Who is responsible for the greatest loss of life?

[Ali]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[sam i am]

OK.....so how many did Sadaam kill during the Iran/Iraq War (1980-1988) plus chemical weapons wipe-outs of entire Kurd villages and Shiite swamp-draining?

[Qdrop]

simply comparing body counts while in power is misleading and irresponsible.

INTENT matters.

liberals like to gloss over that fact.

[QueenAdrock]

Where's the Hitler option? I believe he trumps all.

[sam i am]

simply comparing body counts while in power is misleading and irresponsible.

INTENT matters.

liberals like to gloss over that fact.

Liberals LOVE intent...it's ALL that matters to them. Actions don't speak louder than words....intentions do.:D

[Qdrop]

Liberals LOVE intent...it's ALL that matters to them. Actions don't speak louder than words....intentions do.:D

actually no, you have it backwards, Sam.

Liberal DON'T look at intent. they just look at the amount dead in conflict...and don't take into account the intentions behind those conflicts...or more specifically, the intentions behind attacks that cause collateral damage.

collateral damage is not intentional. there was no intent to kill them.

there is no collateral damage with terrorists, or with Saddam. every death is intentional.

consider the "perfect weapon" scenario.
if there was a "perfect weapon" that could perfectly strike any target and kill only those that you intended....how would the US use it?
how would Al Queda use it?
how would Saddam use it?

there, dear people, is what truly separtates US from THEM.
not total body counts.

[QueenAdrock]

how would the US use it?
how was Al Queda use it?
how was Saddam use it?

there, dear people, is what truly separtates US from THEM.

*waits for fucktopgirl*

[sam i am]

I was speaking of intent in a more generic way than the specifics you enumerate above, but point well-taken.

[valvano]

i didnt see lawyers listed,

[sam i am]

*waits for fucktopgirl*

LMAO...ROFL.

See....this is why I like you Queen, despite our myriad opposing ways of seeing the world, you can still mock the lunatic fringe of both sides. WTG!

[Schmeltz]

So it's OK to cause horrendous amounts of death and destruction as long as you mean well?

Intent doesn't count for shit. Consequences are what matter.

[ToucanSpam]

I believe Josef Stalin is the person most responsible for political acts which resulted in the most deaths: twenty million in WWII, and twenty million during the Great Purge in the mid 1930s.


But we forget that part because he was our ally in WWII....

[DroppinScience]

Attila the Hun gets no respect...

[Pres Zount]

I believe Josef Stalin is the person most responsible for political acts which resulted in the most deaths: twenty million in WWII, and twenty million during the Great Purge in the mid 1930s.


But we forget that part because he was our ally in WWII....
why does joe take responsibility for WWII deaths? And the purges were closer to 6-8 million people murdered.

[Ali]

The word 'responsible' is an important one here.

You can be responsible for a death, whether you meant it, or not.

Saddam was responsible for thousands of deaths, Bush and Blair for thousands more.

What did Saddam really mean to do? Protect Sunni interests in Iraq? Stabilise the various ethnic groups?

And Bush and Blair? Protect US/UK interests in the Middle East? Remove Saddam?

Why would they want to remove him, when he'd been their ally against Iran? Why did the CIA help the Ba'ath party overthrow Qassim, support them while they were murdering thousands and then come in and remove them (killing thousands more in the process)?

Who is really responsible for the mess? The despot, or the forces which placed him there?

Iraq was a madhouse long before Saddam took power. He stabilised it by brutal force (with a little help from Those Who Shall Not Be Named) and made it possible for the Sunni minority to prevail. He's responsible for thousands of death, but aren't the people who helped him take power also responsible for those deaths, not to mention all those who have died and are continuing to suffer and die during and after his removal?

Saddam is the ultimate Fall Guy. The real culprits are still at Large and already preparing their next victim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad).

[Echewta]

Yea, I don't get how Saddam is considered in some circles to have done everything by himself without any help from the West.
Saddam is on trial for something we knew he did and supported him anyway.

America forgets sometimes that we are throwing stones that were thrown at us in the first place.

[ToucanSpam]

why does joe take responsibility for WWII deaths? And the purges were closer to 6-8 million people murdered.

Same reason Bush is held responsible for Iraqi deaths and American soldier deaths. That is what this thread is implying, right?

By the way your purge numbers are extremely conservative. Read Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million by Martin Amis, it's all there.

[Schmeltz]

But Josef Stalin didn't start World War II. George Bush and his cronies did start the war in Iraq and are responsible not just for the military casualties but for the civilian deaths and sectarian killings as well.

[HAL 9000]

I personally do think intentions are important insofar as they do influence outcomes. Consider two individuals planning a military operation, a reasonably ethical general (ie one who values human life) and a terrorist. Both conduct a cost benefit analysis of the operation but they differ in that while the terrorist considers the loss of innocent lives a benefit (and indeed this is probably the objective of his operation) the general views it as a cost. This means for the general there needs to be a substantial potential benefit for the operation that exceeds the cost of life and also the economic costs involved. The key difference is the value placed on human life, the ethical general places a positive value on that life and therefore requires a substantial benefit if that life is to be put at risk the terrorist puts a negative value on that life and requires no extra benefit.

