Stupid Morality Question
- Thread starter Beefy
- Start date
Well, what I am trying to say is, if you take war in a cavalier manner, and if you are sitting in front of your television watching the shock and awe, or the scuds, or the bombing of Afghanistan, and you have been waiting for that ever since they announced that we "have to do this", and you never give any thought to what the consequences are, you are just wrapped up in "WE're Number ONE" and telling your buddies "WE really kicked their asses, huh?" then you are different than somene who weighed two wars, and found one just and one unjust. Even, if that person is wrong, and both are unjust.
Really...then why do many of those same people still support the war in Iraq, even after they found out none of those weapons they were warned about and frightened about, were there? Why aren't they furious over being lied to? Why aren't they shamed and guilty and upset over the loss of life?
Because they believe that those killing innocents purposefully in Iraq are those we are fighting, and that they are the equal of those who attacked us in NYC, and that the cause is just because of that.
But do they support it because, as you said earlier, they "want" to kill women/children/non-combatants? If so. How is it that support here shows a "want" to do such, but support in Afghanistan doesn't? And how many times have you heard the leadership say, "We are killing lots of babies, and that is why we must stay in Iraq!"?
Damo, neither you nor I know what every one of them believes. We both have our suspicions, and we are probably both right, because they are most likely not monolithic. However, I would be more than willing to bet that more of them are of the mindset I describe, rather than the run of the mill fool who has no clue what is going on, that you describe.
Morally, how much of a differnece would you say there was, between "wanting to kill lots of babies" and being completely indifferent to the fact that babies are being killed?
uscitizen
Villified User
darn! you are getting a case of asshattedness it would appear.
Sorry, hope you get better soon.
And that same could apply to the "pro-choicers" that I put forward earlier. The idea that they are willing to allow a necessary evil, or indifferent towards it, in either the case of Afghanistan or Iraq, does not mean that they "want" it in either case.
Saying that it does mean that they "want" it to happen has been what I have rejected in this thread and given, what I believe is valid, reason to reject that idea.
I have met zero people or seen zero that actually want to kill all the children in Iraq. While I would say that some of them probably do exist, and have stated so earlier, it is clearly not what the vast majority of those who support the action "want" to happen
Right, IMO, a person who says that those who support Iraq "want" to kill babies is simply emoting all over. I have given a clear indication that very few indeed "want" to kill children in Iraq.
Nor should it be taken to mean that I support the action in Iraq because I can place myself in the shoes of another or understand the difference between a want and what is seen as an unfortunate necessity while fighting a just battle.
No it really can't apply to pro-choicers. A three week clump of cells is not a four year old child, terrified, starving, and then burned to death.
Depraved indifference is no different than "wanting" someone to die. If you allow actions that you know will kill, even if you do not actively "want" those deaths, but cannot be bothered to NOT want them, but rather, are indifferent to them, then those deaths are on your conscious. My opinion about this is not going to change. When 90% of the population was for Gulf War I, (or so it is now claimed), then there was far too much indifference to the death it would cause. But it was a spectacle in the truest sense of the word, wasn't it? And it made CNN didn't it?
That's been unequivocably proven false. Saddam never did, and most likely never would supply weapons to al qaeda, or funadmentalist sunni jihaddists. The american intelligence communities reporting is unequivocable about that. In fact, many experts and anti-war people pointed that out before bush invaded. Saddam considered the international jihaddists his enemy. He NEVER gave them support. And they hated him too.
The war was about oil, and establishing a pro-american proxy state sitting on top of 200 billion barrels of oil. Bush decided that he was willing to tolerate tens of thousands civilians be killed, for that reason. A reason he chose not to publically share with the rest of us. He made up a phony reason to invade, instead.
If that was your point then why did you say "want" to kill them. I have quoted that word throughout. There is a difference between ambivalence and a want, as there is between a "necessary evil" and ambivalence. To say that they all "want" to kill them is inaccurate and has been my point throughout this thread.
Much like those who are against abortion saying that pro-choicers "want" to kill all those "babies". It is the emotive and reactionary argument that is not based in reason.
Battleborne
Terminator
Lol...
In Nevada we call em' 'Meat Bees' those little buggers hurt like hell...so may I suggest ya swat em' really hard...then pray to' Buddah' for forgiveness!
In Nevada we call em' 'Meat Bees' those little buggers hurt like hell...so may I suggest ya swat em' really hard...then pray to' Buddah' for forgiveness!
Yes, exactly. Now, did Bush "want" to kill tens of thousands of civilians (perhaps hundreds of thousands though)? Who the f knows? Who the f cares?
He didn't care if he killed them. He was indifferent to it. What he "wanted' therefore, becomes irrelevant!
uscitizen
Villified User
The war was about oil, and establishing a pro-american proxy state sitting on top of 200 billion barrels of oil. Bush decided that he was willing to tolerate tens of thousands civilians be killed, for that reason. A reason he chose not to publically share with the rest of us. He made up a phony reason to invade, instead.
//
I believe this to be the truth of the cause of the Iraq war as well.
then there is also the fact of what has happened to oil company profits since Bush's war started.
//
I believe this to be the truth of the cause of the Iraq war as well.
then there is also the fact of what has happened to oil company profits since Bush's war started.
The question was about those who supported the war, not about the opinion of the motive for those in the leadership, or of Bush in particular.
Do you really think Hillary thought, "Well, we need the oil, I'll vote for it!"? I think she thought that Saddam might supply terrorists, even if he didn't like them, to get at what he thought was a larger enemy, the US. But then, just because I oppose her politically doesn't mean that I think she is "evil" and therefore assign motivation that would be described as "evil". I wouldn't say her vote meant that she "wanted" to kill children in Iraq because she voted for action in Iraq.
I would say that she and the Congress used an end-run on the constitution to avoid Declaration and therefore pass responsibility for their vote on to others. I would not say that she seriously wanted to kill babies in Iraq, but now doesn't.