No regard for human life?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

I have noticed a destinct feeling among the pro war people which says they have absolutely no regard for human life. This, I believe, is indicitive of the American culture in which they are brought up in. The government and TV is constantly telling them how patriotic it is to fight, how killing is ok if the person being killed is bad, how they have the "constitutional right" to own a military arsenal just in case they come up against such a "bad person", and how dropping cluster bombs on some far away nation is in the name of assuring "freedom".

As such, I would be interested to know if any American pro war people are against the death penalty, and in favour of the restriction of gun sales. Your replies will be appreciated.

You are generalizing an entire group of people with your statements. Being pro-war does not mean that a person has no regard for human life.

I disagree with you that American culture promotes violence and fighting. In Canada, we are exposed to the same American culture (as are many other Western countries) but at the same time we don't condone killing of a person because they are "bad" as you put it and we have low crime rates. Plus, there is a far greater link between poverty and violence than there is between weapon ownership and violence. You have to understand that a country as large as America is going to have many social problems which I would say are the main contributors to violence.

I am in favour of the death penalty and I would like to see stricter control of gun sales.

You are simplifying issues. It is not quite that clean.
I am an American and am against the death penalty and abortion etc...

I have supported this war, our troops, our President. Partially because of 911, terrorism, trust in my government's knowledge of "situations", and to free an oppressed people who suffer similar events as in Nazi Germany.

But....I struggle DAILY with my Religious teaching of "Thou shalt not kill". There is no exception noted in the Bible. No caveat. I also struggle with the photos of bloody children, bloody troops, etc....

You see, it's not as simple as you put it.
We are still human. The will to live (in most civilized countries) is strong. Therefore, we shoot attackers, go after terrorists, put down evil dictators, etc....
We must (as a world) find a better way. The UN was an attempt at a better way. But that is failing too.

But aren't you grateful that a "Super-Power" as you call it like America is on the Good Side? I know this statement is angering some of you, but wouldn't you rather have a George Bush running a super power over Hitler or Saddam? Not trying to sound egotistical as an American. But we do value life and until other countries adopt that attitude, they will continue to pump out Gihad, evil, born killers, suicide bombers etc....

Do you have a suggestion Netherlands Scottc? I find your question curious. What was your point?

War is mostly addressed in the old testament not so much in the new testament and God actually endorsed war on several occasions. Especially when this one question must be asked. If the preserving of one life means that thousands will die should that life be spared, or is it better to sacrifice one life so that thousands may live?

I am a fairly religious person and it is my belief that war is justified in order to save others. There are many reasons to support war. There are many reason to not support war. So we must ask, did Saddams actions demonstrate that if we did nothing that thousands would not die? Or was his actions a demonstration of what was to come?

He is responsible for killing his own people, not just in Halabja but those who didn't support him.

We are just starting to see some of the horror that Saddams regime was all about. Although the coalition forces have yet to come out and say that WMD was found, there have been many signs that it exist. Chemical Suits, Atropene Pens, Mask, Storage Facilities, Hardware capable of containing WMD. Pesticides which are used to make WMD. Plus all the intelligence and the fact that he has used it in the past.

The amount of civilian casualties so far has been lower than any other war in history. Therefore you have to say that the sacrifice of the few will save a a lot.

As far as the looting? Almost all wars where a dictator has fallen there have been looting. Shoot there is even looting in times of disaster and riot. It's human nature, (not my human nature), but it is in some. It is natural for an oppressed people once freed to take something from their oppressor. We are however already seeing the local people come out and try to stop the crime. So you will see order return to Iraq soon.

Good replies Ron so I will just say ditto.

You might ask, "Are you willing to fight and die for freedom?" I am, I would hate to think of the alternative whether is was freedom for me or any other person. Do I like the thought? Hell no. Freedom does have its costs in more ways than one but yes, it is worth it.

Oh, I forgot to add... I haven't made up my mind on the death penalty. Too many gray areas on this one for me. Maybe in the most extreme cases?

Gun control, I am for much more stricter gun control but fully believe in the right for people to bear arms.

