Pyrian on 18/6/2006 at 17:47
Quote Posted by BEAR
Doctors != military, they are in fact total opposites...
Nonsense. A doctor mostly strives to kill one organism to save another - sometimes he kills both.
TheGreatGodPan on 18/6/2006 at 21:23
Swiss, thanks for clearing a lot up. That makes much more sense.
Stronts, I discussed doctors becuase the subject of accidental deaths was brought up, and doctors kill a huge number of people accidentally. Of course they are different, otherwise we wouldn't need separate words for them. Rather than simple saying they obvious "they're different", if you had pointed out the important aspects in which they are different and how it is relevant to the ethical issue being discussed then I would have written something better in response than the boring sentence you are reading now.
You state that "thousands of civilians" are being "deliberately killed" in order to get a "few terrorists". That sounds like quite some hyperbole to me. In fact I'd wager that the amount of people killed by coalition forces while they were carrying weaponry outnumber those without (leaving aside whether they are civilians) by a very sizable margin. I don't expect you to actually bet me over the internet, but I would like to know whether you believe the case to be the reverse or if you merely wanted to highlight the overlooked deaths of Iraqi civilians.
Regarding changes in Saddam's pace of killing, I think this was pretty much entirely determined by the political situation rather than weaponry. The left over caches of weaponry he laid aside certainly did a lot of harm in post-invasion Iraq. Furthermore, according to (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_war#Arming_the_combatants) this (yes, Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing and I didn't feel like wasting too much time trying to find something better) Iraq's armaments were not largely from the U.S.
BEAR, Iraqi oil output decreased after the invasion and (simple economics) it got more expensive. Iraqis themselves have a price ceiling for gas which (simple economics again) result in shortages and smuggling.
SD on 18/6/2006 at 22:09
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Rather than simple saying they obvious "they're different", if you had pointed out the important aspects in which they are different and how it is relevant to the ethical issue being discussed then I would have written something better in response than the boring sentence you are reading now.
Why should I have to explain the difference between a doctor trying to stop people from being killed, and a soldier trying to make sure that people
are killed?
I'd have thought it was patently obvious to anyone with a clue.
Quote:
In fact I'd wager that the amount of people killed by coalition forces while they were carrying weaponry outnumber those without (leaving aside whether they are civilians) by a very sizable margin.
Well, since you're so fond of using Wikipedia to back up your arguments, let me (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003) do the same. I've highlighted the most salient point in bold:
Quote Posted by Wikipedia Article
One study done by public health experts from Johns Hopkins University and published on 29 October 2004 in the Lancet medical journal, estimated that 100,000 "excess" Iraqi deaths had occurred since the US invasion began. The study did not attempt to measure how many of these were civilian, but the study's authors have said they believe that the "vast majority" were civilians.
The study found that Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die after the invasion, and violent deaths were found to be 58 times more likely than in the 15 months preceding the war. They also found that
most of the violent deaths were due to air-strikes by coalition forces.All those deaths are of course our fault anyway, but the Lancet study quite clearly illustrates what a huge proportion of violent deaths are our
direct fault.
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Furthermore, Iraq's armaments were not largely from the U.S.
Well, it's a huge comfort to me personally that we in the US and UK only sold him a couple of billion dollars worth of weapons.
But you're ignoring (
http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp) the fact that the US government supported Saddam in other ways. Computers, vehicles, chemicals, helicopters - all were used by Saddam to wage war, and all were supplied by American sources.
Anyway, I think you're just hair-splitting to be honest. You know as well as I do that the US backed Saddam to the hilt, right up until the moment he invaded Kuwait.
Convict on 19/6/2006 at 11:24
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Why should I have to explain the difference between a doctor trying to stop people from being killed, and a soldier trying to make sure that people
are killed?
I'd have thought it was patently obvious to anyone with a clue.
But peacekeepers are soldiers too. If the role is peacekeeping then they are trying to save lives as doctors also are trying to save lives.
Rogue Keeper on 19/6/2006 at 11:28
Rite, the only difference is that while soldiers save lives with assault rifles, doctors do it with scalpels and chemicals.
Convict on 19/6/2006 at 14:45
If they did the same thing they would have the same name.
Swiss Mercenary on 19/6/2006 at 15:41
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
All those deaths are of course our fault anyway, but the Lancet study quite clearly illustrates what a huge proportion of violent deaths are our
direct fault.
Consider the fact that the Lancett study is what, two years old? Since then, I'm pretty sure the death rates have been increasing or stayed constant, but Freedom Fighters have probably played a larger role in them. I mean, they only manage to kill a few Americans every day - on the other hand, 'xxx bombed, 20 civilians dead' is far from an uncommon occurence. When it gets reported, that is.
While I'm sure that at the beginning of the invasion, most of the civilian deaths were coalition caused, I don't think that the US has a monopoly on them at this point in time.
paloalto on 20/6/2006 at 01:18
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Consider the fact that the Lancett study is what, two years old? Since then, I'm pretty sure the death rates have been increasing or stayed constant, but Freedom Fighters have probably played a larger role in them. I mean, they only manage to kill a few Americans every day - on the other hand, 'xxx bombed, 20 civilians dead' is far from an uncommon occurence. When it gets reported, that is.
While I'm sure that at the beginning of the invasion, most of the civilian deaths were coalition caused, I don't think that the US has a monopoly on them at this point in time.
Freedom fighters?The insurgents?I'm quite sure the Iraqis as a whole do not want to live under the type of government that the insurgents would institute were they to gain power.Be it left over Bathists or Al Qaida groups who would instill a Theocracy bordering on fascism.And the deaths are caused by several groups fighting for power.Shia versus Sunnis account for some.Coalition forces,mostly U.S. killing insurgents and civilians.But the insurgents move within the population making it hard to seperate them.And it is the insurgents targeting civilians and small buisnesses as well.If the coalition left Iraqis would still be dying.If the insurgents left their would be a signifigant reduction in civilian deaths.You can't honestly see the difference between someone who targets civilians and accidental civilian deaths from having to fight within the population itself?Who have been known to use humans as shields?
And it always amazes me how people can speak for the dead and the manner in which they died.Obviously anybody would rather be alive than dead but it doesn't answer the question whether anything is worth fighting and dying for.
Personally I wasn't for the war because I think the Islamic factions are more interested in killing each other than having a democracy ,or not a large enough percentage of the population.Plus the current power in Washington has too many cronies with their own selfish interests in mind.But their is also the spector of a disintegrating middle east where most of the oil is and the nightmare that would bring.If we left now it would only hasten that process.
Swiss Mercenary on 20/6/2006 at 01:51
Quote Posted by paloalto
Freedom fighters?The insurgents?I'm quite sure the Iraqis as a whole do not want to live under the type of government that the insurgents would institute were they to gain power.Be it left over Bathists or Al Qaida groups who would instill a Theocracy bordering on fascism.And the deaths are caused by several groups fighting for power.Shia versus Sunnis account for some.Coalition forces,mostly U.S. killing insurgents and civilians.But the insurgents move within the population making it hard to seperate them.And it is the insurgents targeting civilians and small buisnesses as well.If the coalition left Iraqis would still be dying.If the insurgents left their would be a signifigant reduction in civilian deaths.You can't honestly see the difference between someone who targets civilians and accidental civilian deaths from having to fight within the population itself?Who have been known to use humans as shields?
Thank you for calling on the counter-bullshit. You probably could have managed to do so with a lot less breath.
Tocky on 20/6/2006 at 04:27
No. That was the perfect amount of breath to clean a counter of bullshit. Matter of fact, it was damn beautiful.
