” What does that mean in the context of our soldiers who are dying and getting wounded in Iraq? Are you suggesting that if we send people to die AND KILL based on "principles of decency" then their deaths are acceptable?
That is certainly a partisan perspective that may be argued from either point of view but I have suggested no such thing. I suggested you consider as a simple fact, that everyone dies and the choices in life impact the circumstances of death. I don’t find that fact to be unacceptable; you may have a problem with it, which is not my business.
Everyone has been given free will and so chooses, within their circumstance, a life style, one that ultimately leads them to death. The only issue I have in any of this is the issue of justice. Being forced to live under, and ultimately die in unjust circumstances is personally unacceptable to me.
”The extent that you're willing to go to find "goodness" in this war is astounding.
I have not ever described any war or any part of a war as “goodness”. I leave the silly good/evil war debate to you partisans, and to radical extremists. I have been placed on one side or the other of that debate by you all from time to time but I have certainly never validated that POV.
”The test isn't what we said we sent them to die for, the test is; "why are they dying?" The "why are they dying" question requires pragmatic, objective, reality based analysis, and if the answer is that they're dying fighting an unwinnable war that fails every single cost/benefit analysis, then any talk of dying for "principles of decency" is just excuse talk.”
Pragmatism is utility based. It doesn’t help to load your comments with terms like ‘unwinnable’ and 'we sent them to die' which are absolutely subjective, moral values laden, and of no practical benefit. Principles of decency are not just excuse talk, they are directive. I can see the cost benefit argument but I don’t accept it. If all conflicts were determined on that alone, no corrupt oppressors would have been toppled since the beginning of time. No one would ever have sacrificed and taken risks to innovate, create, change and renew.
We live. When we are lucid, we wonder what makes life worth living and we make decisions based on those issues which we deem worthwhile. When we can find no cause worthwhile we fall into despair, even despondency. You, for example, have probably determined that opposing the war is a decent thing to do, a cause worth striving for … at least you throw out the death and dying issues as though it were.
”Silly idealism is always a poor substitute for common sense and pragmatic decision making.
Principles of decency are not silly and neither need be used as a substitute for the other. What you propose, is in fact, a false dichotomy.
”And suggesting that those of us who have a pragmatic view…”
I would not suggest that pragmatism is stupidly wrong, except perhaps if it were used in ignorance of other issues, which places it more in the realm of extremism than stupidity.
”…of this ill-conceived, doomed-to-failure war somehow "think lesser" of the dead soldiers is just outright, stupidly wrong.
This is simply an emotionally loaded partisan outburst.
”You don't hear us glibly proclaiming that "men and women have been dying since the dawn of time," now do you? Ed
It’s a fact that men and women have been dying since the dawn of time. You took the position that death and dying is a political issue. Go vote against death if it makes you feel better. |
