In Iraq there are 22 million people. Of these 22 million people about 1 million (from something I read) are Ba'ath Party members. Let's just add another million so we have 2 million who are loyal to Saddam. This leaves 20 million regular Iraqi civilians who live under the rule and whim of 2 million.
Where am I going with this? Well, you hear a lot in the news of the civilian deaths (which is in the dozens, maybe, right now). So, stay with me...
So, 20 million. Let's say that a million of them are killed during this conflict from "collateral damage" of coalition doings (not those who the Iraqi army kills for the reasons they kill them anyways), and it ends with the liberation of Iraq. Now we have 19 million liberated people who were not loyal to Saddam. With these numbers, 1 in 20 civilians were killed. Of course, the number of 1 million is high, and unacceptable.. but for examples purposes, we are using an extra large number. Anyways, 1 person dies, 19 get to live a life of higher quality.
Many would say "1 million people!! That's unacceptable!!" Now, let's turn the table a little. Let's say I have you and 19 other in front of me... and I have a gun. I tell you that if you let me kill you, the 19 others will be "free", or at least have a much higher quality of live (Muslim law will only allow so much "freedom" compared to us Westerners). Now, if you refuse to let me kill you, you will live under the same oppression as always, and the other 19 people will just "disappear" *wink wink, nudge nudge*.
Would you give your life for the other 19? If so, then 1 million civilian deaths for the liberation of 19 million should be reasonable, no? It's possible those million would also make the same choice (for martyrdom, possibly).
Now, if we are more realistic, the number of civilian deaths should be much lower, and 1 life will be given for much more than 19. If you wouldn't give your life for 19 others, how many would it take for you to do so? 50? 100? Or are you selfish and there is no number high enough?
Maybe this makes no sense, outside of myself an my thought process :-)
Posted by Kevin at March 28, 2003 03:23 PMFreedom is ambiguous, and theoretical freedom is utopia.
Imagine this scenario. You live in a town of 190 people. That means 10 must die for the freedom of the others. There is a lottery (kinda like the story "The Lottery") and they choose your wife, your child and and some of your best friends. Maybe you haven't paid your rent on time or haven't returned favors lately and you are seen unsympathetically.
After the executions you are free along with the others. But you have no home or job because you lost that when your family couldn't afford it after the funerals. You are homeless and in need of help.
The village doctor was executed in the name of freedom, too. There is no treatment for your anxiety. Some of the construction workers died as well and no new homes can be built.
Now the colonizing nation that brings the hope of freedom comes to the rescue and insists that your old way of life was no good. They use the current condition of things as an example of how flawed it was. They suggest that you follow their lead and if you do they will give you a home and freedom. You gladly accept this new freedom and praise the liberators.
So it is possible to have freedom at the cost of innocent people's lives. Is it freedom worth having? Maybe only to those who are victorious.
You have demonstrated your freedom to not answer the question. Answer my question in my forum and yours in your own.
Unless you live under a rock, you know that most in Iraq don't like their quality of life. Having a home or job doesn't equate to freedom. And, in the case of Iraq, the UN will likely make sure the people have a gov't of their choice.
Do you see how those people swarm for a litre of water? Yeah, we should just leave them alone. Anyone who climbs on others for a litre of water MUST already have a life they want and deserve.
So, answer the question at hand. I guess you would let the 19 others die.
Sorry, I thought it was a hypothetical question - you sounded like you wanted to discuss the issue.
Here is my concise answer: I would die as a suicide bomber to attain the freedom of my family and friends.