Oliver on the Iraqi death toll.

[Matteo Martini]

So, how do you square the “Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder” and the “I don’t”?

As while the American soldiers did not directly kill civilians (*), the American military intervention in Iraq has generated ( some of ) the conditions for the 500000 deaths to happen

(*) civilians victims in Iraq have, however, directly being killed by American forces during bombings, and so on..

 

[Matteo Martini]

For such a murder to count as a (result of) an American war-crime, it is not needed that the moral agency be completely removed from said islamists. You're simply posing a false dilemma.
Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime.
Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility.

I am not speaking for Oliver and Brumsen, but that is my position too.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

OK, I will have a try, though of course I can't be sure to speak for Oliver entirely.

For such a murder to count as a (result of) an American war-crime, it is not needed that the moral agency be completely removed from said islamists. You're simply posing a false dilemma.

No. It is Oliver's position that it's solely an American War CrimE

Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime.

No it didn't and no it's not. Wrong and wrong.While they did not do adequete planning, that is at best a crime of being stupid.Are you going to have being stupid a crime now?

Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility.

Logical, but quite unsound. You could say the US government didn't adquetly protect them.. but.. the fact they're trying is sorta a monkey wrench in your argument.

While the US government may be ultimately responsible and morally so.. it is not legally so. And it falls far short of the definition of a war crime.

 

[brumsen]

No. It is Oliver's position that it's solely an American War CrimE

The suicide bomber himself is responsible.
Secondly, the Islamist group he belonged to.

No it didn't and no it's not. Wrong and wrong.While they did not do adequete planning, that is at best a crime of being stupid.Are you going to have being stupid a crime now?

There is according to international law a duty of the occupying force to protect the civilian population. True, I am not quite sure if that makes not properly fulfilling that duty technically a war crime. And yes, there was awareness that the invading force was not sufficient to guarantee stability.

You could say the US government didn't adquetly protect them.. but.. the fact they're trying is sorta a monkey wrench in your argument.

No. It would have to be trying adequately. Lack of success does not necessarily mean the duty is not being fulfilled, but just trying does not necessarily mean it is.

 

[Par]

For such a murder to count as a (result of) an American war-crime, it is not needed that the moral agency be completely removed from said islamists.

Quite possibly. But remember, the idea that the murders were a causal result of American destabilisation was not Oliver’s original claim. He stated that those killed in Iraq had been murdered by America.

 

[Par]

Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime. Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility.

As while the American soldiers did not directly kill civilians (*), the American military intervention in Iraq has generated ( some of ) the conditions for the 500000 deaths to happen

I refer you both to these two posts:

[O]f course those responsible for the initial destabilisation must bear a kind of overall, second-order moral responsibility for the carnage that has followed.

...what exactly was the reason for suicide bombers to get an issue? Saddam - or toppling Saddam?

Well, both would bear some responsibility for that.

 

[Par]

However.... in order to substantiate that position it does seem to me that Stout's point about the exact body count needs to be adressed: "What happens if we compare the numbers of "innocents" killed under Saddam's regime, to the numbers killed under the occupation, how far apart might the two totals be?"

The number of innocents killed by the Allied war on Nazism doubtless exceeds – by orders of magnitude – the number killed by al-Qaeda. It would seem decidedly dubious, however, to start basing moral conclusions on that disparity.

 

[Par]

Par, how does your geographic location show that you are not an American citizen?

You’re right. It was perfectly sensible of Oliver to see “Valencia, Spain” and assume that I am an American citizen (even after I told him twice that I am not).

 

[brumsen]

But remember, the idea that the murders were a causal result of American destabilisation was not Oliver’s original claim. He stated that those killed in Iraq had been murdered by America.

Where, exactly?

I refer you both to these two posts:

Sure, I had seen that your position is not that different from mine. However, "second order, overall responsibility" is too vague to my taste.
Anyway, as was clear from my post, I took issue with the false dilemma that you posed.

The number of innocents killed by the Allied war on Nazism doubtless exceeds – by orders of magnitude – the number killed by al-Qaeda. It would seem decidedly dubious, however, to start basing moral conclusions on that disparity.

