Oliver on the Iraqi death toll.

[gumboot]

But they're still there, and I think this does not change all that much to the assessment on whether they're morally responsible.

And the world, by allowing Saddam to stay in power is morally responsible? Or the UN, by slapping sanctions on Iraq, is responsible?

Sorry. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility. I couldn't care less what traumatic childhood or convoluted moral position the suicide bomber uses to justify his actions, he, and he alone is responsible for the lives of those he kills.

Millions of Iraqis, despite having their lives turned upside down by the invasion and subsequent civil war have chosen not to murder their fellow citizens.

-Gumboot

 

[brumsen]

Sorry. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility. I couldn't care less what traumatic childhood or convoluted moral position the suicide bomber uses to justify his actions, he, and he alone is responsible for the lives of those he kills.

He is, but not he alone.

And the world, by allowing Saddam to stay in power is morally responsible? Or the UN, by slapping sanctions on Iraq, is responsible?

Yes. To various degrees.

 

[Par]

[Y]our analogy is bad because it makes a comparison between different conflicts.

So, any analogy that compares different conflicts is by definition invalid.

I did not argue that and you know it.

Right. I see.

 

[brumsen]

No analogy is by definition invalid. But whether it is or not depends on what point the analogy has to serve to make.
In this case, given the point I was making, a comparison between two different conflicts would not do since I was making a utilitarian-type analysis of this conflict.

I hope you do see it now, yes. Otherwise, I'll be off to threads where more constructive discussion is possible.

 

[Par]

No analogy is by definition invalid. But whether it is or not depends on what point the analogy has to serve to make.

The analogy sought to show that comparing death tolls alone cannot result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions. If you think it unfit for that purpose, then by all means explain why.

 

[Par]

So, to cut a long story short, and so we don’t lose sight of the subject of the thread:

Oliver initially claimed that those killed in Iraq have been murdered by America – a claim with a corollary either of denying the straightforward facts about who has killed who, or of removing moral agency entirely from the murderous Islamists operating there. As we have seen, however, that claim was both inaccurate and morally contemptible.

 

[brumsen]

The analogy sought to show that comparing death tolls alone cannot result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions. If you think it unfit for that purpose, then by all means explain why.

I have, ad nauseam, but nonetheless I shall add this:
Comparing death tolls alone between two very different situations (conflicts) will indeed not necessarily (I won't say: cannot) result in useful information.
However, if a sufficient number of other factors is the same - as in the comparison between a situation and the hypothetical situation which would have resulted if actors had made different choices - then it does result in useful information, even if of course it may be argued that such information is not sufficient to base moral conclusions on. (I am still waiting for your argument to this effect.)

 

[Oliver]

So, to cut a long story short, and so we don’t lose sight of the subject of the thread:

Oliver initially claimed that those killed in Iraq have been murdered by America – a claim with a corollary either of denying the straightforward facts about who has killed who, or of removing moral agency entirely from the murderous Islamists operating there. As we have seen, however, that claim was both inaccurate and morally contemptible.

Nope, I never said that all victims in Iraq were slaughtered by
the Americans. I said that those victims are a direct result of
destabilization as a result of the Invasion and destroying
public order.

Nevertheless: Slaughtering took place as well:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fallujah+massacre&btnG=Search

And I accuse the current Government on taking this into account
without giving a X about casualties, giving a X about telling the
true reasons for the Invasion, therefore giving a X about the "stupid
American Public" - and finally: giving a X about "Freedom and Justice
for Iraq". *lol* That last reason was actually a funny sarcastic one.

Blood for Oil:

 

[brumsen]

Well, Oliver, you actually did say that in one post. A somewhat sloppy formulation which you later explained and elaborated on, expressing better what you meant.
But, you see, the problem is that Par, in a discussion, wants to keep coming back to the things one has said to start with and is not really interested in these refinements. I find that personally a very unconstructive way of discussing.

 

[Oliver]

Well, Oliver, you actually did say that in one post. A somewhat sloppy formulation which you later explained and elaborated on, expressing better what you meant.
But, you see, the problem is that Par, in a discussion, wants to keep coming back to the things one has said to start with and is not really interested in these refinements. I find that personally a very unconstructive way of discussing.

And I agree - but I don't have that much time right
now and did discuss those Issues back and forth a
thousand times in here already:

Time to kick Iran
So what's this War about anyway?
Saudi insurgents in Iraq
Covert Operations (Black-Ops)
Forget it, there is no Terror threat. Period
Poll: Which part of the world is the most violent one?

 

[Par]

Well, Oliver, you actually did say that in one post. A somewhat sloppy formulation which you later explained and elaborated on, expressing better what you meant. But, you see, the problem is that Par, in a discussion, wants to keep coming back to the things one has said to start with and is not really interested in these refinements. I find that personally a very unconstructive way of discussing.

You seem to be suggesting that I am being quite unreasonable for not forgetting about Oliver’s initial claim and moving on. However, as you may have noticed, Oliver is still denying that he even made the claim. Given that, it’s difficult to see the issue as resolved.

 

[brumsen]

You seem to be suggesting that I am being quite unreasonable for not forgetting about Oliver’s initial claim and moving on. However, as you may have noticed, Oliver is still denying that he even made the claim. Given that, it’s difficult to see the issue as resolved.

I wouldn't say that Oliver deserves a beauty prize. But quite frankly it escapes me why you would pursue him for a claim that he denies having made (which I read as: which he denies having meant to make).
I mean, whaddayawant. That he retracts a claim that he has already said he did not want to make?

