More Dawkins idiocy...

[Augustus]

This is not true. We have killed innocent civilians collaterally, but we haven't targeted them in this conflict with ISIS. Can you support your claim?

While I agree that there is a difference between deliberately targeting civilians in order to cause maximum casualties and attempts to minimise casualties, there still is a big moral question to answer.

Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders. But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2 percent — hardly “precision.” American officials vehemently dispute these figures, and it is likely that more militants and fewer civilians have been killed than is reported by the press in Pakistan. Nevertheless, every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1

Running a programme like this guarantees civilian deaths, you know you will kill many civilians. What is decided is that this is 'a price worth paying'.

If we look at many American wars, not only have they not had any benefit, they have actually caused terrible harm. This makes these guaranteed civilian deaths a lot harder to morally justify.

Many Communists, Jihadis, Crusaders, Inquisitors, etc thought they were doing good: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

 

[leibowde84]

While I agree that there is a difference between deliberately targeting civilians in order to cause maximum casualties and attempts to minimise casualties, there still is a big moral question to answer.

Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders. But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2 percent — hardly “precision.” American officials vehemently dispute these figures, and it is likely that more militants and fewer civilians have been killed than is reported by the press in Pakistan. Nevertheless, every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1

Running a programme like this guarantees civilian deaths, you know you will kill many civilians. What is decided is that this is 'a price worth paying'.

If we look at many American wars, not only have they not had any benefit, they have actually caused terrible harm. This makes these guaranteed civilian deaths a lot harder to morally justify.

Many Communists, Jihadis, Crusaders, Inquisitors, etc thought they were doing good: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

You can't honestly believe statistics from Pakistan, can you?

 

[Osal]

This is not true. We have killed innocent civilians collaterally, but we haven't targeted them in this conflict with ISIS. Can you support your claim?

Yes, we started targeting civilian populations in the Civil War, most notably with Sherman's march through Georgia. While we pretty much skipped WW1, we resumed targeting civilian areas in WW2 both in Europe and Japan. We continued this policy in various theater after WW2.

Now, we didn't, technically, target civilians per se, but it's impossible to carpet bomb a city without killing people. So, it follows that if you target a city, you target the inhabitants. You can call them collateral damage if it makes you feel better. But we still killed them indiscriminantly.

 

[Augustus]

You can't honestly believe statistics from Pakistan, can you?

The article was written by:

Dr. Andrew Exum was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy in May 2015. He is the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on international security strategy and policy for the Middle East, and for oversight of security cooperation programs, including foreign military sales, in the region.

Dr. Exum joined the Department of Defense from the Boston Consulting Group, a global management consulting firm, where he advised clients from a wide range of industries on business strategy. Dr. Exum previously served in the Department of Defense on an International Affairs Fellowship from the Council on Foreign Relations.

A native of East Tennessee, Dr. Exum was the recipient of an ROTC scholarship to the University of Pennsylvania, where he majored in Classical Studies and English Literature. Dr. Exum served four years on active duty in the U.S. Army. He led a platoon of light infantry in Afghanistan and was decorated for valor during Operation Anaconda in 2002. He later led Army Rangers as part of special operations task forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Upon leaving the Army, Dr. Exum received a master's degree in Middle Eastern Studies from the American University of Beirut and a Ph.D. in War Studies from King's College London.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, we started targeting civilian populations in the Civil War, most notably with Sherman's march through Georgia. While we pretty much skipped WW1, we resumed targeting civilian areas in WW2 both in Europe and Japan. We continued this policy in various theater after WW2.

Now, we didn't, technically, target civilians per se, but it's impossible to carpet bomb a city without killing people. So, it follows that if you target a city, you target the inhabitants. You can call them collateral damage if it makes you feel better. But we still killed them indiscriminantly.

In other words, unlike ISIS, we haven't targeted civilians in this conflict. And, btw, we haven't used carpet bombing in this conflict once.

 

[Augustus]

Now, we didn't, technically, target civilians per se, but it's impossible to carpet bomb a city without killing people.

WW2 bombings did deliberately target civilians which was based on the British "Area Bombing Directive" to reduce the German workforce and German citizen's morale. The US helped in this policy.

The US firebombings of Tokyo also killed more than the nukes.

 

[leibowde84]

The article was written by:

Dr. Andrew Exum was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy in May 2015. He is the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on international security strategy and policy for the Middle East, and for oversight of security cooperation programs, including foreign military sales, in the region.

Dr. Exum joined the Department of Defense from the Boston Consulting Group, a global management consulting firm, where he advised clients from a wide range of industries on business strategy. Dr. Exum previously served in the Department of Defense on an International Affairs Fellowship from the Council on Foreign Relations.

A native of East Tennessee, Dr. Exum was the recipient of an ROTC scholarship to the University of Pennsylvania, where he majored in Classical Studies and English Literature. Dr. Exum served four years on active duty in the U.S. Army. He led a platoon of light infantry in Afghanistan and was decorated for valor during Operation Anaconda in 2002. He later led Army Rangers as part of special operations task forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Upon leaving the Army, Dr. Exum received a master's degree in Middle Eastern Studies from the American University of Beirut and a Ph.D. in War Studies from King's College London.

And, in the article, he stated that the statistics were disputed. And, doesn't really matter who wrote the article. He didn't come up with the statistics anyways.

 

[Augustus]

And, in the article, he stated that the statistics were disputed. And, doesn't really matter who wrote the article. He didn't come up with the statistics anyways.

He said basically the stats aren't that important, the strategy is flawed.

What do you think about the civilian casualties in the Iraq war? Morally justifiable?

