Jury, DJ, Berney, et al,
OTOT
Jury, you are concerned about the waste of materials. That is actually a moral position. If you were only concerned about your own personal stock of materials, it might be different, but as soon as you look at an overall view instead of a personal greed, you have taken a moral position that the overall benefit (or non-waste of goods) is important than personal benefit. (Besides, morality is not such a dirty word as people like to think.)
The question about the effectiveness of wars is always easy to decide. They are never effective, in that the outcome is never good. But that is a facile judgement. Is pacifism always effective or functional? Most of the Kosovars did not fight the Serbs who threw them out and burned their homes. They were not very effective.
It's true that the Americans go home and leave the mess behind. They have no benefit from being in (former) Yugoslavia. They are there for what they think are moral reasons. This is why Jury is so worried about the word "moral."
In the end, you must still decide whether you consider practical or moral reasons.
If you consider only practical, then evaluate BOTH alternatives from the "effectiveness" viewpoint.
If you consider only moral, then realize there are moral arguments for both sides.
But this does not mean there is no truth. Just because there are different opinions, or difficult evaluations, does not mean that there is no truth there.
Regards,
Marc |
