next »

[dark_globe]

2. Another thought:  given the fantasy of confronting China that many neoconservative writers were engaging 6-7 years ago (e.g., in journals like The National Interest), perhaps the war in Iraq has an upside:  arguably it has forced the US to be more judicious re: China. 

The illegal and criminal invasion of a sovereign nation that has resulted in the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people cannot possibly have an "upside."

By what logic?  I'd suggest that really, really bad stuff that happens often comes with an upside.  Heck, even World War II, which ALSO began illegally (I refer to Japan's invasion of China and Germany's invasion of Poland) but killed tens of MILLIONS rather than tens of thousands of innocent people, certainly had an upside or two (not that I would recommend paying the price of the downside in order to get the upside).

I don't know to what extent a war with China-- or Iran-- has been made less likely because of being tied down in Iraq.  Which is why I had to say "perhaps."  But I don't see why, IF, the war in Iraq rendered other (possibly more destructive) wars less likely, that wouldn't count as an "upside."  I'm more comfortable with "perhaps" than "cannot possibly" in this trade-off. 

I am, of course, beginning with the premise that Wolfwowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and the rest, were spoiling for a fight and looking for an occasion, and I don't think it was ever very likely they were going to make it through 4 years without invading somebody. 

Saying there might be an upside does not even slightly call into question the overwhelming badness of the Iraq War.

I've read a lot of your posts and I find you to be a very reasonable and sincere person, but I could not disagree with you more. There is no upside to murder. It is unequivocably evil and to argue that something good can come out of it is, from my perspective, inhuman.

[helpful]

I am, of course, beginning with the premise that Wolfwowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and the rest, were spoiling for a fight and looking for an occasion, and I don't think it was ever very likely they were going to make it through 4 years without invading somebody. 

Exactly why they are war criminals. I see that Wolfy is now getting his comeuppance. Not even G.W.'s pals in the UK are supporting him at the World Bank.

[spork]

Why won't anyone think of the children?

[jackie_d]

Why won't anyone think of the children?

That's a Simpsons quote, isn't it?

I might be wrong, but I think the invasion of Poland was completely legal since:
1) Germany left the League of Nations in 1933;
2) Hitler in 1939 withdrew from the Non-Aggression Pact stipulated with Poland in 1934.

[kilpikonna]

dark_globe, I think I understand your emotional reaction to the war (I'm not a fan, either), but I also think you go too far in saying that nothing good can ever come of murder.  This simply isn't true -- evil actions have good incidental consequences, and vice versa, all the time.  That's not to say that I buy it when people try to justify wrongdoing by pointing to good consequences thereof -- I feel like that's what you're reacting to, but I'm not sure that that's what was actually said.

[aardvark]

dark_globe, I think I understand your emotional reaction to the war (I'm not a fan, either), but I also think you go too far in saying that nothing good can ever come of murder.  This simply isn't true -- evil actions have good incidental consequences, and vice versa, all the time.  That's not to say that I buy it when people try to justify wrongdoing by pointing to good consequences thereof -- I feel like that's what you're reacting to, but I'm not sure that that's what was actually said.

This is basically where I'm coming from.

And just to be clear, I wouldn't for a minute say WW2 was "worth it."  And my biggest gripe with the Iraq War (aside from the shameless fabrication of a "bureaucratic excuse" in Wolfowitz's words) has always been the claim that the Iraqis are better off because of our intervention.  In reality, there are Iraqis who made the best of a bad situation under Saddam Hussein, who now have seen their sisters killed, their houses destroyed, and their legs lopped off; such Iraqis are clearly not better off.

But if murder is bad, then tens of thousands of murders is a marginally better result than tens of thousands plus one, IMHO.  And *if* the Iraq war has made our admin. less likely to go after China or Iran or some other power who REALLY has WMDs, then we may have been spared something far worse than tens of thousands plus one.

At the risk of hacking off K16, my own sentiments on the Iraq War are that if God herself offered me the choice of 25 American soldiers dying vs. 26 Iraqis dying, I'd choose the former because at that point I'd just be aiming for the lower number.  And that's without even getting into the civilians vs. soldiers question, which would complicate it still further since in my view civilians have a stronger presumption of right to survive than soldiers do. 

