Quote:
Originally posted by lendaddy
This I agree with and it actually makes my point. To that person the war was wrong before the first casualty, it's not "more wrong" because of the inevitable loss of life.
The reasons you state ( it was ill-conceived, perhaps based on dishonesty, and not in the US's interests) are exactly what we should be debating outside the emotional blackmail.
|
But you say that to the person who is opposed to ALL wars, casualities ARE a legitimate point to argue.
But why is that so? To that person, the war was also wrong before the first casualty, and is not "more wrong" because of the subsequent inevitable loss of life. Yet you say casualties are a legit argument for them.
I still don't see the distinction between "I am against all wars" and "I am against all (unwarranted/unjustified/unnecessary) wars," and why raising the issue of the casualty count is ok for one but not the other.