Before one dismisses the idea of placing a value on life, consider that this is done in almost every area of human endeavour. Most countries have a transport system which is essential to our way of life, but that system exacts collateral damage in human life that is enormous. By choosing to have a network of roads, we are choosing to accept a certain number of civilians will die but we think the cost is worth the benefit. The same is true of almost anything we do, from the manufacture of plastic bags to the playing of competitive sport.

Ultimately the ethical debate here is probably one of sliding scales rather than definitive blacks and whites, my personal beef with the wars in the Middle East is that Western leaders have undervalued the human life being lost, that is to say the benefits of the operation (whatever they are) are not proportional to the human cost (nor the economic cost for that matter).

In fact that I suspect that the benefits are largely personal to Bush and his business cronies rather than generating any kind of universal utility and also that Bush actually places no value on human life other than the extent to which it impacts upon his political capital. Still I’m pretty sure Bush places a higher value on human life than Saddam (and certainly more than OBL) even if it a lot less than the value that I would place on it.

This is rather a simplification of the issue but it gives a glimpse of how I think on this matter, its hard to explain in detail. This is also quite a new ethical viewpoint for me (I have only recently started thinking this way) so feel free to give constructive criticism - its work in progress!

Anyway, this doesn’t really answer the thread but it leads to my main point (which is quite like QDrops) that responsibility for number of deaths is only part of the question. One may have created more dead bodies than the other, but in abstract that does not tell you much about who has done the most net harm.

[D_Raay]

Which is why we should have always been acting the part.

Not to say we weren't justified in vendetta, but the sequence was suspect of the truth, and the results were less than gratifying to true walkers of a higher ground.

[Pres Zount]

Same reason Bush is held responsible for Iraqi deaths and American soldier deaths. That is what this thread is implying, right?

By the way your purge numbers are extremely conservative. Read Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million by Martin Amis, it's all there.
I have read most of koba the dread. There are people on both sides of the extreme in relation to stalins murders, people that don't believe he ever killed anyone, and people that believe he killed tens of millions.


I don't want to get into birth and death rates during that time period, but if you factor in the ukranian famine (10million), 27million deaths in ww2, the russian civil war (another 10) AND stalins alleged 20 million... well things don't add up.

[Qdrop]

So it's OK to cause horrendous amounts of death and destruction as long as you mean well?

Intent doesn't count for shit. Consequences are what matter.

i see.
so by that logic....tobacco manufacturers, alcohol manufacturers, and gun manufacturers are the greatest murderers in the history of human civilization.

we should sentance them all to death, right?

doesn't matter about thier intentions.....the consequences of thier manufacturing has lead to billions of deaths.
they must pay, right?

and by that logic, you must feel that involuntary manslaughter is illogical in criminal court, right?
someone who falls asleep at the wheel on the way home after a long day at work and 3 beers..and kills a family of 4...
is no better than someone who walks into a family's house and shoots them all in the head...right?

it's all about the consequences....right?

[sam i am]

So it's OK to cause horrendous amounts of death and destruction as long as you mean well?

Intent doesn't count for shit. Consequences are what matter.

AAAAAMEEEEENNNNN!

Crap, Schmeltz, if you and I keep agreeing, I'm not so sure we can continue to be so adversarial in our relationship.....we might even be civil (a la Ali and I);) :p

[sam i am]

But Josef Stalin didn't start World War II. George Bush and his cronies did start the war in Iraq and are responsible not just for the military casualties but for the civilian deaths and sectarian killings as well.

You really think Stalin had no complicity in starting WWII?

Hmmmm.....

The NAzi-Soviet Pact of 1939 and the Soviet buildup along the new border with Germany pre-1941 would speak elsewise. That, plus his meancing of Japan in Manchuria, his war with the Finns, his annexations of the Baltic states and Bessarabia, his threats to go after oil supplies in the Middle East, his aspirations against the Turks and other Balkan nations were all EXTREMELY provocative against the Reich.

As for Bush starting the war in Iraq : do you think it might have been different if Sadaam had not kicked out the inspectors near the end?

[sam i am]

i see.
so by that logic....tobacco manufacturers, alcohol manufacturers, and gun manufacturers are the greatest murderers in the history of human civilization.

we should sentance them all to death, right?

Disingenuous. It isn't the manufacturers that are accountable. They didn't take the the action. Those who lit up each and every cigarette, despite all medical evidence of their danger....those who pull the trigger, with full knowledge of the outcome are the ones to be held accountable.

and by that logic, you must feel that involuntary manslaughter is illogical in criminal court, right?
someone who falls asleep at the wheel on the way home after a long day at work and 3 beers..and kills a family of 4...
is no better than someone who walks into a family's house and shoots them all in the head...right?

Again, disingenuous. Outcomes are what we're talking about here, but on a personal, day to day level, in our society, we have collectively decided that there exist layers of accountability for actions. I'm not one to necessarily agree that it's the best system, but criminal justice is a whole nother ball of wax.

it's all about the consequences....right?

In most cases, the outcomes, not the consequences. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but if society made the decision that we'd all be held accountable for our actions in a swift, just manner, then we'd be a whole diffferent kind of society.

[icy manipulator]

for the sadistic/genocide ratio Vlad the Impaler gets my vote

[Echewta]

We are.

[Qdrop]

Disingenuous. It isn't the manufacturers that are accountable. They didn't take the the action. Those who lit up each and every cigarette, despite all medical evidence of their danger....those who pull the trigger, with full knowledge of the outcome are the ones to be held accountable.

bullshit.
all of those manufacturers know thier products could kill....they don't intend them to...but they could.
and they DO kill.
the intent is not to kill.
the consequences are that they do.

by your logic, they are murderes.
consequences are all that matter.




