The Value Of Life

The more I keep hearing this running jingle from both candidates, especially Bush, the more I get disinterested in living in this country much longer. Whenever someone brings up that Iraq was a threat, someone shoots back that it wasn't one. Yet, the next counter always says something along the lines of, "Well, Saddam was killing his own people, and you'd just let them all die? They're safer now that we've kicked Saddam out." Yes, granted this is true that Saddam was an evil dictator, but self-righteousness with convenient blindness is even worse to me.

If helping the Iraqi people gain refuge from Saddam was our newest and "Best" reason for Iraq, what about the Sudanese government committing genocide against their own people? What about the mass acts of atrocity occurring every single day in Central America? What about North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran even?

Why are the lives of some placed over the lives of others?

Take care all.

I agree with you here, Captain. (As always.) The one reason I am against this war, is not because Bush blatantly lied, or that there were no WMD's etc. I am against this war because people died. Over 1,000 US soldiers have died already, and more will continue to die, at bare minimum ten thousand Iraqi civillians were killed during the war. If you factor in the Iraqi soldiers and the "terrorists" who have died, teh number becomes vastly larger (although there is no death count for them, because nobody cares about them) Nobody pays any attention to them. They conviently forget that the enemy is human too.
I still stand by the idea that there is no such thing as a justified war. And I challenge anyone who dissagree's with that statement to find one instance, in the history of mankind, where a war was waged for just, and moral purposes.
Anyways, It is unacceptable to wage a war because the only people who win are corporations and the war profiteers. The people don't win wars. Nations don't win wars. Corporations win wars.

The problem with the whole situation is that we can't impose sanctions on that area of the world due to our oil dependecy. If we could become independent of oil then we could impose sanctions and them up economically so they start treating people better.

Also lives of people living someplace are better than those living else where. I place the lives of the people around me a hell of a lot higher than those living half way across the world. Those people across the world offer me nothing and have no effect on me, however the people I see every day do effect me in some way.

I tend to rank importance like this.

First Tier: My country
Second Tier: Surrounding Countries(Canadia, Mexico, Cuba and maybe even a few central American countries)
Third Tier: Economic(Japan, Tawaiin, Europe)
Fourth Tier: The rest of the crap(Africa, Middle East, South America and so on)

I care about the first and second tier alot because that is my safty right there. I slightly care about the third because they help me out with products and things of that nature. The rest I could give a damn about. What do they do for me? Africa for example. They have leaders who don't give a damn about the people and have horrible things happen all the time. There is a certain point when I go "These guys don't deserve any help until they help themselves some". Africa is at that point for me. Every other country seems like like they have made advancements in civilzation in forms of government and ect. It seems like, for the most part, Africa doesn't care. When they start an uprising and start to help themselves then I will help provide aid...if all the other tiers are all good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

Why are the lives of some placed over the lives of others?

---

Because some lives are profitable to governments such as ours whereas others are not. The only reason our leaders care about us is because we put them in power. I do not see compassionate individuals in charge of the world today, and that's our biggest problem. We need people who are first human, then nationalists as leaders. In order to do that, we need more citizens who are first human, then all the other extraneous crap.

I believe younger people like most of the people on these fora who express themselves more, and who have relatively no fear about the rest of the world will make that happen someday, if our current leaders don't screw our idealism up, that is.

The value of one's life vastly decreases when one lives in another country and has radically different beliefs and practices. In fact, one doesn't even have to live in another country. Race, sexuality, religion, we hate what is different, and what we hate must NOT be human.

Sickening.

A) Afirca is not a country.
B) How can people in Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Somalia etc rise up against their oppressors with no funding and no weaponry. Women in Zimbabwe protesting PEACEFULLY recently were arrested and held for 48 hours for speaking out against Mugabe, his main opponent is up on two counts of treason. He escaped the death penalty last week but will he do so twice. There is no means to protest or rise up effectively. Rational, western influenced resposes don't work against irrational dictatorships which verge on archaic despotism.

