Iraq War = Terrorism (long reply to natedog)

[ACPlayer]

The assumption that the US is responsible for the innocent deaths is invalid, of course

Our actions led directly to their deaths. We are responsible. We justify it the best we can, but we are responsible.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel as though you and people like Cyrus are attempting to pile on unwarranted blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eons ago I made a remark that Chris, at times, reminded me of an Archbishop. The question is whether this is calculated or simply a by-product of his worldview and general ethical/moral outlook. I have nothing more to add on the subject.


Chris started an excellent thread with a very well thought out post. But arguments from analogy, as you pointed out, can be slippery and tricky.

The motives of at least some of the terrorist are known. Thus, their actions are not justified in my view. Other groups or individuals may have different motives or agendas that would make justification of their actions problematic but not impossible. Other people may join the terrorists out of frustration, or lend silent support, but not wholeheartedly believing in details or particulars of some agenda(s) that are the purported goals of said group(s). It does become a murky and sometimes very unclear situation. Especially since it is impossible to do a person-by-person justification in a discussion of large events, the complex and foggy situations of warfare, and long-term scenarios.

-Zeno

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The assumption that the US is responsible for the innocent deaths is invalid, of course

Our actions led directly to their deaths. We are responsible. We justify it the best we can, but we are responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking of ultimate and primary responsibility. You can say that the US was responsible for the Waco Davidian deaths, the US was responsible for all those German and Japanese deaths in WWII, and on and on. I am saying that the ultimate and primary responsibility for those deaths are with Koresh and Hitler and Tojo and the related war regimes of theirs. The US is like the person acting in self-defense, we may pull the trigger, but the true responsibility belongs to the criminal who forces us into this action.


And to tolbiny's point: Your numbers for Saddam's killings are too low, but even if you take your numbers (300k in 40 years) in only 3 years he would have passed that 20,000 mark. He was going to continue running things for quite a while if we didn't do anything. And besides, he is responsible for those 20,000 deaths too (see my above paragraph).

I know the liberals disagree with me, but the US is not killing people just for the heck of it, they are not trying to kill anyone if they can reasonably avoid it. The evil doers are responsible for every single death here, why can't you see that?

[ACPlayer]

What is ultimate and primary responsibility?

By your thinking the death of a child by an insurgent is not the ultimate responsibility of the insurgent, because he is doing it in reaction to the occupation, who is occupying because of Saddam, who came to power because the British left a messy royalty, who caused the problem because of a messy way of delineating boundaries following the defeat of the ottomans.

Come on, we had a clear choice of not invading Iraq. We chose to invade it, knowing that there are going to be casualites. We did not have to pull that trigger. We pulled the trigger knowing that children were going to get killed.

We find ways to justify it -- WMD, Iraqi Freedom, AQ. You may think these justify it, others including me think that they dont. Saddam found ways to justify his actions, the insurgents find ways to justify theirs. The political beat goes on -- children die. It is all terrorism.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]

The bottom line: supporters of the war in Iraq should be able to justify the war with as much persuasive force as would be necessary to convince them of the need to kill by terrorism 15,000 to 20,000 civilians (a conservative range of civilians killed to date by military violence). If they cannot, they are at least as worthy of our condemnation as those who celebrated 9/11. Particularly when one consider their greater freedom, power and affluence and the greater degree of suffering they’ve caused.

[/ QUOTE ]

First...WMD's. If Iraq did indeed have WMD's and the intent of using them, it could have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Of course, we know know that they don't have them. But don't forget that George Tenet told Bush that it was a "slam-dunk case." I dunno, if I were President and I was told a rogue leader who endorsed 9/11 definitely had WMD's, I would feel justified in going to war.

But we were wrong. This is very bad. However, it doesn't change the fact that I feel Bush, with the intelligence he was given, made the correct decision in declaring war and, yes, killing 15-20,000 civilians. (The execution, on the other hand, has been atrocious, but that's another matter entirely.)

So now we are in Iraq, and we were wrong about WMD's. What should that mean? Tenet should have been sacked, and the intelligence community should have had a massive overhaul.

So I support the decision to go to war. And now...this may sound EXTREMELY callous, but the dead civilians are a sunk cost, and the only relevant question left is should we stay there.

I believe the answer is yes.

First, if we leave, the terrorists won't have a problem taking back the country, and they have shown no hesitation in killing civilians, so the difference in the # of civilians killed if we leave might not be that great...and those civilians who don't die will definitely be mistreated. And second, if democracy succeeds...it may lead to a chain reaction in the middle east, which could actually lead to the end of terrorism and conflict in our time, which could save innumerable lives.