Again, disingenuous. Outcomes are what we're talking about here,
the outcome is 4 deaths, either way. so it must be the same by your logic.


but on a personal, day to day level, in our society, we have collectively decided that there exist layers of accountability for actions. I'm not one to necessarily agree that it's the best system, but criminal justice is a whole nother ball of wax.
i see, so the criminal court system can assess degrees of accountability and intent vs. consequence...
but we can't do the same when assessing death tolls of collateral damage vs. intentional acts of terror or death.

i see.
don't bother validating that stance or anything...





In most cases, the outcomes, not the consequences.
oh, I see....those 2 things are differant.

are you just typing whatever comes to your head?

[STANKY808]

As for Bush starting the war in Iraq : do you think it might have been different if Sadaam had not kicked out the inspectors near the end?

Ummm, what is this about?

[Schmeltz]

This one first.


The NAzi-Soviet Pact of 1939 and the Soviet buildup along the new border with Germany pre-1941 would speak elsewise.


Not when placed in their proper context. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (which contained other provisions besides the division of Poland), the seizure of the Baltic states, and the terms enforced on Finland following the Winter War (which were quite generous relative to the positions held by each side) look more like an attempt to create a buffer zone between German and Soviet territory than an attempt to directly challenge Hitler. This is further born out by the negligence that characterized the Soviet military deployments in Eastern Europe, which are examined in detail in Harrison Salisbury's The 900 Days: many formations were not even up to peacetime strength in 1941, let alone prepared for war, and Stalin dismissed the Red Army's extensive intelligence reports of the German buildup as subterfuge because he was convinced that Hitler would adhere to the terms of their nonaggression pact. And the way things went in summer 1941 would seem to indicate that Stalin was caught completely off guard and certainly wasn't prepared for a war with Germany - had he been, it's conceivable that Operation Barbarossa wouldn't have enjoyed as many of the stunning successes it achieved as it enveloped entire Soviet armies and conquered the most developed areas of the USSR with astonishing rapidity.

Furthermore, if Stalin's aspirations in the Balkans were so "menacing" to the Third Reich, why did Hitler fail to intercede on behalf of Romania when the Soviets demanded large slices of that country's territory in 1940? When the Romanians appealed to him for help, he didn't even set up an arbitration like he did when Hungary and Bulgaria made similar claims - he simply ordered King Carol to yield the disputed regions to Stalin. Doesn't sound like he was too worried about the situation.

And finally, why would Stalin's "menacing of Japan in Manchuria" (which the Japanese apparently held in low regard given the assignment of virtually all their forces in Asia to the North China theater) or his "threats to go after oil supplies in the Middle East" (which were under French and British influence, not German) constitute such EXTREME provocation to Hitler? I can't think of any reasons why that should be.

On the other hand, Hitler had been championing a war against "Eastern Bolshevism" for almost two decades by the time he invaded the USSR; his distate for Communism, his association of it with "international Jewry," his belief in the inherent genetic inferiority of the Slavic peoples, and his firm conviction in the right of ethnic Germans to take Slavic lands for lebensraum all foreshadowed his intentions toward the USSR. Stalin can hardly be held responsible for that, I think.


do you think it might have been different if Sadaam had not kicked out the inspectors near the end?


Nope. As I recall, the inspectors were conducting their work in the shadow of a massive American military buildup in the Gulf and under the pressure of a deadlined imposed by an American administration eager to begin an invasion before the full heat of summer gripped the region. I also seem to recall that Saddam had actually begun to dismantle what little conventional weaponry he had, under UN supervision, immediately before the war started. I don't think it would have mattered if Saddam had personally flown to Washington DC to kowtow in front of Congress and swear to institute free elections within the week: your President and his cronies were dead-set on the invasion as soon as the towers went down on 9/11. Come to think of it, Hitler's crazy designs on the USSR as expressed in Mein Kampf are kind of similar to the PNAC's crazy designs on the Middle East as expressed in their own lunatic manifesto. One one level, anyway.

[Schmeltz]

Now then.


so by that logic....tobacco manufacturers, alcohol manufacturers, and gun manufacturers are the greatest murderers in the history of human civilization.


As sam pointed out (uh oh... ;)), this is indeed disingenuous because there is an element of direct personal responsibility inherent in all of those situations. Cigarettes couldn't kill anybody if nobody smoked, and guns couldn't kill anybody if nobody used them. But the victims of the Iraq war had no say in the matter; their country was invaded and reduced to an anarchic ruin not through their choices but entirely as a result of outside forces. If tobacco manufacturers sent agents to people's homes to fumugate them with cigarette smoke, or if gun manufacturers sent their employees armed into the streets to shoot people, your analogy would hold up. As it is, it doesn't.

Furthermore, I have little to no respect for cigarette companies or gun companies; I think they are the worst examples of capitalism in action and I think their destructive products cause nothing but woe in society. I'd prefer to see them abolished - but then again, if there wasn't a demand for their products, they probably would be.


someone who falls asleep at the wheel on the way home after a long day at work and 3 beers..and kills a family of 4...
is no better than someone who walks into a family's house and shoots them all in the head...right?


