Quote:
Originally posted by the
But you say that to the person who is opposed to ALL wars, causalities 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.
|
Because the casualties are "thee" reason the pacifist is against war in the first place. It's a cornerstone of the philosophy that war is wrong and therefore a genuine argument for them.
The on again off again detractor cannot legitimately claim that casualties are a deal breaker as they will claim that they are regrettable but necessary in the next war. It's completely inconsistent.
And again, the argument over casualties is not one I think should be taboo, just that it should be an honest debate over performance and results rather than an emotional tool.