comments are closed on this review, click here for worldwidereview home

back to the point

From: JJ
Category: Other stuff
Date: 10 March 2003


you eggheads enjoying talking as though this is a game of chess, and you're the new Metternich. Easy to be brave with others lives when making debating points. However as you may have understood, It's about going to war for (let's accept uncertainty of reasons and give Bush and his advisers benefit of doubt) important oil reserves or to prevent Weapons of mass destruction being used at some future point by terrorists or Saddam Hussein.

Now the only way to justify killing many thousands of Iraqis is to say their deaths are wortth these goals. Even of you discount the uncertainty of achieving the stated goals, the risks, and the poor record of recent American regime building: you still must believe our governments should kill Iraqis to safegueard oil and WMDs. The only way you can make the equation work is if American lives arw worth more than Iraqis. because could you justify these aims if it required the deaths of conservatively 50,000 Americans. I doubt it. But 50,000 Iraqis can be sacrificed easily by the armchair strategists.

So decide. It was Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia that thought ends justified means. And that is what it comes down to, the real question whether its ok to kill others to get what you want, or to prevent a terrible possibility. What if the next world crisis requires 50,000 Amercians to die to prevent serious instability. Will, using your calculus of death, volunteer to die for the future good your leaders tell you they must secure.

comments are closed on this review, click here for worldwidereview home