Off Topic — HabitableZone

Off Topic » in reply to This requires explanation....just whom do you think is included in this grouping?

To be a little more precise...
Tom Brosz — (archived)

There has been considerable talk about how the civilian casualties in this war render the entire war effort a moral failure, regardless of whether or not the rest of the population is freed from tyranny. The idea that some people may have to die so that many others can be free is a math that is repulsive to some (although when one is talking about civilians who had no real choice in the matter, the position is at least somewhat understandable.) Equally difficult is the idea that some people would rather be dead than slaves.

At least people living in slavery are still alive, right?

"Better Red Than Dead" was the phrase that this attitude was boiled down to during the Cold War, expressing quite bluntly the thoughts of those who thought that it would be far better to surrender to communism than risk a conflict with the Soviet Union. While it doesn't strictly apply now, since we're not really talking communism here*, it still gets the idea across. I haven't been able to think of a better one.

The article I linked mentioned the outlook of one group of people during WWII when faced with freedom at the risk of death. I like to think the Iraqis largely feel the same way, and will be interested to hear from them on this someday.

*Although Iraq has been run by the Arab Socialist Baath Party. Ever notice how the full name is rarely seen in the press? Wonder why. Probably the same reason you so rarely see Nazis called "National Socialists."

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (42 posts)