Quote:
Originally Posted by azimuth
I don't think we would have invaded in the first place if every able bodied individual in Iraq had at least one weapon as effective as our military men have.
We might have bombed and such, but to invade and hold there must be boots on the ground. Even during the firestorm bombing of WWII, there were enough surviving civilians that were they armed and motivated, they could have resisted long enough prevail.
I'm convinced that to lay down and surrender our rights and freedoms in the face of "overwhelming odds" is worse than death.
|
There's some truth to that, but again, today it's not as much boots on the ground as it is wheels/tracks on the ground. Guns won't do much in that situation.
As to your last point, I have a different view. You sound idealistic, but if push came to shove, would you really live up to the rhetoric? I don't believe in the afterlife, God or any such crap, so perhaps for me life is more valuable than it is for you. Also I come from a different background. You may recall how Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia, yet there was little resistance after the allies abandoned us. IMO it was a wise decision. The Nazi rule ended in the next decade and lives & historic buildings were spared. Well then there was the Soviet invasion, but again the odds were overwhelming and life wasn't really that bad. And that thing eventually ended too. To me personally life would have to be really bad for me to consider sacrificing myself for some cause. To me almost any life is better than death. Call me a wuss if you like to, but I consider myself a pragmatist.
11-12-2008, 07:35 PM
Threaded Mode