I don't have a problem with punishing drunk drivers who cause fatalities as harshly as murderers, no. But again this is not entirely analogous to our discussion. We're comparing those who deliberately cause destruction, but who have good intentions, with people who deliberately cause destruction, but who have bad intentions. Random accidents caused by the faults of otherwise ordinary people don't enter into the equation.


it's all about the consequences....right?


Damn right. All the good intentions in the world aren't going to make up for the shitstorm Bush and Co. have unleashed on Iraq, and on the world through Iraq. It's the Iraqi people who have to deal with dozens of tortured, maimed bodies found on their streets every day. And it's us who now have to deal with a growing generation of fanatic terrorists hardened by direct combat with the American army. We're supposed to let that slide because Bush meant well but he just didn't see things getting this bad? You can't honestly expect me to buy that.


The key difference is the value placed on human life, the ethical general places a positive value on that life and therefore requires a substantial benefit


I can appreciate that - but only in theory. Where's the "substantial benefit" in Iraq? If there had been some substantial benefit that could possibly atone for the horrors transpiring there, I might be able to come around to your point. But it's quite obvious that the "substantial benefit" in that cost-benefit analysis was nothing but a pipe dream, while the costs have escalated into a nightmare beyond anything I'm prepared to imagine.

[HAL 9000]

I can appreciate that - but only in theory. Where's the "substantial benefit" in Iraq? If there had been some substantial benefit that could possibly atone for the horrors transpiring there, I might be able to come around to your point. But it's quite obvious that the "substantial benefit" in that cost-benefit analysis was nothing but a pipe dream, while the costs have escalated into a nightmare beyond anything I'm prepared to imagine.


As I pointed out earlier, I am certainly not arguing that the Iraq war is justified, I do not think that the loss of life there is proportional to the benefits that have been extracted. In fact, I think that the Iraq war is wrong because, human life (particularly of the Iraqis) has been valued extremely low and the benefits from the operation were largely reaped by Bush and his business cronies. I am not using this ethical standpoint to justify war in Iraq, in fact, its quite the opposite. But I can imagine that there are circumstances in which all of that harm and destruction is ‘worth it’. Clearly nothing like the required level of benefit has been extracted in this case and I don’t suppose such a benefit was ever even intended which is why I think Bush probably only marginally better than Saddam and maybe even worse.

But I think this is a logical framework to use to judge situations like this because it recognises that situations do exist where military actions are justifiable and warranted.

[ShotgunBoy]

I personally do think intentions are important insofar as they do influence outcomes. Consider two individuals planning a military operation, a reasonably ethical general (ie one who values human life) and a terrorist. Both conduct a cost benefit analysis of the operation but they differ in that while the terrorist considers the loss of innocent lives a benefit (and indeed this is probably the objective of his operation) the general views it as a cost. This means for the general there needs to be a substantial potential benefit for the operation that exceeds the cost of life and also the economic costs involved. The key difference is the value placed on human life, the ethical general places a positive value on that life and therefore requires a substantial benefit if that life is to be put at risk the terrorist puts a negative value on that life and requires no extra benefit.

Before one dismisses the idea of placing a value on life, consider that this is done in almost every area of human endeavour. Most countries have a transport system which is essential to our way of life, but that system exacts collateral damage in human life that is enormous. By choosing to have a network of roads, we are choosing to accept a certain number of civilians will die but we think the cost is worth the benefit. The same is true of almost anything we do, from the manufacture of plastic bags to the playing of competitive sport.

Ultimately the ethical debate here is probably one of sliding scales rather than definitive blacks and whites, my personal beef with the wars in the Middle East is that Western leaders have undervalued the human life being lost, that is to say the benefits of the operation (whatever they are) are not proportional to the human cost (nor the economic cost for that matter).

In fact that I suspect that the benefits are largely personal to Bush and his business cronies rather than generating any kind of universal utility and also that Bush actually places no value on human life other than the extent to which it impacts upon his political capital. Still I’m pretty sure Bush places a higher value on human life than Saddam (and certainly more than OBL) even if it a lot less than the value that I would place on it.

This is rather a simplification of the issue but it gives a glimpse of how I think on this matter, its hard to explain in detail. This is also quite a new ethical viewpoint for me (I have only recently started thinking this way) so feel free to give constructive criticism - its work in progress!

Anyway, this doesn’t really answer the thread but it leads to my main point (which is quite like QDrops) that responsibility for number of deaths is only part of the question. One may have created more dead bodies than the other, but in abstract that does not tell you much about who has done the most net harm.

holy-mutherfucking-sheizer. thats a long post!:eek:

[Ali]

Hey, look!

George is winning !:p

[DroppinScience]

This feels like an inherently stupid thread. It's as if counting all the bodies is a pissing contest or something.

[QueenAdrock]

Why no votes for Blair? What about all the rest of the countries that supported the Iraqi war? Why does George have all the blood on his hands?

This is a dumb thread. I mean, I hate Bush. But I'm not about to say he's as bad as someone who had a genocide against his people and ended up with 180,000 of his people gassed, executed, deported, whatever else.

I'm under the firm belief that though he's a fucking dumbass who can't lead his way out of a paper bag and has pretty much nothing but shitty decisions, he's no Hussein, Hitler, Pol Pot, whatever else.

[Bob]

simply comparing body counts while in power is misleading and irresponsible.

