Number of points here folks that you seem to have missed:

"those who chose war over peace have to accept that that decision can attract certain consequences"

Obviously Joe & Stu think that in stating "Those who chose war over peace" I was referring to innocent people - I WAS NOT - it is plain enough in English I was referring to Those who chose war over peace - In the case of the Korean War those people were Kim Il-sung, Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin - They after all prepared and planned for the damn thing for the best part of three years.

The Kim dynasty does not give a fig for the people of Korea - North or South of the DMZ so Joe IF you think it would have been right to allow Kim Il-sung's aggression to stand then all I can say is that you are a complete and utterly heartless and inhumane fuckin' idiot considering the degree of totally needless privations and horrendous suffering that have been endured by the people of North Korea under their rule.

Only the people of North Korea can rid themselves of the regime that has enslaved them in their "workers paradise" - note no communists or socialists will criticise the regime - now why is that? Is that the sort of "equality" you seek?

Similarly the "Palestinian" Leaders do not give a hoot about the "Palestinians" as long as the game stays where it is now THEY get to share out the billions in aid without having to do anything - money for old rope. Perhaps one of our pro-Palestinian forum members can explain to us all why President Mahmoud Abbas personally should receive a tax on every single packet of cigarettes and tobacco sold in the West Bank instead of that tax being paid into their Treasury? I also think he gets some sort of rake-off from every bag of cement as well.

Unfortunately, once you have gone to war, your first concern is to protect your own population and your own troops, you do that by making the war as short as possible and by defeating and expelling enemy forces from your territory. To do that you have to attack, degrade and destroy your enemies means of waging war - in doing all that people die, that is the reality of war. Alternatively, if attacked you could just immediately surrender then live with the consequences no matter how horrific.

Tell me Stu in what war were 20% of the civilian population killed? Certainly not the Korean War (Population of the Korean Peninsula in 1951 was something in the order of 29.6 million people) Where total casualties reached 2.5 million. I think that the closest to your 20% would be the total deaths military and civilian suffered by the Poles during the Second World War which was somewhere around 17%, the Soviets suffered around 13.7% military and civilian deaths.