Funnily enough I was having a similar conversation today about the Value of Life. A member of a british pop group had said something inflammatory about September 11th. IMO it wasn't inflammatory just badly put. He had said something along the lives of "How are the lives of 10,000 Americans more important than the lives of X,Y and Z killed in other countries." Unfortunately, not being a great mind by any stretch of the imagination the British media murdered him for it.

To a certain extent though it is true. 10's of 1000's of Rwandans were killed in the civil war there as well as in places like Somalia and Iraq. Yet the media take the same naive and mythical approach as in the post above and put the lives of the local above lives lost elsewhere in the world.

Mass loss of life and Xenophobia should be mourned in the same way no matter what the country yet I found myself participating in a minutes silence for the life lost in New York, the same time I spent mourning the Queen Mother, Princess Diana and bloody Brian Clough!!!!! By this eqaution, the Queen Mother dying of old age or a well respected Football Manager dying of stomach cancer in his sixties, to the British Media at least, is equivalent to 10000 faceless (to those that weren't related or acquainted at least) Americans dying as a result of an act of terrorism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Captain, but when I read your opening, I didn't read it as an anti-war thread but as an anti-hypocrisy thread. If the Amercian Government deem it necessary (which in my view it was, I'm just sorry the job wasn't finished 10 years ago when televised war was new and exciting......) to invade Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, then why didn't they just say so, and by that reasoning, I totally agree, they should be deposing oppressive dictators all over the world, I guess militarily speaking it's just not possible. America only want to police the terrorists when it effects their own turf. I wonder how badly Bush would have wanted Bin Laden's head if he had crashed the planes in to the twin towers in Kuala Lumpur, or the Post Office Tower in Central London, the loss of life would undoubtedly have been just as severe, but would it have been as significant? Would 9/11 then be such a significant date throughout the Western World?

While I'm on the rant track....

Quote:

---

I still stand by the idea that there is no such thing as a justified war. And I challenge anyone who dissagree's with that statement to find one instance, in the history of mankind, where a war was waged for just, and moral purposes.

---

"The love you flaunt is made possible only by your privilege." Todd Gitlin.

What do you define as just? Protecting Europe from being overrun by a fascist dictator who would have purged every country he commanded, of racial minorities and those he did not consider to be part of his perfect race, persecuting and premeditating the genocide of millions of Jewish people across Europe. Was it "unjust" of the British government to fight for the freedom of their country? Was it morally wrong to oppose a man hell bent on the genocide of one race? Hell no. And no country's win wars? Not true in my book. Had it not been for Britain intervening and trying to end this madmans purge across Europe I would not be living in the democratic nation I live in today. Morally the Alliance won but really the only winners of WWII, and in modern warfare the only winners of a war outright were the USA. It hardly got scratched and the money that Britain owed the USA afterwards dragged it out of a Depression and in to the 20th century. 1945 was when the 20th century started for the USA. Anyway, do I mourn the lives of the MILLIONS on MILLIONS that lost their lives during WWII, mostly European and Asian, do I value them as much as I value the lives of those that died on September 11th.....yeah, there's a minutes silence once a year.......

Truth, Beauty and Love are so passe. It's pre modernity unenlightened rubbish that doesn't apply to the modern world. Morality and Justification are easily worked around. To me the life of a schoolgirl murdered in Nottingham has no greater value than the value of a firefighter killed in the Twin Towers or an Iraqi killed by a wayward missile. They are all of equal value to me and deserve my sympathy.

I realise my post is slightly disjointed and could be viewed as controversial but I am sypmpathetic for the lives lost on September 11th, very much so, but I wouldn't value a single life there over a single life anywhere else in the world. Our mourning and the way we value life as a society is totally media influenced.