INTENT matters.

liberals like to gloss over that fact.

to be fair, i doubt the dead care about intent

one way or the other

[Pres Zount]

I think intent matters, but it's still of secondary importance to consequences/outcome/whatever.

You can have the worst intent in the world, but you can't be found guilty of anything unless you act upon that intent and produce some kind of consequence.

[Ali]

I'm under the firm belief that though he's a fucking dumbass who can't lead his way out of a paper bag and has pretty much nothing but shitty decisions, he's no Hussein, Hitler, Pol Pot, whatever else.That's the impression he wants you to have.

Do you really think that the invasion of Iraq was to get rid of Saddam? There are plenty of despots around the world with much higher body counts than him, why are they left alone by the US?

The purpose of this thread is to promote debate about causality and accountability, now that Saddam's been brought to justice. There's blood on everybody's hands, not just his. I think that we should not lose sight of this. There were other ways of getting rid of him, unilateral ways, bloodless ways. Yes, they'd have taken a while, but surely a gradual removal of the head causes less damage to the body than sudden decapitation and forced replacement?

Blair followed Bush into Iraq, which is prolly why he's getting fewer votes.

[Qdrop]

As sam pointed out (uh oh... ;)), this is indeed disingenuous because there is an element of direct personal responsibility inherent in all of those situations. Cigarettes couldn't kill anybody if nobody smoked, and guns couldn't kill anybody if nobody used them. But the victims of the Iraq war had no say in the matter; their country was invaded and reduced to an anarchic ruin not through their choices but entirely as a result of outside forces. If tobacco manufacturers sent agents to people's homes to fumugate them with cigarette smoke, or if gun manufacturers sent their employees armed into the streets to shoot people, your analogy would hold up. As it is, it doesn't.

Furthermore, I have little to no respect for cigarette companies or gun companies; I think they are the worst examples of capitalism in action and I think their destructive products cause nothing but woe in society. I'd prefer to see them abolished - but then again, if there wasn't a demand for their products, they probably would be.



I don't have a problem with punishing drunk drivers who cause fatalities as harshly as murderers, no. But again this is not entirely analogous to our discussion. We're comparing those who deliberately cause destruction, but who have good intentions, with people who deliberately cause destruction, but who have bad intentions. Random accidents caused by the faults of otherwise ordinary people don't enter into the equation.
these aren't perfect analogies, as you pointed out...
but thier use was meant to focus on the intent of the initial supplier of "death".
if your equation of "consequences > intent" is to hold true...those industries should be tried for murder. true, thier customers choose to buy those products...but those manufactures don't have to sell them either. they KNOW they could kill someone, not thier intent, but...intent doesn't matter....just the consequences.




Damn right. All the good intentions in the world aren't going to make up for the shitstorm Bush and Co. have unleashed on Iraq, and on the world through Iraq. It's the Iraqi people who have to deal with dozens of tortured, maimed bodies found on their streets every day. And it's us who now have to deal with a growing generation of fanatic terrorists hardened by direct combat with the American army. We're supposed to let that slide because Bush meant well but he just didn't see things getting this bad? You can't honestly expect me to buy that.
abso-fuckin-lutely.

okay, badly-fitting analogies aside...YOU cannot possibley expect me to buy that Bush/Blair are no better than Saddam based purely on body counts of war they have waged...
i shouldn't even have to debate this with you.

the "perfect weapon" scenario i recited earlier (thank you, Sam Harris) pretty much spells out my point.
intent matters...ethically and morally, it matters.
to pretend it doesn't is such a blind, stubborn, and ignorant display of number crunching, it deserves harrassment.

and it's also rather hypocritical of one to bleat out ethical support of those that have died...but give no credence to the ethics of the men and actions behind those deaths.

[Schmeltz]

but thier use was meant to focus on the intent of the initial supplier of "death".


But we're talking about complicity in addition to intent; the actual question for debate is "who is responsible for the greatest loss of life?" People who purchase cigarettes, misuse alcohol, and commit murders with guns are directly complicit in the consequences of these actions and hence bear a portion of the responsibility for them. The tobacco and gun companies also shoulder part of the burden, but they can't be held directly responsible for what's done with their products. You're the last person I'd expect to see arguing for the abdication of personal responsibility. What's the deal?


YOU cannot possibley expect me to buy that Bush/Blair are no better than Saddam based purely on body counts of war they have waged


I don't expect you to buy that, or I would have argued for it. I don't think Bush is as bad as Saddam, but I don't consider him much better.


intent matters...ethically and morally, it matters.


Gee, why hasn't somebody told that to the Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads? I'm sure they'd lay down their arms and go home happy if they only knew Bush meant well!

We're not talking about ethical or moral abstracts, we're talking about the hard facts of completely innocent, ordinary people subjected to the catastrophic use of horrifically destructive instruments of violence by completely detached ideological warmongers. When I look at the situation in honest terms, it's pretty tough to come around to the idea that the intent with which that destruction is employed ought to count for anything in the final analysis of its reality.

[QueenAdrock]

That's the impression he wants you to have.

Do you really think that the invasion of Iraq was to get rid of Saddam? There are plenty of despots around the world with much higher body counts than him, why are they left alone by the US?

If you honestly think I believe that, I don't think you've read my posts.