You are missing the point by miles. The point is to compare the actual situation in Iraq with the situation that would have existed now in the hypothetical case that there had been no US invasion. This says something about whether the net result of the invasion is positive, and has a bearing on the judgement whether US troops have adequately protected civilians.
Other wars have nothing to do with this.

You’re right. It was perfectly sensible of Oliver to see “Valencia, Spain” and assume that I am an American citizen (even after I told him twice that I am not).

It wasn't, and I didn't say that it was. I wasn't talking about Olivers assumption. I was taking issue with what you said:

...that you evidently do not actually read my posts. I have already told you: I am not an American citizen. It says as much under my name.

It does not. It only says where you are located. So I did not see why you accused Oliver of not reading your posts (even if, since, he has apologised for making the assumption about your citizenship)

 

[Par]

Where, exactly?

Here:

Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder.

 

[Par]

I took issue with the false dilemma that you posed.

Remember, it would only have been a false dichotomy if Oliver had merely been claiming that the murders were a causal result of American destabilisation. However, as we have seen, he was initially claiming that those killed in Iraq had been murdered by America.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

There is according to international law a duty of the occupying force to protect the civilian population. True, I am not quite sure if that makes not properly fulfilling that duty technically a war crime. And yes, there was awareness that the invading force was not sufficient to guarantee stability.

No, not by Bush. He outright ignored Powell, unfourntly. (Incidently, would you mind pointing out where that is in the treaties the US signed? Otherwise I'm afraid it's not something the US must recognize as a war crime.

No. It would have to be trying adequately. Lack of success does not necessarily mean the duty is not being fulfilled, but just trying does not necessarily mean it is.

I don't honestly think it's a war crime if you fail to meet someone's perceieved target.

 

[Par]

The point is to compare the actual situation in Iraq with the situation that would have existed now in the hypothetical case that there had been no US invasion. This says something about whether the net result of the invasion is positive...

Comparing the situations might tell us something about the whether the net result is positive up to that point. However, you were initially espousing comparing deaths in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict.

 

[Par]

Other wars have nothing to do with this.

It was an example of a heuristic device, known as an analogy.

 

[Par]

So I did not see why you accused Oliver of not reading your posts...

I accused him of not reading my posts because – amongst many other things – by that point I had already told him directly that I am not an American citizen.

 

[Segnosaur]

Quite frankly: I don't see any Islamic threat for the US. You might
argue that 9/11 happened but my point is that this was a retaliation
for US-Foreign policies. And if you would study Osama Bin Ladens
own words, you would know this.

So, you are basically absolving bin Laden of responsibility because he didn't like that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's main complaint at the time of 9/11)? By your logic, I am justified in killing your family, burning down your house, and stealing your car, if I don't like something you've said in one of your posts and felt retaliation was in order.

A good moral anology would be the bombing of abortion clinics. I'm sure those people involved in the bombings felt their actions were justified (the same way bin Laden felt U.S. actions justified the 9/11 attacks). Fortunately, there are those of us in the civilized world who actually recognize that such attacks are generally immoral and should be condemmed.

The point is, the U.S. was in Saudi Arabia legally, and were not actually trying to invade, overthrow, or otherwise disrupt the country. Just because bin Laden thought the U.S. presence provided justification, does not mean that a more rational civilized person must accept their justification as a basis for actions.

 

[brumsen]

No, not by Bush. He outright ignored Powell, unfourntly. (Incidently, would you mind pointing out where that is in the treaties the US signed? Otherwise I'm afraid it's not something the US must recognize as a war crime.



I don't honestly think it's a war crime if you fail to meet someone's perceieved target.

Follow the link that I included.

 

[brumsen]

Comparing the situations might tell us something about the whether the net result is positive up to that point. However, you were initially espousing comparing deaths in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict.

Yes; situations in which a certain death toll had occurred.
Listen, are you actually trying to say something here?

 

[brumsen]

It was an example of a heuristic device, known as an analogy.

Sure. But there are of course good analogies and bad analogies.

 

[Par]

Yes; situations in which a certain death toll had occurred.

Obviously, the death toll is an element of a given situation. However, you were initially espousing comparing death tolls alone in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict. That, quite clearly, is what I took issue with.