Atheist Heroes?

[Reforged]

It worked, didn't it?  When you think "shock and awe" you think bombers.  Our military has a history of using the media in it's middle eastern wars.  It's ridiculous that you think you have a point.  The first priority of any military commander is to win, to achieve the objective, the second is to preserve his forces, and then we think about the civvies and all of the rest of it.  They're on our minds, because we're people...and we'll be doing the shooting, or commanding the shooters.

You think someone should have to explain that?  Why should Hitchens, or anyone, have to specifically address something you feel is "always the reality"?  Doesn't that sound a bit silly to you?  Do you think we killed more civilians in this war, than in, say WW2?  If you had to rate our performance, by reference to the fire bombing of Dresden, for example....where would you place the bombing of Bagdad?  War is shitty, people die.  Honestly, what is it that you want me to say, or for Hitchens to have said?  What would make you feel better?

Why should he have to explain that Rhythm? He was an orator trying to drum up support for the war. That was his job.
He was meant to explain the facts and why they support his point. Hes meant to explain the subtleties that would elude the average person around contentious issues. One of those arguably contentious issues was the level of civilian casualties and whether or not there could have been another approach. It was something on everyones minds.
He didn't reason why there couldn't have been another approach and he didn't attempt to reason why it was the best approach. He didn't want to touch those casualties with a 12 foot barge pole and as a result left a gulf of confusion where people would just make their own minds up. Some would say the casualties weren't justified, some would say they were, some would shrug their shoulders. In no way did he contribute to their decision making process despite that being his job.
He was supposed to clearly illustrate the pros and cons in a way that support his position. His job was not to sweep one obvious, massive con under the rug and sidle away from it. I am not making the case for or against the war or the approach we took. I am arguing what he did was intellectually dishonest. 
It would be the equivalent of Sam Harris running away from the subject of "enhanced interrorgation", among other things hes talked about. Hes taken alot of hits over that but he makes the attempt anyway. He is very thorough in illustrating the pros and cons of his position whether its likely to make him popular or not. I don't know if I agree with him on everything but the fact hes willing to do what it takes to get his position across is worthy of respect.