people as long as our sycophantic oil companies keep providing us with the means to fill up our eight-seater sport utility vehicles? \nThe other point in the MSNBC.com article that made me angry was when the author pointed out that some Iraqis hope the American "occupiers" will go home soon. The word occupiers was in quotes as if the article was implying that Americans are in fact not occupying Iraq -- it's merely a figment of the Iraqi imagination. \nI'm sorry. I thought if an army took over your government and killed 30,000 civilians it was an occupying force. \nGee, maybe I was wrong. \nBefore you hop on Facebook to send me an angry message about how wonderful the war is and how we're liberating Iraq and making everyone happy, let me refute the whole holy liberation argument as well. \nTrue, Saddam Hussein was a horrible tyrant. True, eventually Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet. But this is a simple side effect, a fringe benefit, if you will. \nThe public naively absorbs anything the government or media feeds it about how America invaded Iraq to free it, bring Iraqis democracy and stop al-Qaeda. \nThe fact is, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are old enemies, with the latter even giving a speech on TV about how he didn't like Hussein. There were no al-Qaeda ties. The Iraqi invasion was a distraction from the fact that the war in Afghanistan did not in fact serve its intended purpose: to capture bin Laden. \nAs for the whole liberation thing, there are plenty of places in the world that need and have needed liberation. How about the 1 million innocent Tibetans who have died since China invaded the region? They might need some liberating. How about the thousands of Kashmiri women raped every year simply because their husbands dare fight for their own nation? How about them? \nOh, wait. They don't have anything that's of any material use to America.