Iraq Debate: Pragmatism vs Idealism?

SloanerF1 · 22-02-2003 10:31am #1

It sometimes seems as though it is all too easy for idealistic types, such as musicians, to oppose war without providing any useful alternatives. Perhaps they can only afford to take such a stance since they are not the ones charged with removing all human suffering, particularly that in Iraq.

However, I too am opposed to all unjust wars, and I feel military action should only be taken as an absolute last resort. It should be multilateral and entirely surgical, only destroying the alleged WMDs.

Perhaps there is a stance somewhere between the romantic repulsion about the ugliness of war and the absolute pragmatism of trying to rid the world of an evil regime, and "protecting" the world's resources.

Clintons Cat · 23-02-2003 9:09am

Is it idealistic to demand that Arms companies and Democracies stop Arming the worlds dictators and represive regimes?

SloanerF1 · 23-02-2003 9:20am

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Is it idealistic to demand that Arms companies and Democracies stop Arming the worlds dictators and represive regimes?

Indeed it is not.

mike65 · 23-02-2003 11:53am

I see that confusing poll has gone!

I'm an idealist - ideally Saddam would be removed, by war if neccessary.

Mike.

Iraq Debate: Pragmatism vs Idealism?

Comments