Are soldiers' lives less worthy than civilians?

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Anyway, I found an interesting article and I think it is worthwhile to read.

It’s entitled Our Troops and Theirs.

The question here is, do the Iraqi soldiers’ lives really mean nothing? Even as a pacifist I see a lot of bravery in standing by and trying to defend yourself against an occupier. Are these deaths not worth mentioning? Or does having a gun in your hand and simply being a human being make you less of one?

Look, I was against the war, for a variety of the standard reasons, but this article is asinine. It’s written by another member of the “loony left” who make it hard to be a reasonable liberal.

I’m not going to waste alot of time on this but I think everyone knows that the Iraqi and “militants”, and the opportunistic foreign jihadists, are not soldiers fighting an occupier. Just using my own memory they have: Captured and behedead non-combatant aid workers; Blown up a U.N. building causing massive loss of life when, again, the U.N. was just trying to get the infrastructure back up; and targeted members of the Iraqi government.

Also, whether we werre justified in going into Iraq or not, we’re stuck their now. Does anybody seriously believe that there will not be a massive bloodbath, tens if not hundereds of times worse than what we see now, if we pull out?

Believe it or not, I actually do know the difference between “their” and “there.”

Why oh why do I not preview :smack:

Welcome to the board, Goldenchild487.

First of all… do you mean “less worthy” or “worth less”? Distinct difference.

I do agree that the “terrorists attacking our soldiers” bits are stupid. While there are, indeed, many terrorists who filtered into Iraq because we never bothered to secure its borders (Amazing Lack of Foresight #4192), the majority are simply insurgents who are fighting back however they can. They aren’t stupid, and they know that their best odds are guerilla warfare, which does include “cowardly” or “terrorist” tactics of roadside bombs, raids on police structures, etc.

Beheading is a rather common mode of execution in the Middle East. It just hasn’t been practiced in the West since the French Revolution (or thereabouts), and we aren’t used to it.

For the record, most Europeans consider the US barbaric for executing its prisoners.

Well… what do you expect? Bake sales? They’re in a war with what they view as occupiers (and we are, indeed, occupying, so they have some justification). Just because they won’t “sit down, shut up, and accept whats good for them” doesn’t mean they are worth anything less.

I have a feeling that most Americans put in the same position as the Iraqis would be fighting back just as hard, if not using the same methods.

They don’t care. Priority 1: Get rid of occupiers. Priority 2: Rebuilding. They don’t want a state created by the West, and such a state would be forever vulnerable.

Do you feel “They torture our citizens and force us to commit shameful acts while they take pictures and pose” is a fair assessment of American troops? Be careful of your generalizations.

Obviously anyone who treats human life as equal is loony. Then thrown me in the bin.

A few months ago I would have agreed totally with you… but the fine line between insurgents and terrorists is closing a bit to most people. Way to many “foreigners” in Iraq now. Zarwa… guy beheading americans is an example. So I don’t blame simpletons from mixing it up.

Still everytime Bush makes a speech about troops in Iraq are fighting “terrorism” I grit my teeth… and he certainly doesn’t care about human fatalities in Iraq… american or iraqi

For all practical purposes, an enemies life on the battlefield means nothing. It is a “target” that must be destroyed before it kills one of our soldiers or friendly Iraqi civilians.

How many soldiers would you be willing to kill to defend your life?