I think it goes like this, Old Guy.

A lot of the people who are "bitching" about avoidable deaths in Iraq, a war which, by any rational standard, was was not only entirely unnecessary, but counterproductive in any so-called "war on terrorism," are the same people who have worked to get seat-belt and air-bag regulations passed so that people have a better chance of surviving automobile accidents, got laws passed requiring the wearing of crash helmets so that motorcycle jockeys and bicyclists can avoid head injuries in falls, got warning labels placed on packages of tobacco products in hopes of getting people to think twice about smoking (vainly perhaps, but hopefully), got safety laws and regulations passed in the workplace to avoid on-the-job deaths and injuries (and are insisting against great resistance that they be enforced), object to unhealthy additives and preservatives being added to otherwise healthy foods, and. . . .    Need I go on?

All of these things may add a negligibly minuscule amount to the cost to various products, and mandate that business and industry be cognizant of certain fundamental humanitarian requirements for the health and safety of their employees. But when these laws and regulations are abided by, they do save lives and prevent injuries, and by doing so, are not only matters of oommon decency, but are found to be good for business and beneficial to the overall economy.

There are, of course, those who object to these laws and regulations, complaining that they are "needless government interference."

These exasperating people who think that avoidable deaths should indeed be avoided are sometimes call "crybaby liberals."

Have a nice day.

Don Firth