I could go into a more detail about this, but I won't, because I'm starving. But in the end, as horrible as it sounds, the decision to go to war was justified.

Will

EDIT: I forgot about Saddam killing tons of his own people. He might have racked up 20,000 people in three years anyway...so in that respect the original decision to go to war makes even more sense.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
the innocent of Iraq are better off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently this may not be true or at least difficult to prove.

The, hopefully, shorter-term semi-chaos in Iraq and price presently being paid by 'innocent people', will be justify by the overall long-term benefits that will flow out from an Iraq more free and at liberty to quasi-control their own destinies. And when I say long-term I mean decades, it may take 50 years or more.

In addition, as can be seen already, things may be set in motion that will have beneficial repercussions on the region as a whole. This would also add to the positive side of the ledger.

In all risky ventures, things can and do go awry and it is often very difficult to impossible to predict outcomes however will intended the objectives. But overall, the inherent risks taken, along with all the uncertainties, in addition to the deaths caused by U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq will be justified by History.

It could, obviously, tip the other way. But then History itself is a murky and risky business. And many Historians are notoriously bias, timorous, and distorters of facts if not outright liars. But that is a different subject.

-Zeno

[ACPlayer]

made the correct decision in declaring war and, yes, killing 15-20,000 civilians.

So, see you have justified the "terrorist" act of killing with forethought killing civilians for political gain. To you the cost was justified. You are at peace with the decision and the consequent death of the children.

[tolbiny]

"And to tolbiny's point: Your numbers for Saddam's killings are too low, but even if you take your numbers (300k in 40 years) in only 3 years he would have passed that 20,000 mark. He was going to continue running things for quite a while if we didn't do anything. And besides, he is responsible for those 20,000 deaths too (see my above paragraph)."

Exact numbers on saddam's range of killings are impossible, and 300,000 is on the ower end of the estimate- but so is the 15-20,000 on the lower end of estimates. You stated that the Iraqis are unequivacebly dying in fewer numbers than they would under saddam's regime. Teh fact that he was no longer murdering huge portions of the population (not having either gas or access to the kurds) which was how the regime killed most of those people. The chances of him having killed 20,000 people in the past two years is fairly slim.
We also wouldn't have lost 1500 american troops, pulled most of the forces out of afghanistan (where the oopium trade has tripled since before the war- with large portions of profits going to terroist organizaitons) before we should have, weaked our relationship with our allies, and spent hundreds of billions of dollars.

[tolbiny]

"First...WMD's. If Iraq did indeed have WMD's and the intent of using them, it could have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Of course, we know know that they don't have them. But don't forget that George Tenet told Bush that it was a "slam-dunk case." I dunno, if I were President and I was told a rogue leader who endorsed 9/11 definitely had WMD's, I would feel justified in going to war."

Many people came to the opposite conclusion of this- including Colin Powell prior to the war- and all of the reports by britsh intelligence prior to the the plans for the invasion of Iraq that were announced had a viewpoint contradictory to this. Not to mention that Iraq had caved and agreed to let rigouros weapons inspectors back in (who had made a career of finding this stuff out, and also felt that Iraq had no wmd's).

"So I support the decision to go to war. And now...this may sound EXTREMELY callous, but the dead civilians are a sunk cost, and the only relevant question left is should we stay there."

The other relevant questions include reelecting officials who pushed the plans for war, and examining all the informatin and deciding if we want people in power who make decisions like this.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But you just gave one: the Nazis. What if resisting the Nazis through massive and effective terrorism were the only means available?

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly it wouldn't be the only means available; one can choose to attack either civilians, or troops and political leaders, especially as far as suicide bombers go.

Secondly, the preferential targeting of innocent civilians in order to make a political point is a particularly immoral and depraved act, though I guess neither you nor ACPlayer see this as clearly as I do, nor will you acknowledge the vast gulf of difference between that and legitimate resistance against a military. I don't suppose we will ever see eye to eye on this. So be it. No matter how you stretch it there are some things in my view that just cannot ever be made truly equivalent.

Thirdly I am opposed on base principle to terrorism, just as some people are opposed to torture in any case. I think terrorism is not moral, nor efficacious, nor justifiable under any circumstances. Nor do I don't think there could be any circumstances to fit your hypothetical regarding Nazi Germany.