A moral dilemma

[Tingkai]

Okay, so I've been drunking and its late so bear with me, but I've got this moral and would be interested in people's opinions.

I'm reading news stories and I come across one that says that possibly eight American soldiers were killed in an ambush. My first reaction is ahh sh!t. No matter what I think about the US government, reading about American soldiers being killed is, me being a Canadian, like hearing that a neighbour's son has died. It sucks.

But on a big political scale, if the US has an easy ride in Iraq, that will only encourage American politicians to invade other countries which will cause more death and destruction. So maybe it is better than more American soldiers die now to prevent future wars that will cause more deaths. But wanting that sounds sick because it means that more "neighbour's" sons dying which I don't want.

So what's the solution to this dilemma, or am I just so drunk that I create a false dilemma?

[C0ckney]

try drunking less

[Solly]

It's bad news.

"But on a big political scale, if the US has an easy ride in Iraq, that will only encourage American politicians to invade other countries which will cause ... "

...more countries to become free and democratic.

So it's all bad.

[General Ludd]

No worries, they volounteered to die.

[DAVOUT]

No dilemma at all. There is a state of war, and people are dying, civilians and military. Those casualties are a direct consequence of the initial decision to go to war. The dilemma is for those who have to decide what to do next.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
No dilemma at all. There is a state of war, and people are dying, civilians and military. Those casualties are a direct consequence of the initial decision to go to war. The dilemma is for those who have to decide what to do next.

I don't know, maybe you're right, but it seems like a bit of cop out. The US is a democratic system so the people who decide are the people, and the people are part of a world community and can be influenced. you know what I mean.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: A moral dilemma

Originally posted by Tingkai
No matter what I think about the US government, reading about American soldiers being killed is, me being a Canadian, like hearing that a neighbour's son has died. It sucks.

The way I see it is, a US soldier's life does not value more than an Iraqi soldier's life.

It is tragic. It is also a strong condemnation of Dubya's senseless decision to go to war.

[Tingkai]

Re: Re: A moral dilemma

UR: What are you doing up so late?

[st_swithin]

Tingy: It's all your fault. Those people died because of that Matzoh ball you didn't eat last year.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Tingkai


I don't know, maybe you're right, but it seems like a bit of cop out. The US is a democratic system so the people who decide are the people, and the people are part of a world community and can be influenced. you know what I mean.

The democracy gives you the power to demote the guy who do not lead as you wish, but it will not make possible to undo what he did. Frustrating, but again no better system.

[DanS]

With regard to Iraq, Bush led the people as they wished, however. In matters of war and peace, it is much harder to lead the American people where they don't wish to go than you might think.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DanS
With regard to Iraq, Bush led the people as they wished, however.

How many people where asking to invade iraq before he mentioned it?

[DanS]

The attack Iraq poll number was consistently about 62% from the time of the cease fire ending the first Gulf War to the opening shots of the second Gulf War. It went up to 72% and down to 58% very briefly.

[Arrian]

But on a big political scale, if the US has an easy ride in Iraq, that will only encourage American politicians to invade other countries which will cause more death and destruction. So maybe it is better than more American soldiers die now to prevent future wars that will cause more deaths. But wanting that sounds sick because it means that more "neighbour's" sons dying which I don't want.

Did it occur to you that if the U.S. has an "easy ride" in Iraq, that just might mean a good result for Iraqis? I doubt it, since IIRC, you're one of those who bought the "war for oil" line.

The thing that might trip up future military adventures is probably the dollar figure, to be honest. Lots of people who were pro-war are appalled at the $87 billion figure. Sure, I think they're morons for thinking this would be cheap, but what can I say? Add in the death toll we've already suffered (or maybe not the overall number, but rather the tempo - 1-2 guys seem to get killed every day, on average), and it's enough to give people pause.

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DanS
The attack Iraq poll number was consistently about 62% from the time of the cease fire ending the first Gulf War to the opening shots of the second Gulf War. It went up to 72% and down to 58% very briefly.

Half the population has been wanting another war with Iraq since the last? I thought most americans where just sheep, but I guess they're all wolves.