I wasn’t sure if GD was the right place to start this thread. On the surface, it seems like GD material, but I know that it isn’t really proper form to start a debate by linking to an article and saying “I agree”.
I know that for some people this is a sensitive subject. The loss of some of humanity’s finest has touched many across the world. Some of you may find it entirely inappropriate for me to even mention the Shuttle and Iraq in the same sentence, and if this includes you, then I apologise in advance.
If I may quote a short section of the article:
“The irony for some of us, like my friend Dr. B., is that even as this morning’s tragedy was unfolding, America’s and England’s family elders were winding up a war council in which, with great confidence in the infallibility of their technology, they contemplated sending 800 fireballs in 48 hours to burn the sons and daughters of Baghdad. Ostensibly, this massive firestorm of death is intended to punish the head of Iraq’s dysfunctional family for misdeeds that we originally encouraged but have recently decided to condemn.”
However, I think the article makes a good point about how we compartmentalise our emotions. How is it that we can mourn the loss of these 7 brave astronauts, yet still be prepared to take many more innocent lives in order to oust/punish/diarm their leader?
Apologies again if any of you find this offensive, but I would like to hear your thoughts…
For one, I am not particularly geiving for these people I do not know. Perhaps I would if I knew them, myself.
Secondly, I do not enjoy killing people. Nor do I enjoy the fact that some people in Iraq will die. Your pont is irrelevant to the totality f the case, though. You ask the wrong question.
Removing Saddam’s corrupt regime should have happened a decade ago. If the Iraqi’s will not or cannot help themselves, we must do it for them.
Well, for starters, “consum[ing] thousands of human beings amid the ruins of one of the world’s oldest cities” is not the goal of the operation in Iraq. The goal is to remove Saddam Hussein. If that can be done without shedding a single drop of blood, then the Allied forces will certainly do that. I don’t think anybody reasonably believes that the Allied forces intend to level Baghdad, innocent non-combatants be damned. But certainly, there is a risk that some non-combatants will be killed, so I’m guessing your point is that we’re mourning the death of seven people while supporting an action that will risk the deaths of many more.
The fact that people support endeavors in which there is a risk of death does not mean that they welcome those deaths. I, personally, think that space exploration is one of the most noble and important human endeavors. However, I’m aware that the act of strapping seven people to a tankard of explosives, shooting them into outer space, and then bringing them back to earth involves a serious risk of death. But my support for space exploration doesn’t mean I support the death of astronauts. I can still mourn when something goes wrong.
Similarly, I realize that a war in Iraq will risk the lives of many Iraqis and Americans. But I think the goal of removing Saddam Hussein outweighs the risks of harm to both Iraqis and the Allied forces. The fact that I accept this risk doesn’t mean that I support the killing of innocent Iraqis. If our goal was to “condemn thousands of men, women and children to a painful, flame-broiled death,” then I’d feel differently about the operation. But as it stands, I think some things are worth the risk of death, and this is one of them.