You say that you're opposed to this war

No. I said I was opposed to going in when we did and under the circumstances we did. I am not opposed to the goal of this war, which is to get rid of the Iraqi regime. I just think we needed more support, and could have done more on the diplomatic front. I don't think I ever made a blanket statement that I'm opposed to the war.

but you don't seem to take that into account here. If we weren't there fighting a war that most of the world is opposed to, then US soldiers wouldn't be killing any Iraqi civilians.

And if the Iraqi regime had followed the ultimatum, then we also wouldn't be killing any Iraqi civilians. They had a choice, they chose not to leave. Given that the regime kills its own civilians (any who don't support the regime, interestingly enough) I think the net effect is positive. At each step of this, Saddam and his party have had the option to do things in a way that would ensure no casualties, military or otherwise.

It's pointless to lay blame. Noncombatants have been being killed ever since wars stopped being personal fights amongst aristocracy. It sucks, but there's nothing you can do about it.

Sure there is, we *could* be a lot more careful, and, in so doing, be that much less effective at killing the real enemies. My point with the "sliding scale" thing is that, right now, we need to focus on getting the bad guys, instead of focusing so much on the collateral damage aspect.