Here's one of mine from August of last year:

I'd feel better if they were over there and fighting an actual WAR, if we were over there because we were attacked by them to begin with (big fat no with that one), or if we were over there to help with genocide. I know what people are going to say, "But Queen, there was genocide lol." Yeah, and if Bush had said "We're going into Iraq to take care of the genocide that's happening up north because mass murders are fucked up," I probably would not have as big a problem with it as I do. I heard "OMG they have WMD's and everyone's going to die if we don't go in," (nice scare tactics there), so everyone freaked out and gave them the okay. Oops, there are no WMD's. So they make up some shit about how they *actually* went there for "liberation". They didn't. Freedom was merely an afterthought, another justification to go to war after they realized that the WMD-shit fell through and the public was getting angry. They'll say anything because no matter what they say, whether we're there for WMDs, or because of terrorism, or because we want to spread democracy, they're all lies. We're there for the sweet money they have waiting for us in their precious oil. If we cared about bringing democracy to the world, or getting terrorists in their homeland, we'd be going to war with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the fundamentalists in Sudan. But we're not.


But that wasn't my point in this thread. I know Bush started a bullshit war, and I do know that he's got massive amounts of blood on his hands. MY point was that if you're trying to truly compare the two, it's still silly. Bush is a bad man. True. Saddam is a worse man. Fact. One of them started a genocide against his people, the other one started a bullshit war. They're both terrible things, but I do believe that genocide against your people wins.

[Qdrop]

But we're talking about complicity in addition to intent; the actual question for debate is "who is responsible for the greatest loss of life?" People who purchase cigarettes, misuse alcohol, and commit murders with guns are directly complicit in the consequences of these actions and hence bear a portion of the responsibility for them. The tobacco and gun companies also shoulder part of the burden, but they can't be held directly responsible for what's done with their products. You're the last person I'd expect to see arguing for the abdication of personal responsibility. What's the deal?
again, not a perfect analogy....but my point was to focus on the intent of the source...the propigator...you're just focusing on the division of blame between the manufacturer and those that choose to buy the product and use it unwisely.
yeah, i get that...we all get that....the analogy is not a perfect fit.
though you are glossing over the fact (which is odd for YOU), that a probable majority of the buyers misuse thier products...causing billions of $$ in damages and millions of deaths every year.
and the manufacturers know this and care little....they wash thier hands of it by pointing to "free choice".

that being said, and as you questioned...no, i'm not for persicuting the manufacturers of these products...
while i loathe the tobacco industry and elements of the other industries for the most part...the ultimate responsibility resides with the purchaser.
(unless the manufacturer can be shown to be a liar- to have lied to the public about the safety of thier product..which was true once upon a time...but no longer).

my point of that analogy was not to state my stance of responsibility of "merchants of death"....but to point out possible incongruities in your own ethics.


Gee, why hasn't somebody told that to the Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads? I'm sure they'd lay down their arms and go home happy if they only knew Bush meant well! the insurgents aren't fighting to avenge the death of innocents....they're fighting a jihad...of religious and national importance. they fight for islam and thier own percieved need for imperialist conquest, and for the percieved independance of Iraq.
Al Zarqawi didn't give a shit about dead iraqi children.

collateral damage causes more harm to national support of the US by Iraqi nationals, rather than bolstering the minds of foreign insurgencies...they're not in it for the kids...

We're not talking about ethical or moral abstracts, we're talking about the hard facts of completely innocent, ordinary people subjected to the catastrophic use of horrifically destructive instruments of violence by completely detached ideological warmongers. When I look at the situation in honest terms, it's pretty tough to come around to the idea that the intent with which that destruction is employed ought to count for anything in the final analysis of its reality. that argument is completey emotionaly based...as opposed to rational and logical.
just a Mrs. Lovejoy "won't somebody think of the children" retort...

[sam i am]

There are plenty of despots around the world with much higher body counts than him, why are they left alone by the US?


Name them.

[Schmeltz]

my point of that analogy was not to state my stance of responsibility of "merchants of death"....but to point out possible incongruities in your own ethics.


Well, I think the analogy failed to do that. You'll need to construct another one in order to convince me that I've posited an incongruity.


the insurgents aren't fighting to avenge the death of innocents....they're fighting a jihad...of religious and national importance.


That's true, and I didn't mean to imply that there was some kind of righteous motive behind the deplorable acts committed by these terrorists. But the fact is that their golden opportunity to wage this vile jihad was deposited directly into their laps by Bush and his program of regime change, and they would be sitting idle if the war had never been waged. Bush and his cronies bear direct responsibility for the state of affairs in Iraq, no matter how well they meant when they sent the troops in, and that's all that ought to matter in the final analysis.


that argument is completey emotionaly based...as opposed to rational and logical.


No, it's you who's arguing in terms of ethics and morals, trying to paint some kind of rosy glow over the reality of the situation with your empty pontificating about the relevance of intent. I'm looking realistically and rationally at the consequences of people's actions while you're insisting that we look at their philosophies and ideologies instead of the reality created by the implementation of those ideas. If you think it's "illogical" to fully take into account the barbaric horrors that take place in Iraq on a daily basis, then all I can say is that you're not taking the situation seriously enough. This is a very real problem that can't be explained away with platitudes about how we should forgive Bush because he's better than Saddam.

[Ali]

Bush is a bad man. True. Saddam is a worse man. Fact. One of them started a genocide against his people, the other one started a bullshit war. They're both terrible things, but I do believe that genocide against your people wins. The Ba'athists didn't put Bush in power to further their own ends and genocide against against your own people is no worse than genocide against somebody else's people.

