Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Yep the people against the war are more to blame, Riiiiight.  They are to blame for the 6-8 thousand civilian deaths caused by the coalition. Riiiight
The idea that either side of the conflict is morally superior than the other is a farce. Justify killing however you want, even if contradicts a rede or rule.
I will die, knowing that evil exists in the world, but my hands are as clean from the evils of war as I can get them.
|
That is my opinion yes. If refusing to get involved in a situation causes ongoing death, you are part of the problem. If refusing to get involved in a situation, when doing so prevents an escalation of conflict, then you are part of the problem.
Those nations against the war ended up being part of the cause, in my opinion, due to the opposition creating legitimacy for Husseins regime; legitimacy, legality, and support within the international community. I repeat, if he was without international friends, he would have folded long ago.
One side CAN have moral highground. Violence can be a means to a productive end, rather than destructive end. In this sense, though evil is still commited, the one with the more positive END has the moral highground. So it is hardly a 'farce'.
Your hands are as muddy as the rest. Do you purchase products? Are you not part of the capitalist system? By paying taxes, spending money, voting/not voting, you are part of the problem as much as the next person. It is impossible to have you hands clean, much as you would like them to be.