Africa may not be a country but neither is South America or other things I mentioned. READ BETWEEN THE LINES MAN!!!! :D

Secondly, if you wish to obtain freedom you must be willing to die. If EVERYONE in the country revolted then there is no way they could maintain power. What are they going to do? Kill EVERYONE? What would there be left to rule over? They have weapons. Maybe not guns but you can always get creative and use something as a weapon.

I am not saying it should be done or anything like that. I would prefer the peaceful way of imposing sanctions on a country like that until they complie. Also they have had thousands of years to do something and they never really advanced much.

I don't support helping them yet but then again I may be a bit too uninformed and I freely admit that. Ignorace really is bliss though :D

[qq=The Captain]If helping the Iraqi people gain refuge from Saddam was our newest and "Best" reason for Iraq, what about the Sudanese government committing genocide against their own people? What about the mass acts of atrocity occurring every single day in Central America? What about North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran even?[/qq]

Maybe the US doesn't have the time or the resources to save every person in every single country in the world. If I saw a school bus full of drowning children and I saved one or two but couldn't save the others, would you say that I should be held accountable for all those innocent deaths? Would you say "Why did you place the value of those lives above the value of those others?" If I gave $50 to charity, would you say I was a bad person because I had $950 in the bank I didn't touch?

A good deed is a good deed, whether you do it once or do it a hundred times. Saving one country full of people from being killed at the hands of a corrupt government is better than saving none. You can't say "America went to Iraq but not Africa, therefore America is wrong" unless you're willing to say that everyone who didn't even go to Iraq at all is MORE wrong. Unless you hold hypocrisy to be the absolute highest of evils, and I'm not sure you could even say that America's policy is hypocritical.

In any case, I disagree that saving Iraqis from Saddam was the best reason for going to Iraq. I think it was a good side effect, but to call it our main motivation for going there would be a lie, because it wasn't.

Quote:

---

I am not saying it should be done or anything like that. I would prefer the peaceful way of imposing sanctions on a country like that until they complie. Also they have had thousands of years to do something and they never really advanced much.

---

That's because of European colonialism in that area. In the past, the Europeans would come over, conquer them, and steal the resources in their land. They would encourage meaningless tribal violence simply because it made them easy to control. They made damn sure that the next generations grew up stupid and ignorant, because taht made them easier to control. And the Africans do revolt. Many African countries are one big story of one revolution after the next.

Quote:

---

What do you define as just? Protecting Europe from being overrun by a fascist dictator who would have purged every country he commanded, of racial minorities and those he did not consider to be part of his perfect race, persecuting and premeditating the genocide of millions of Jewish people across Europe. Was it "unjust" of the British government to fight for the freedom of their country? Was it morally wrong to oppose a man hell bent on the genocide of one race? Hell no.

---

But again, to say that war was waged for jsut purposes would be a lie. Was it jsut for Hitler to do what he did? Of course not. I agree it was just for the countries to defend themselves, but it was not just for Hitler to roll his tanks anywhere he pleased. A war will never be started for any other reason than for power, greed, anger, or hatred. Period.

At the risk of going of topic....

People have been willing to die. In Zimbabwe farmers have been murdered defending their lands, treason plots are staged to remove the opposition, the penalty for which is death. Thousands of years to develop? I don't think so, if most of Europe and the U.S hadn't swooped in and made many African nations colonies of slaves at a crucial time of their development maybe they would have evolved faster as a society. Natural resources are another problem for emerging nations. By the way I wouldn't have to read between the lines if you didn't make such sweeping statements about Africa. BE MORE SPECIFIC MAN!!!!! :D

Quote:

---

A war will never be started for any other reason than for power, greed, anger, or hatred. Period.

---

Edit: I'd say that was a much more accurate statement than your first. I'd agree with that.