[Ali]

Name them.Oh, I don't know. Kim Jong il, Robert Mugabe, Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir... plenty.

None with oil, though.

[QueenAdrock]

The Ba'athists didn't put Bush in power to further their own ends and genocide against against your own people is no worse than genocide against somebody else's people.

gen.o.cide
–noun

"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."

Wars and genocide are not the same thing. To assume that innocent lives lost in war is the same as deliberately murdering in order to extinct a race of people takes the impact away from the word "genocide" and makes light of what is happening in places like Sudan.

[Ali]

gen.o.cide
–noun

"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."

Wars and genocide are not the same thing. To assume that innocent lives lost in war is the same as deliberately murdering in order to extinct a race of people takes the impact away from the word "genocide" and makes light of what is happening in places like Sudan.OK, so who was Saddam systematic exterminating? The Kurds? Shiites? Not that it's any excuse, but surely he's not alone in all this. I'm sure you know who the first person to suggest gassing the Kurds was and the Sunnis were (and still are) heavily outnumbered by Shiites in Iraq.

Like you said yourself, the invasion of Iraq was not about getting rid of Saddam, it was about oil and Israel and neocon world domination. His execution (such prescient timing for the sentencing, dotchathink) is another diversion from what's really going on in the Middle East.

Yes, he has blood on his hands, yes, he deliberately killed innocent people, but my point is that he is not alone in all this. He was put there by the CIA (http://readthese.blogspot.com/2003_12_15_readthese_archive.html) to help the US fight Iran by proxy and received more support in this respect than he ever did from the UN (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm). Why are none of his accessories to murder (http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg) being tried alongside him? Why is the blood spilt in getting rid of him justified, when he was placed there by the same people who got rid of him?

The whole thing stinks.

[Qdrop]

That's true, and I didn't mean to imply that there was some kind of righteous motive behind the deplorable acts committed by these terrorists. But the fact is that their golden opportunity to wage this vile jihad was deposited directly into their laps by Bush and his program of regime change, and they would be sitting idle if the war had never been waged. Bush and his cronies bear direct responsibility for the state of affairs in Iraq, no matter how well they meant when they sent the troops in, and that's all that ought to matter in the final analysis.
*sigh*
tis true...



No, it's you who's arguing in terms of ethics and morals, trying to paint some kind of rosy glow over the reality of the situation with your empty pontificating about the relevance of intent. I'm looking realistically and rationally at the consequences of people's actions while you're insisting that we look at their philosophies and ideologies instead of the reality created by the implementation of those ideas. If you think it's "illogical" to fully take into account the barbaric horrors that take place in Iraq on a daily basis, then all I can say is that you're not taking the situation seriously enough. This is a very real problem that can't be explained away with platitudes about how we should forgive Bush because he's better than Saddam.
i'm not attempting to be dismissive of collateral damage....only to point out that the intent behind collateral damage is not malevolant (by it's very definition)...and that should be kept in mind when assessing the ethics behind national leaders and teh death toll that accumulated under thier rule.

the very devisive intent of this thread was to use body counts as a measure of ethical stature, rather than the intent behind those body counts...which is miopic and ignorant - and perfect fodder for GOP line-towers to take aim at and stereotype the left with...

[sam i am]

Oh, I don't know. Kim Jong il, Robert Mugabe, Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir... plenty.

None with oil, though.

None of your examples even comes close to the magnitude of death and torture that Saddam instituted while he was in power. Kim Jong Il is a poor example anyways, as the US (and the world) has railed against his megolomanical idiocy since the day he took power. We also fought a little conflict called the Korean War for 3 years from 1950-1953, if you'll remember with honesty instead of attempting to grandstand.

Robert Mugabe and Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir are also not even in the same league as Saddam was.

Try again.

[sam i am]

He was put there by the CIA (http://readthese.blogspot.com/2003_12_15_readthese_archive.html) to help the US fight Iran by proxy

The article you link to actually exposes Kennedy's crappy decision to support Saddam in the first place. Must suck for a liberal-minded person such as yourself.

Disingenuously, you link that to the support for Saddam during the 1980-88 war with Iran. Contextually, why don't you point out what happened in Iran in 1979 to Americans? Huh?

Additionally, you CONVENIENTLY forget the context of the Cold War as a player in the geopolitics of the time.

Play honest or don't bother trying, please.

[QueenAdrock]

Sam, just curious. Do you think we went into Iraq for Saddam? Why do you think we're there?

[Schmeltz]

Must suck for a liberal-minded person such as yourself.


Right, because all liberal-minded people everywhere absolutely worship Kennedy and think of him as the most perfect incarnation of political leadership ever to grace the globe.


Contextually, why don't you point out what happened in Iran in 1979 to Americans?


Ah yes, the hostage situation. The hostage situation that justified American support for a megalomaniacal tyrant in a senseless and destructive war, but didn't stop the American government from selling weaponry to his opponents in order to fund another vicious proxy war on the other side of the world. Must suck for a conservative-minded person such as yourself.

Oh but wait it was the Cold War so it was all OK.

[sam i am]

Sam, just curious. Do you think we went into Iraq for Saddam? Why do you think we're there?

