I'm sick of it, Bush Bashing Options

[*kryogenix*]

I'm really getting tired of all this crap about George Bush. Lately, I've heard the word "evil" attributed to him rather than to Saddam, Bin Laden, Kim Il Jong, etc. He's been called a liar and a traitor by some dems, when they had no proof to back up their claims. I hate how people are saying that he's the reason why we're not so tight with the French anymore, when in fact, there's evidence to show that Saddam bribed the French with oil, meaning it was them who were the corrupt backstabbers. Why is this man hated so much when he's just trying to protect the United States of America?

[gerundio]

Both of you are wrong.

Not to be disrespectful, but very few enlisted soldiers who are killed would have been a major use to society.

HL Mencken did a study of the Civil War, where he determined that, of all the people who were wounded (possibly a million people), the only three wounded soldiers who ended up contributing majorly to society were the writer Ambrose Bierce, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and someone else that I forgot off the top of my head. Using that same principle, he concluded that of all the people who died in the Civil War, only one and a half would have made a huge difference. 620,000 people died in the Civil War ... compared to 1,000 Americans in Iraq (along with 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqis). Chances are, none of the American soldiers killed would have ended up finding a cure for cancer or anything so significant. HOWEVER, it is still MORALLY WRONG to kill tens of thousands of people -- and even if you argue that we SAVED tens of thousands of OTHER people -- the fact is that inaction is more morally just than performing both a morally right action and a morally wrong action, since your first moral duty is negative -- i.e. thou shalt not... But that's an entirely different argument.

The reason for this is simple: The people who tend to have the greatest effect on society are the people who go to the best universities, who generally have opportunities before them. If they are in the armed forces, they are probably officers (who die much less frequently than soldiers), or work non-combat job.

Your average grunt on the front lines who risks being killed or wounded tends not to have a college education. Once they leave the army, they will make less money over the course of their lifetime than people who have never been in the army in the first place. This is the case with America, it is EVEN MORE SO the case with Iraqi soldiers -- it is unlikely that any of them would've discovered a cure for anything, let alone cancer.

HOWEVER, to say that an aborted fetus could have done so is equally invalid. Aborted fetuses tend to come from mothers who would not care much for the child anyway. History shows that the VAST majority of great people -- especially in the Modern Era -- come from stable, two-parent homes. Many of them come from poor homes, but those are still stable, poor homes (the most famous example is Harlem). Very few people with irresponsible parents end up ammounting to much.

The sad truth of the matter is that aborted fetuses and frontline soldiers are in a very bad position to amount to much in the first place.

No I am not wrong. I never said that one of these people could greatly contribute to society, I just said that everyone has the same right to life.