I realize, too, the potential callousness of discussing killing and dying as if it were a mere theoretical/ academic issue.  I'm not meaning to be callous, merely to say that I'm very, very glad that the book on my shelf, Ted Galen Carpenter's *America's Coming War with China* (Palgrave 2005) so far hasn't come true.

Does anyone have any opinions on the issue of voting from a global perspective instead of with a view of what's best for America?

[dark_globe]

dark_globe, I think I understand your emotional reaction to the war (I'm not a fan, either), but I also think you go too far in saying that nothing good can ever come of murder.  This simply isn't true -- evil actions have good incidental consequences, and vice versa, all the time.  That's not to say that I buy it when people try to justify wrongdoing by pointing to good consequences thereof -- I feel like that's what you're reacting to, but I'm not sure that that's what was actually said.

This is basically where I'm coming from.

And just to be clear, I wouldn't for a minute say WW2 was "worth it."  And my biggest gripe with the Iraq War (aside from the shameless fabrication of a "bureaucratic excuse" in Wolfowitz's words) has always been the claim that the Iraqis are better off because of our intervention.  In reality, there are Iraqis who made the best of a bad situation under Saddam Hussein, who now have seen their sisters killed, their houses destroyed, and their legs lopped off; such Iraqis are clearly not better off.

But if murder is bad, then tens of thousands of murders is a marginally better result than tens of thousands plus one, IMHO.  And *if* the Iraq war has made our admin. less likely to go after China or Iran or some other power who REALLY has WMDs, then we may have been spared something far worse than tens of thousands plus one.

At the risk of hacking off K16, my own sentiments on the Iraq War are that if God herself offered me the choice of 25 American soldiers dying vs. 26 Iraqis dying, I'd choose the former because at that point I'd just be aiming for the lower number.  And that's without even getting into the civilians vs. soldiers question, which would complicate it still further since in my view civilians have a stronger presumption of right to survive than soldiers do. 

I realize, too, the potential callousness of discussing killing and dying as if it were a mere theoretical/ academic issue.  I'm not meaning to be callous, merely to say that I'm very, very glad that the book on my shelf, Ted Galen Carpenter's *America's Coming War with China* (Palgrave 2005) so far hasn't come true.

Does anyone have any opinions on the issue of voting from a global perspective instead of with a view of what's best for America?

Thanks for your reply, juris. As I said before, your posts have always been very thoughtful and demonstrate sincere concern, so I wasn't attacking you. However, one thing you said in this post focuses on what bothers me:

I realize, too, the potential callousness of discussing killing and dying as if it were a mere theoretical/ academic issue. 

The whole Iraq disaster is discussed regularly as a theoretical issue. Look at how everyone is beside themselves because of the Virginia Tech massacre. Those massacres happen in Iraq EVERY DAY because of what the United States did. No one ever bats an eyelid, but when something similar happens JUST ONCE in the US, everyone is crying and moaning about the inhumanity of it all.

That's why I took your initial comment the way I did.

[kilpikonna]

The whole Iraq disaster is discussed regularly as a theoretical issue. Look at how everyone is beside themselves because of the Virginia Tech massacre. Those massacres happen in Iraq EVERY DAY because of what the United States did. No one ever bats an eyelid, but when something similar happens JUST ONCE in the US, everyone is crying and moaning about the inhumanity of it all.

That's why I took your initial comment the way I did.

Yeah, we agree here that this is morally indefensible.  I'm not sure it's avoidable -- I suspect that our tendency to provinciality is a big part of what makes us human -- but yes, it makes me cringe, too.

[aardvark]

The whole Iraq disaster is discussed regularly as a theoretical issue. Look at how everyone is beside themselves because of the Virginia Tech massacre. Those massacres happen in Iraq EVERY DAY because of what the United States did. No one ever bats an eyelid, but when something similar happens JUST ONCE in the US, everyone is crying and moaning about the inhumanity of it all.

That's why I took your initial comment the way I did.

Yeah, we agree here that this is morally indefensible.  I'm not sure it's avoidable -- I suspect that our tendency to provinciality is a big part of what makes us human -- but yes, it makes me cringe, too.

I agree.  183 people killed in Baghdad in one day (233 nation-wide). 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169833/

To me, a person is a person, and 183 dead Baghdadis bothers me as much as 183 dead Americans or 183 dead Iranians or (etc.).