Pyrian on 17/6/2006 at 19:20
A dead man is just as dead whether you meant to kill him or not.
A dead murderer, however, stops killing. Sometimes some (or lots of!) civilian casualties is still the less destructive route.
I can definitely see arguments on both sides. The more interesting question to me is, are more or fewer people dying in the long run due to our presence in Iraq? And, what of the quality of life of the survivors? What are the long term consequences?
Swiss Mercenary on 17/6/2006 at 19:34
Quote Posted by Pyrian
A dead man is just as dead whether you meant to kill him or not.
A dead murderer, however, stops killing. Sometimes some (or lots of!) civilian casualties is still the less destructive route.
It sure does a great job at winning the Hearts And Minds of the People (tm).
Quote:
I can definitely see arguments on both sides. The more interesting question to me is, are more or fewer people dying in the long run due to our presence in Iraq? And, what of the quality of life of the survivors? What are the long term consequences?
Well, last I heard, according to Lancet (Which was, of course, not a perfect study), the primary civilian cause of death pre-invasion was heart attacks, strokes, and 'various other chronic illnesses', while post-invasion, violence replaced it.
TheGreatGodPan on 17/6/2006 at 21:14
Were most of the post-invasion killings carried out by uniformed military forces, or insurgent groups and death-squads? I would suspect the latter, but hey I was shocked by the "more deaths post-invasion than under Saddam" considering how long he was in power and the organized nature of much of his killing. I can't really hold the coalition forces responsible for killings committed by those kind of people.
I do think accidental killings should be judged differently than deliberate ones. Doctors accidentally kill people all the time but we tolerate it because they save a lot of people doing the same basic thing.
BEAR on 17/6/2006 at 21:31
Its a lose-lose situation. We cant win after killing so many civilians, no matter what we = fucked. We should have stuck with it in afganistan imo. A full fledged occupation is no way to gain trust.
SD on 17/6/2006 at 21:46
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
I was shocked by the "more deaths post-invasion than under Saddam" considering how long he was in power and the organized nature of much of his killing.
Well, you guys stopped flogging him weapons to slaughter people with, which probably curbed his mindless killing activities somewhat ;)
Funny how your government never had a problem with him invading Iran and killing Iranians, though. And when he killed those Kurds, there was precious little condemnation from that side of the pond (until decades later, when it became expedient).
Quote:
I do think accidental killings should be judged differently than deliberate ones. Doctors accidentally kill people all the time but we tolerate it because they save a lot of people doing the same basic thing.
It's hardly the same thing is it?
Swiss Mercenary on 17/6/2006 at 22:00
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
or insurgent groups and death-squads? I would suspect the latter
I'm sure that's quite accurate. Still, that was a direct result of the invasion.
Quote:
, but hey I was shocked by the "more deaths post-invasion than under Saddam" considering how long he was in power and the organized nature of much of his killing.
He did most of his killing earlier. We don't have more
total post-invasion deaths then pre-invasion deaths, but the rate at which we are now, compared to pre-invasion, is worse. He was mostly interested in keeping himself in power, and after years and years of precedent, people thought better of challenging him.
Quote:
I can't really hold the coalition forces responsible for killings committed by those kind of people.
No, its not the soldier's fault that extremist groups are blowing up barber shops - its rather the failing of the administration. Either apathy, or naivety.
Convict on 18/6/2006 at 01:36
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Quote Posted by TGGP
I do think accidental killings should be judged differently than deliberate ones. Doctors accidentally kill people all the time but we tolerate it because they save a lot of people doing the same basic thing.
It's hardly the same thing is it?
Why?.
SD on 18/6/2006 at 01:43
Quote Posted by Convict
Why?.
You honestly can't see the difference between a doctor occasionally and inadvertently killing a patient with incorrect treatment, and the military deliberately killing thousands of innocent people just to nail a few terrorists?
Convict on 18/6/2006 at 01:58
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
the military deliberately killing thousands of innocent people
This really happen?
Meaning, the military knew 'innocent' civilians would die but they were acting like doctors in attempting to do more good than harm.
BEAR on 18/6/2006 at 15:32
Hahahaha comedy gold right there. To think that something so simple can still be argued over. Doctors != military, they are in fact total opposites, you couldn't be more horribly wrong. Whatever you want to think about the war, we're not there for the people. I think if someone wants to conquest, be a man and say so, don't hide behind bullshit fake morals, go out and say "we're running low on oil so we're going to go get some", at least it would be honest.
