Ashermusic wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 10:13 |
2. While there were some good reasons for going into Iraq they were not the ones that the Bush administration used as justification and the war has been ineptly prosecuted and as a result there have been needless deaths. Nonetheless it is not morally equivalent to the targeting of innocents, including fellow Muslims, by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
|
OK - this is good - so lets parse this. What are the good reasons for going into Iraq? I don't see them, so you tell me.
Further, you're suggesting that targeting innocents vs. simply killing them by being sloppy are morally different. OK - I can see how someone can come up with that but I think its placing oneself firmly on the steps to moral justification for nearly anything. Can you see how its easy to make such an interpretation of moral difference when that determination serves oneself? It appears to me that this is how you're making your decision - and putting yourself on the opposite side, given that decision making basis, you'd come to the opposite conclusion. This the classic slippery moral slope - if its justifiable in one direction, its justifiable in the other. Since no Iraqis attacked us, to find an Iraqi plane dropping bombs on NYC is now morally equivalent and acceptable.
Its simply hard for me to see how your argument of moral difference isn't based on what works for us. Our military finds "collateral damage" an acceptable price for others to pay for our strategic advantage. That military strategists and politicians make this argument doesn't in any way make it justifiable, workable or moral. Its just easy. Saying it doesn't make it right, or moral in any way. Its morally bankrupt, as much as western-defined "terrorism" is.
Ashermusic wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 10:13 |
Finally, I am not angry with anyone here nor was I personally offended by anything anyone wrote and if I offended anyone I am sorry. I come from a Jewish-American background where these kind of discussions/disagreements are common practice among those who love and respect each other.
|
As do I - this is dinner table conversation. But isn't Jewish tradition the same - that the religious law and the legal systems are supposed to be one?
And Muhammed was pretty clear about respect for the "people of the book" - Jews and Christians. Jesus was unequivocal about loving the enemy, and Hillel was not wishy-washy about the golden rule. I don't think any of them were suggesting to do this when it was convenient. But the American rationale for war on Islam is exactly that - convenient.
Ashermusic wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 10:13 |
And DS, I would be happy to meet you for lunch.
|
I suggest Amir's Falafel, Colfax and Ventura, a bunch of crazy Israelis who make the best falafel and potato salad in town.
DS