|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: How would you rate the comparable value of American and Iraqi life? | |||
| Taking an innocent life should never be an option, even if necessary to save others. |
   
|
18 | 64.29% |
| Saving 1 American civilian is worth killing 1 Iraqi civilian if necessary. |
  
|
5 | 17.86% |
| Saving 1 American civilian is is worth killing somewhere between 1 and 5 Iraqi civilians if necessary. |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| Saving 1 American civilian is worth killing 5 Iraqi civilians if necessary. |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| Saving 1 American civilian is worth killing more than 5 Iraqi civilians if necessary. |
  
|
2 | 7.14% |
| Saving 1 American civilian is worth killing as many Iraqi civilians as is necessary to save the American |
  
|
3 | 10.71% |
| Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
02-24-2003, 12:39 PM
|
#11 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: U.S.
Posts: 2,565
|
On the one hand, one human life has the same worth as another human life.
On the other hand, the US Government should place more importance on protecting the lives of US citizens than on non-US citizens, simply because that is the purpose of government. Jamie |
|
|
02-24-2003, 02:58 PM
|
#12 | |
|
Obsessed Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Not Mayaned
Posts: 96,752
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-27-2003, 11:42 AM
|
#13 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 3,095
|
I wanted to vote 'taking an innocent life should never be an option', except I immediately thought up many ridiculous hypothetical situations that discount that. For instance, if the entire planet was to be destroyed unless one innocent person dies, should that person die? I'd say yes, even if it was me. Good ol' Spock had it right (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one). However, barring any of these extreme and ridiculous hypothetical situations, I'd agree taking innocent life should never be an option. Particularly in the specific situation in this upcoming war with Iraq....the issues are far too cloudy and hidden to have enough clarity to justify it. In WWII however, our country sacraficed many 'innocen't lives (our own soliders and non-military sailors etc) to defeat Germany, and I know very few people who don't think that was the correct decision.
|
|
|
|
02-27-2003, 03:28 PM
|
#14 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: OKC(Noah's Toilet)
Posts: 7
|
This is only to be another war (unlike the war on terrorism, which is a war against unlawful combatants) against lawful combatants. As for the fact of civilians taking up arms against the incoming coalition forces, I highly doubt that will happen. There will be a blood "ba'ath" without a doubt. It is unfortunate that it will have casualties outside of Saddam's tribe, though. When in the "fog of war", if human shields are taken against their own will, there will be loss of innocent life. That is just a part of war. When targets are destroyed, not always can a pilot obtain a visual of civilians (human shields) on that target. I will not state my vote, but I'm sure you have a good idea what I voted...
|
|
|
|
03-03-2003, 06:40 PM
|
#15 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 77
|
Taking an innocent life should never be an option, even if necessary to save others.
According to this thinking, the US military should have a budget of zero. The reality is that innocent lives are lost in military action. I would prefer that no innocent lives are ever lost, but this does not happen in war. American lives are worth more to me than Iraqi lives. I also consider a US soldier to be an innocent life. I also believe that a pre-emptive defensive strike on Iraq is justified. There is is enough evidence that Saddam supports terrorism (e.g. paying homicide bomber's families to attack Israel) and it would be in his best interest if the US were to be destroyed. |
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