I agree with Unne (strangely), it is impossible to Police the World. The lives you save are as valuable as lives you don't save, unfortunately circumstance plays a huge part in who lives and who dies. Perhaps the U.N. should be doing more to help the Sudanese and the Zimbabweans. But post Iraq, are the U.N impotent. Hmm well that's a whole new story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Unne

[qq=The Captain]If helping the Iraqi people gain refuge from Saddam was our newest and "Best" reason for Iraq, what about the Sudanese government committing genocide against their own people? What about the mass acts of atrocity occurring every single day in Central America? What about North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran even?[/qq]

Maybe the US doesn't have the time or the resources to save every person in every single country in the world. If I saw a school bus full of drowning children and I saved one or two but couldn't save the others, would you say that I should be held accountable for all those innocent deaths? Would you say "Why did you place the value of those lives above the value of those others?" If I gave $50 to charity, would you say I was a bad person because I had $950 in the bank I didn't touch?

A good deed is a good deed, whether you do it once or do it a hundred times. Saving one country full of people from being killed at the hands of a corrupt government is better than saving none. You can't say "America went to Iraq but not Africa, therefore America is wrong" unless you're willing to say that everyone who didn't even go to Iraq at all is MORE wrong. Unless you hold hypocrisy to be the absolute highest of evils, and I'm not sure you could even say that America's policy is hypocritical.

---

I agree with that statement.

This is my entire problem with the Iraq war. At first it was because Saddam had WmDs then when they realize that they might not find them, they say, its Operation Iraqi freedom. Thus gaining support and pinning anyone against it with a label of not wanting to expell an evil dictator.

There were worst actions going on in the world than Saddams bad as it was. I'd personally try to stop a nations slavery or genocide than an oppressed people.
Now if we went in to save the Kurds that might have been different. But this war was over wmds, and dont let them make u lose sight of that.

Deposing dictators is all well and good but we all know that wasn't the reason why they went to Iraq.

"This is my entire problem with the Iraq war. At first it was because Saddam had WmDs then when they realize that they might not find them, they say, its Operation Iraqi freedom. Thus gaining support and pinning anyone against it with a label of not wanting to expell an evil dictator.

There were worst actions going on in the world than Saddams bad as it was. I'd personally try to stop a nations slavery or genocide than an oppressed people.
Now if we went in to save the Kurds that might have been different. But this war was over wmds, and dont let them make u lose sight of that."

More or less, that's my point in a nutshell.

Unne, I couldn't agree with you more and what scares me most is the fact that the people in power don't seem to get that. Every time Bush or Cheney or any of them say "We're the Defenders Of The Free World", it puts THAT much more pressure on an already boiling hot situation. By claiming that we want to help everyone, only helping a few people for sketchy reasons and then letting this situation slip away anyway, we are placing ourselves in a very tight situation as we will look even worse than when we began this whole shindig.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Unne

[qq=The Captain]If helping the Iraqi people gain refuge from Saddam was our newest and "Best" reason for Iraq, what about the Sudanese government committing genocide against their own people? What about the mass acts of atrocity occurring every single day in Central America? What about North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran even?[/qq]

Maybe the US doesn't have the time or the resources to save every person in every single country in the world. If I saw a school bus full of drowning children and I saved one or two but couldn't save the others, would you say that I should be held accountable for all those innocent deaths? Would you say "Why did you place the value of those lives above the value of those others?" If I gave $50 to charity, would you say I was a bad person because I had $950 in the bank I didn't touch?

A good deed is a good deed, whether you do it once or do it a hundred times. Saving one country full of people from being killed at the hands of a corrupt government is better than saving none. You can't say "America went to Iraq but not Africa, therefore America is wrong" unless you're willing to say that everyone who didn't even go to Iraq at all is MORE wrong. Unless you hold hypocrisy to be the absolute highest of evils, and I'm not sure you could even say that America's policy is hypocritical.

---

I thought he was saying "why Iraq when theres countries that have far worse things going on" rather than that...

