I have beenreading your posts elsewhere, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you:
Message 22511353
1. I think it is impossible to have wars without atrocities. War is by its nature organized killing of others- it's bound to get out of hand from time to time, and men who are supposed to kill other people are probably
(often) going to be destabilized by the experience.
2. When we go to war we must make sure the terrible price we will pay in our soldiers lives, in their mental health, in whatever killings and atrocities occur, is worth it- that we truly have a good reason, because war is so horrible, the alternative to it must surely be awful to start us down that path. Where the alternative was not horrendous enough, I think inevitable failures of will in the populace will surface- since war is a terrible thing people expect it to be used only in response to terrible things. I think that is a problem in this war.
3. Commenting on the atrocities of one's own side does not mean you minimize the atrocities of anyone else, it merely means you are concerned with keeping the humanity of your own side. Since much of the reason for this particular war depends on Bush's ideas of moral authority to go in and rearrange the country, losing the moral authority in dribs and drabs because of these sorts of events is a problem- and for the folks who say "Well the other side is worse"- that's not the point. The point is we held ourselves up as a beacon for morality and liberty- always a problem. It is always better to just have a normal reason for a war- a clear one, that doesn't involve subjective judgments on moral superiority. The invasion of one country by another, for example, gives one an excellent reason to go to war protecting national sovereignty (for example). And if there are atrocities as there always will be, at least you can point to a concrete credible reason that leaves no doubt as to why war was necessary. |
