I saw this in another poster's question. If you believe that the war against terror is the only way to free the world of a killing machine, how would it be moral to bring our troops home?
2006-11-28 07:42:52 · 11 answers · asked by ? 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you think the action in Iraq is different from the war on terror, was it immoral to stop Hitler?
2006-11-28 07:57:50 · update #1
Bring the troops home with Nazislamic fascist terrorist right behind them with bombs on looking to kill as many in the USA as is possible
Immoral is being an apologist for the murdering scum terrorist are
2006-11-28 07:49:26 · answer #1 · answered by Deport all ILLEGAL Alien INVADER 3 · 4⤊ 8⤋
First of all, because you are confusing the "war on terror" with the war in Iraq. I am confused how anyone can do that. We were attacked on 9-11 by terrorists. Two years later we attacked the country of Iraq for still unknown reasons as the reasons for attack always changed.
Not that it is clarified that the war in Iraq is not the war on terror, then maybe we have to ask if it was a moral war and if it is moral for our troops to remain there??
2006-11-28 07:48:23 · answer #2 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It would be moral in a superficial way, since it would be saving the lives of many U.S. troops, but isn't the role of U.S. troops in war times to sacrifice their lives for the continued freedom and democracy of our country?
Furthermore, if our brave troops don't die for our freedom and protection, innocent and defenseless American citizens will.
Oh, and one little word on the war in Iraq: if we left there now, what do liberals really think would happen, just unending civil war or a truce between blood enemies?
At the rate of the killing going on now even with our troops there, the Sunnis and Shi'ites will just kill off most of each other, leaving Iraq to be the next training grounds for Al-Quaeda and Co.
2006-11-28 08:58:07 · answer #3 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Morality is also subjective in the sense given. It could be extremely moral for the fact the current soldiers would come home. But future generations would have to deal with the threat. If humans are truly selfish and greedy, then we would not care for the terrorists now, because the threat of them is not as large as many think it to be. But if we don't deal with it now, it will become over-whelming
2006-11-28 07:59:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
No, it would be im-moral. I don't think wars should be based on morality, but rather, just war principles. If you mix morality into war's, everything gets screwed up and the bad guy's win in the end.
2006-11-28 07:50:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What are the "moral grounds" that people have against war? Does this mean that they believe that some things are right and other things are wrong?
2006-11-28 07:47:52 · answer #6 · answered by TEXAS TREY 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
its a convoluted view of morality. its moral to protect the people you have something in common with. This is what the liberals think, we are being immoral to allow our people to die for someone else. but they cant see the greater picture as I know you know. The greater good outweighs the current morality.
2006-11-28 07:50:04 · answer #7 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would change your question to: Can you turn against peace on moral grounds? War is immoral and is a sign of stupidity and debased human nature.
2006-11-28 07:46:19 · answer #8 · answered by The Gadfly 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The Iraqi government feels like it has a blank check when conservative politicians use rhetoric that says we won't leave until the mission is accomplished. What is the mission?
I feel it is more immoral to sacrifice American lives because Iraqis won't step up.
2006-11-28 07:49:54 · answer #9 · answered by txwebber 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, I couldn't. Because this war was morally right.
2006-11-28 07:48:59 · answer #10 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