Anyway, yeah, I agree with The Captain. Its really saddening, and I don't think taking out Saddam helped anything...infact, I think it turned a shower into a hurricane personally. I also have a hard time not being glad when I hear about American soliders being killed, because alot of them have been doing horrid sickening and stating that they hate Iraq and are happy to blow it up and watch it burn yada yada yada.

But yeah I don't have any hope for Iraq now...and I have a strong feeling that we're going to pay for going where we shouldn't have this time around. =\

*moves to Canada*

Saying the war in Iraq is good, because of our 'service to the Iraqis', is illogical because you're justifying the war with a reason that was NOT the original pretext for invasion. You can't just arbitrarily change the reason for fighting when you realise your old reasons had no validity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moose Knight

Saying the war in Iraq is good, because of our 'service to the Iraqis', is illogical because you're justifying the war with a reason that was NOT the original pretext for invasion. You can't just arbitrarily change the reason for fighting when you realise your old reasons had no validity.

---

Excellent. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

Yet, the next counter always says something along the lines of, "Well, Saddam was killing his own people, and you'd just let them all die?"

---

So what Bush is also killing his own people....

Quote:

---

Saying the war in Iraq is good, because of our 'service to the Iraqis', is illogical because you're justifying the war with a reason that was NOT the original pretext for invasion. You can't just arbitrarily change the reason for fighting when you realise your old reasons had no validity.

---

So basically we should pull out of there and submit to defeat? That Al' Sadar guy is trying to rise to power, and he has ties to Osama Bin Laiden. Even if the war was started for wmds, and Kerry supported it and if he was president would have gone to war also. We took down Saddam, and gave the Iraqis more freedom, then being oppressed by a dictator such as Saddam. Were technically rebuilding the place, is that illogical?

What does ties to Osama Bin Laden mean? I was in the US when 9/11 happened perpatrated by Bin Laden, but im not connected. So what do u mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noname

So basically we should pull out of there and submit to defeat? That Al' Sadar guy is trying to rise to power, and he has ties to Osama Bin Laiden. Even if the war was started for wmds, and Kerry supported it and if he was president would have gone to war also. We took down Saddam, and gave the Iraqis more freedom, then being oppressed by a dictator such as Saddam. Were technically rebuilding the place, is that illogical?

---

Good job completely ignoring the entire point of what I said.

My point was that the entire aim of the war shifted...WHILE IT WAS GOING ON. Have you ever read Orwell's 1984?

Our "rebuilding" is going horribly. Iraq harbors more terrorists now than it does before. Bush Sr. didn't plan on toppling Sadamm's regime because there was no possible exit strategy. Strange that Bush didn't listen to his dad the one time he should have.

In was explaining why the war was wrong, not what should be done about it.

The only reason Al Sadr has ties to Bin Laden is that they share a common enemy. This is no justification for invasion. Iraqi muslims are SECULARISTS (Saddam was) and Bin Laden was a FUNDAMENTALIST. The two different types of Islam are completely opposed to each other.

Quote:

---

The two different types of Islam are completely opposed to each other.

---

Yeah, the even mere notion that Iraq had ties to Al Queda is laughable and absurd. Saying they had ties to Al Queda or Osama is a blatant lie. The facts are right there for you to see, yet people still believe Iraq had ties with Al Queda. It's alot like what Himmler (I think it was him) said. "The bigger the lie, the easier it is to get people to believe it." or something similar to that.

Also one must remember that *gasp* maybe the Iraqi people dislike our way of life and wouldn't want it to be forced upon them.

WHAT!? *gasp* That can't be true! Why wouldn't they want democracy shoved down their throat!? Wait I get... You must be a COMMUNIST!

Shhhhh! McCarthy... er... Ashcroft might be listening :shifty:

Quote:

---

Also one must remember that *gasp* maybe the Iraqi people dislike our way of life and wouldn't want it to be forced upon them.

---

Aye, that's true. Also, please note that forcing democracy isn't very democratic, either. :D