 

[leibowde84]

He said basically the stats aren't that important, the strategy is flawed.

What do you think about the civilian casualties in the Iraq war? Morally justifiable?

I think taking out Saddam was the biggest mistake we've made in recent history. I was not in favor of the Iraq war, so no. Otoh, I am strongly in favor of destroying ISIS. That, imho, is a just cause.

 

[Osal]

In other words, unlike ISIS, we haven't targeted civilians in this conflict. And, btw, we haven't used carpet bombing in this conflict once.

It depends on how you want to define "this conflict".

I guess my point is we don't really have a moral high ground from from we can judge what ISIS is doing. They behead people. We destroy cities.

 

[leibowde84]

It depends on how you want to define "this conflict".

I guess my point is we don't really have a moral high ground from from we can judge what ISIS is doing. They behead people. We destroy cities.

We haven't destroyed any cities in this conflict. And, if you are going to be unreasonable in going back to the actions of men no longer in control and deceased, that is pretty silly. Bush is no longer in control, most Americans disagreed with the war then and now, and our current president has not destroyed any cities in this conflict.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

Good discussion indeed! Our differences *might* come down to me feeling that things are really urgent here in late 2015, and that we have to do better than we've done historically.

I would agree that history is on your side when it comes to the failures of utopian ideas.

 

[icehorse]

Osal,

War sucks. Civilians get killed and maimed. No argument there.

But intentions DO matter. Intention is built into the very fabric of every legal system.

 

[Osal]

Osal,

War sucks. Civilians get killed and maimed. No argument there.

But intentions DO matter. Intention is built into the very fabric of every legal system.

When you're pulling your dead child out of the wreckage of a bombed out building, someone's intentions don't mean much.

 

[Osal]

We haven't destroyed any cities in this conflict. And, if you are going to be unreasonable in going back to the actions of men no longer in control and deceased, that is pretty silly. Bush is no longer in control, most Americans disagreed with the war then and now, and our current president has not destroyed any cities in this conflict.

True enough, but tomorrow may be different. Since Paris, there has been a bigger push to escalate our involvement.

Just the same, we have no moral ground to stand on in this "conflict".

 

[icehorse]

When you're pulling your dead child out of the wreckage of a bombed out building, someone's intentions don't mean much.

Of course I understand your point. But there usually IS a bigger picture. It seems you're attempting to oversimplify situations that are quite complex. For example, while I totally agree that the Bush / Cheney approach was as horrible as it gets, it was also the case that Hussein had committed genocides and intended to commit more. Should we have turned a blind eye to the plight of the Kurds? (And one implication of this post is that there were more options than "Bush or do nothing".)

 

[Augustus]

For example, while I totally agree that the Bush / Cheney approach was as horrible as it gets, it was also the case that Hussein had committed genocides and intended to commit more. Should we have turned a blind eye to the plight of the Kurds? (And one implication of this post is that there were more options than "Bush or do nothing".)

It's a classic example of messing with other people's business.

Overthrow the secular nationalist Mossadegh in Iran in favour of the Shah. Make the Iranian revolution possible. Cause backlash against Shia Islam in Sunni Gulf states. Support Saddam in war against Iran. Turn against Saddam after he gets too egotistical. Fight Saddam and encourage Kurds. Abandon Kurds to Saddam. Decades long sanctions causing mass civilian harm. Get utopian and think democracy can be imposed by force. Depose Saddam. Create jihadi uprising and Shia death squads. Abandon Iraq. Create ISIS. Bomb ISIS. etc. (this is the simplified version - there are many more offshoots that are also significant)

There is no 'one mistake' except messing with other people's business and trying to make foreigners do your bidding.

 

[leibowde84]

True enough, but tomorrow may be different. Since Paris, there has been a bigger push to escalate our involvement.

Just the same, we have no moral ground to stand on in this "conflict".

That is only based on the actions of past leaders though, isn't it? I mean, we also had Japanese internment camps and refused Jewish refugees during WW2, but those responsible are long gone. What are we doing now that loses our moral ground?

 

[icehorse]

It's a classic example of messing with other people's business.

Overthrow the secular nationalist Mossadegh in Iran in favour of the Shah. Make the Iranian revolution possible. Cause backlash against Shia Islam in Sunni Gulf states. Support Saddam in war against Iran. Turn against Saddam after he gets too egotistical. Fight Saddam and encourage Kurds. Abandon Kurds to Saddam. Decades long sanctions causing mass civilian harm. Get utopian and think democracy can be imposed by force. Depose Saddam. Create jihadi uprising and Shia death squads. Abandon Iraq. Create ISIS. Bomb ISIS. etc. (this is the simplified version - there are many more offshoots that are also significant)

There is no 'one mistake' except messing with other people's business and trying to make foreigners do your bidding.

There is some false dilemma and conflation going on here... I think. I'm not arguing that western interventions have been well executed - many of them have not. On the hand, I don't think that in this smaller, interconnected world, we can morally, ethically, or practically be isolationists. No more sharing vaccines? No doctors without borders? No welcoming of refugees?

I doubt you mean that.

 

[Augustus]

There is some false dilemma and conflation going on here... I think. I'm not arguing that western interventions have been well executed - many of them have not. On the hand, I don't think that in this smaller, interconnected world, we can morally, ethically, or practically be isolationists. No more sharing vaccines? No doctors without borders? No welcoming of refugees?

I doubt you mean that.

Those are nothing to do with my points.

Starting with Mossadegh, everything has been a response to a previous problem. Trying to fix the previous f*ck up.

Disagree?