I think that Bush (and his coterie of advisers) truly had a vision of a transformed Middle East after 9/11. Afghanistan, in their view, proved the efficacy of American arms and they believed the intelligence, as most of the world did, that Saddam was producing (or very close to producing) nuclear arms. Plus, Iraq had already been "softened up" by the first Gulf War and we knew the terrain/capabilities of the Iraqi army. As a side benefit, the overthrow of Saddam would allow for the free flow of oil throughout the region while putting a scare into Iran/Syria.

I think we're still there because we need to finish what we started. American integrity, as battered as it is worldwide, would suffer a much more greivous blow if we allowed Iraq to denigrate any further. I think the Iraq Study Commission will have some good reccomendations that will allow us to get out with some degree of integrity and honor intact.

[sam i am]

Ah yes, the hostage situation. The hostage situation that justified American support for a megalomaniacal tyrant in a senseless and destructive war, but didn't stop the American government from selling weaponry to his opponents in order to fund another vicious proxy war on the other side of the world. Must suck for a conservative-minded person such as yourself.

Oh but wait it was the Cold War so it was all OK.

You know, as a historian, Schmeltz, that geopolitics played an immensely large role in decision-making of the time. We could also debate the Arms Race, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the importance of Vietnam's lingering effects, etc., etal.

As for Iran-Contra : yep....was a bad decision....except that it led to eventual victory for the Contras over the Sandinistas (a much closer threat to home).

Sometimes, NOT always, the ends do justify the means.

[Pres Zount]

Sometimes, NOT always, the ends do justify the means.
...But you have to justify the ends, first.

[sam i am]

...But you have to justify the ends, first.

The end of ending Sandinista control of Nicaragua was justified in terms of the Cold War at the time. Chamorro was freely elected and Ortega went out of power. Now, peaceably, he's returned to power nearly 20 years later.

The ends justified the means.

[QueenAdrock]

One of my favorites from America: The Book:

Machiavelli on Himself:

"Call me a dreamer, but one day, my name will become an adjective for everything cynical and untrustworthy in human nature."

[kaiser soze]

humans

[sam i am]

humans

You've devolved into large fonts and single word responses, I see....

How gauche.

[Ali]

I think that Bush (and his coterie of advisers) truly had a vision of a transformed Middle East after 9/11. Afghanistan, in their view, proved the efficacy of American arms and they believed the intelligence, as most of the world did, that Saddam was producing (or very close to producing) nuclear arms. Plus, Iraq had already been "softened up" by the first Gulf War and we knew the terrain/capabilities of the Iraqi army. As a side benefit, the overthrow of Saddam would allow for the free flow of oil throughout the region while putting a scare into Iran/Syria.

I think we're still there because we need to finish what we started. American integrity, as battered as it is worldwide, would suffer a much more greivous blow if we allowed Iraq to denigrate any further. I think the Iraq Study Commission will have some good reccomendations that will allow us to get out with some degree of integrity and honor intact.

What a happy world you live in.

[sam i am]

What a happy world you live in.

What an unhappy, fear-filled world you live in.

[QueenAdrock]

^ Up until two weeks ago yesterday. :p

[sam i am]

^ Up until two weeks ago yesterday. :p

Except that Ali lives in the UK, where he can still daily fear the pathos of Mr. Blair and dreadfully anticipate the return to power of the Tories (one of whom he already said he's voting for this next election round).

Talk about bipolar.

[Schmeltz]

except that it led to eventual victory for the Contras over the Sandinistas (a much closer threat to home).


Are you serious? The Sandinistas were a "threat" to the United States? I don't know how or why you can harbour such ridiculous ideas.


The end of ending Sandinista control of Nicaragua was justified in terms of the Cold War at the time.


... no matter who had to pay the price. Especially since it wasn't you or your countrymen, by and large.


I think we're still there because we need to finish what we started.


You're still there because you have created a hellish nightmare (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq) for the people of Iraq and it's your responsibility to fix it. Check those numbers - 3709 Iraqi civilians killed violently last month alone, all due to the barbaric horror of the Bush administration's pet project to spread democracy. That's more, by a large margin, than Osama bin Laden killed on 9/11. And that's just one month.

When will you get it? The ends do not justify the means when we're talking about these kinds of terrifying abuses. There is no rational end that can justify the perpetuation of this savagery. It is sickening to watch you trumpet the supposed virtues of this destructive interventionism, as though they could possibly be excused for all the devestation they've caused with such hollow ideological moralizing.

[Ali]

When will you get it? The ends do not justify the means when we're talking about these kinds of terrifying abuses.When the Ends are preserving the American Way of Life, then of course the Means are justified.

You think the suffering of the Brown People in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, etc. is worse than the suffering of Americans who have to pay more for petrol and colour TV's?

Others don't.

[sam i am]

^^^^

Ali's right, of course.;)

Americanism (and the Imperial American Hegemony) will prevail!

Viva la Capitalismo!

[Ali]

I'm looking forward to that shopping trip in New York... almost 2$ to the £... nice and cheap!!!

[sam i am]

I'm looking forward to that shopping trip in New York... almost 2$ to the £... nice and cheap!!!

Thank you for perpetuating that which you most denigrate : American Capitalism. Buy from us & save a buck. Put those sales tax dollars into our coffers to rain death and destruction upon Iraq.

You're a contributor to the problem....not the solution:p


































Just in case.....the above is meant in total jest.;) :p