Abortion? Can't stand the thought of it but only came to this feeling after the birth of my son. Before, I was pro-abortion. I do think there are extreme cases that it would be fine if and only if the mother's health is in serious jeopardy.

Hmm, pretty much the same sort of replies as I expected. Incidentally, the "declining economy" that Bush "inherited" was in fact a booming economy with a 280 billion dollars of surplus government money. This 280 billion dollars has been turned into a 300 billion deficit. Hmm, 580 billion dollars in two years. What a great clean up job. Sort of like a cleaner coming to a clean house, and urinating on the floor.

My original post was really to point out the inherent society in the US, which does not value human life. When you say to your society, "if someone tries to steal from you, it is nice and legal to kill them, and it is nice and legal to possess the firearms to do the murdering", this is a society that does not respect human life.

Hmm, pretty much the same sort of replies as I expected. Incidentally, the "declining economy" that Bush "inherited" was in fact a booming economy with a 280 billion dollars of surplus government money. This 280 billion dollars has been turned into a 300 billion deficit. Hmm, 580 billion dollars in two years. What a great clean up job. Sort of like a cleaner coming to a clean house, and urinating on the floor.

My original post was really to point out the inherent society in the US, which does not value human life. When you say to your society, "if someone tries to steal from you, it is nice and legal to kill them, and it is nice and legal to possess the firearms to do the murdering", this is a society that does not respect human life.

When you have a government that tells you "the best way to punish the bad, is to kill them", this is a society that does not value human life.

When you have a nation that ignores the wishes of the rest of the world, and drops cluster bombs on another nation, because it is of benefit to American corporate giants, this is a society that does not respect human life.

A very interesting documentary on the gun culture that exists within the US is "bowling for columbine" by Michael Moore. This documents the insanity and the underlying reasons for the explosive gun culture in the states. It essentially comes down to fear. A nation that lives in fear is going to be more trigger happy. Kill them before they kill you, and this society of fear is also transposed in the international arena. The American people can get behind a war with Iraq, as the American government has made people scared of them. The more scared the people, the easier they are to control. Which is exactly what is happening. Do you not think it funny that every single news item tries to create some link from anything that is happening to Al Qaeda?.

Incidentally, going back to the death penalty question, surely Americans believe that "freedom" is the most important thing in the world, so surely life imprisonment with the denial of freedom is a far worse penalty than the death penalty. How many times have I heard Americans say they would rather die than lose their freedom, so why the death penalty?. It costs more money to administer and it is less of a sentence than denying ones freedom, so what is the point?. The answer, KILL KILL KILL.

scottc, your claims are ridiculous.

What you are proposing is that the world stand by and do nothing while tyrannic oppressive regimes like Saddam's butcher their own people as well as their neighbors. Unfortunately, I think that the world would have stood by if it wasn't for the US/Uk.

You say that because America stands up for other nations that we don't respect life? This is ludacris. In fact it is the opposite, the nations, such as France and Russia (who I will get into in a moment) are those who have no respect for human life. There comes a time when there has been enough talk, enough murder, enough oppression. That time came for Saddam Hussein's regime andthat time came for Hitler as well. The world stood idely by as Hitler conquered nation after nation, butchered civilian after civilian, until (actually it was our ally Great Britian who drew the line in the sand at Poland) the time came to put an end to the thrid reich. We told the Baath Party what we wanted, and they refused, therefore their time was up.

Also, the nations which you are then glorifying like Russia aren't real saints. Just recently Russia was attacking Chechnya (ironically for terrorist attacks...now that America is attacked it is suddenly bad to use military means to stop terrorism).

This war has seen the most care in probably the history of warfare to avoid civilian casualties. I'm sure you can point to dozens of examples of missiles going astray, or civilians being shot at checkpoints, but as a whole America has done very well in this regard. We aren't dropping "cluster bombs" as you put it, we are dropping precision guided munitions, if you don't know the difference read up on it. The only time that non precision guided munitions would be used would be aginst large troop concentrations (a valid military target).

The point is that to not act is to act. The action that you take by not stopping those who would commit such acts as the chemical attacks against the Kurds of 1988 or the 9/11 attack is to give them permission to conduct future attacks of this nature. That would demonstrate a compelte disregard for human life.