And how about you admitting that I did not reject your analogy on an ad-hoc basis?

 

[Par]

I mean, whaddayawant. That he retracts a claim that he has already said he did not want to make?

He has not said that it is a claim that he didn’t want to make. (That is merely a position you seem to have arbitrarily attributed to him.)

 

[brumsen]

He has not said that it is a claim that he didn’t want to make. (That is merely a position you seem to have arbitrarily attributed to him.)

Nope, I never said that all victims in Iraq were slaughtered by
the Americans. I said that those victims are a direct result of
destabilization as a result of the Invasion and destroying
public order.

Yeah, well, he has said he hasn't said it (which is patently untrue), therefore the next available interpretation is that he did not mean to say it. Duh.

 

[Beerina]

Oliver, for the love of the FSM, please tell me you aren't serious.

I think even the Dixie Chicks would concede Oliver has gone off into the weeds at this point...

 

[Beerina]

I think even the Dixie Chicks would concede Oliver has gone off into the weeds at this point...

It's Ok to not be stubborn, Oliver. It's Ok to admit you were wrong. It's Ok to rephrase your point.


How about this? I submit what you mean is that those Iraqis would not be dead but for flawed intelligence that was possibly knowingly used well out of the justification level of its reliability.

But I further submit the terrorists rely on your attitude to do their dirty work. As perverse as it may sound, they, like Gandhi, rely on the basic decency of the West to force withdrawal. They want the West to withdraw because the West feels the West is the cause of the casualties.

It's Ok to believe the US should withdraw for that reason, but please acknowledge you're doing exactly what the terrorists want. And you will be doing exactly what? Leaving people alive, but in a viscious dictatorship.

If I were Iraqi and someone said to me, "We can remove Saddam from power, but other thugs will try to take over, and you'll take a 1/100 chance of being killed", I might say, "Go for it".

I would loathe someone in the West who didn't want to do it because, patting me on the head, they didn't think it worth it to risk my life.

 

[Oliver]

It's Ok to not be stubborn, Oliver. It's Ok to admit you were wrong. It's Ok to rephrase your point.


How about this? I submit what you mean is that those Iraqis would not be dead but for flawed intelligence that was possibly knowingly used well out of the justification level of its reliability.

But I further submit the terrorists rely on your attitude to do their dirty work. As perverse as it may sound, they, like Gandhi, rely on the basic decency of the West to force withdrawal. They want the West to withdraw because the West feels the West is the cause of the casualties.

It's Ok to believe the US should withdraw for that reason, but please acknowledge you're doing exactly what the terrorists want. And you will be doing exactly what? Leaving people alive, but in a viscious dictatorship.

If I were Iraqi and someone said to me, "We can remove Saddam from power, but other thugs will try to take over, and you'll take a 1/100 chance of being killed", I might say, "Go for it".

I would loathe someone in the West who didn't want to do it because, patting me on the head, they didn't think it worth it to risk my life.

I don't believe in Terrorists - so what are you talking about?
You still buy the propaganda?

And yes, there are a handful Terrorists - the War on Terror
on the other Hand is a hoax.

Oliver, Germany (population: 82,314,900 / Muslims: 3,300,000)

 

[brumsen]

But I further submit the terrorists rely on your attitude to do their dirty work. As perverse as it may sound, they, like Gandhi, rely on the basic decency of the West to force withdrawal. They want the West to withdraw because the West feels the West is the cause of the casualties.

It's Ok to believe the US should withdraw for that reason, but please acknowledge you're doing exactly what the terrorists want. And you will be doing exactly what? Leaving people alive, but in a viscious dictatorship.

A dictatorship which, by the way, in the earlier days after the Iranian revolution was firmly supported by the US.

History has shown time and again that hardly any good comes from meddling with the internal affairs of a country. So... what if... just if...
the terrorists were quite justified in what they want (the US troops leaving) - even if they're not justified in the means they use?

Anyway, you realize, I hope sincerely, that saving the Iraqi people from its Evil Dictatorship was never the real reason for this war. That that is just a feel-good-reason. It was all about the WMD that Saddam was supposed to have. And we all know how true that reason was.

Now, if it were nonetheless about saving this people from their evil dictator, then... there is still a lot of work to do in other countries. Lots and lots of work. (But see above for history's lessons)

 

[Par]

...if a sufficient number of other factors is the same - as in the comparison between a situation and the hypothetical situation which would have resulted if actors had made different choices - then it does result in useful information...

Comparing death tolls alone can never result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions. You will always need to assess other factors. (Most notably, factors such as how many innocent lives were saved by those same actions, etc.) Once you start evaluating whether or not a “sufficient number of other factors is the same”, then you’re no longer making comparisons of death toll alone. The analogy shows that when death tolls alone are compared, counterintuitive – and indeed counter-rational – conclusions result. Similarly, a comparison of death tolls alone between the real-world post-invasion Iraq and a hypothetical contemporary Saddam-ruled Iraq would be equally useless.

 

[Par]

Yeah, well, he has said he hasn't said it (which is patently untrue), therefore the next available interpretation is that he did not mean to say it. Duh.

Well, yes. Perhaps that is the next available interpretation. The first available interpretation, however, is that he is simply being dishonest or pointlessly obstinate. Further, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but since your post, Beerina has directly asked him what he meant. Instead of straightforwardly answering the question, however, he instead chose to dodge it indulge in further obscurantism and conspiracy theory.