Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
You know, if -and it appears that Glowbelly is the only exception to this- you truly feel that it is okay for soldiers to be sacrificed in games of State, you must then therefore take collateral damamge and civilian casualities with similar equilibrium. After all, if its okay for a soldier to die because they chose to enlist, then it is equally alright for civilians to die if they choose to remain in hazardous areas. The assumption of such an argument is that the risks were known and accepted, which applies aptly to both cases.
When civilians remain in a nation engaged in open hostilities they are, through their presence, showing solidarity with the State - As are the soldiers on the front lines. There really is very little difference between them -Save perhaps that soldiers are easier targets- as the German Werewolves illustrated in the aftermath of World War II, and Baathist sympathizes are showing currently in Iraq.
|
They're different. A soldier takes an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. They, of their own free wil, chose to enlist and go fight in wars if necessary.
The civilians we kill, on the contrary, are often from despoting and/or authoritarian nations that care little for their safety. In the case of Iraq, emmigration was rarely an option for the averge Iraqi. They are also too poor to make the kind of move necessary to avoid war violence. And most importantly, they had little to no decision making power in the war. Saddam never consulted anybody on the war, nor did President Bush consult these people, either.
Once again, one is volunteerism, whereas the other is a prison of poverty and subjegation. The comparison doesn't work.
Threaded Mode
