Your analogy is flawed, as the other person is an innocent. A proper analogy would be the choice between killing you, and killing a man who wants to kill you, but his wife may also die with him.

Which kind of is also an arguement that can be turned on its head and be phrased, Well, you want to kill him, so if he fights back, and your innocent wife happens to die. That's unfortunate.

In all honesty, I do understand that when people are threatned, they would make the same arguement you made Krem. But people feel threatened on both sides, so in the process, alot of innocent *wives* (and I'm sick of the women and children arguement which is why I put asterix on it) are going to die.

Its just coming to a point now, as mentioned previously, of trying to figure out how we can have less *wives* die and how we're going to clean this mess up. Its time to focus on damage control. And this isn't, to me, about either of the candidates, because I really don't think either of them have done a spectacular job providing future roadmaps, and nor am I some idiot pacifist that's going to continue preaching "no war" when clearly that arguement died two years ago. Now its more like, well, this is drawn out and ugly, and using the excuse of self defense and appendage casulties (which is what you pretty much said) is not going to get us (and I mean any country involved) any closer to a healthy resolution. We can;t just go around saying "Well, this is war babe, tough." Especially when the foundations for having this war have been pretty shaky from the onset.

-Dolce

dolce, here is how I feel about the situation:

The terrorists want to kill us (you and me even moreso than others). That is an unfortunate fact of life. The reason for that is that they feel threatened by the expanding American influence on their world and our support for Israel. Well, we are not willing to concede either one. And when I say "we", I odn't just mean the U.S.; Europeans know perfectly well what they're up against too.

We do not want to cut off our ties with the Muslim world (and the majority of people in the Muslim world don't want them cut off anyway). That's a billion people. The terrorists do not speak for them; they speak only for a small protion of them who want to turn back the clock of the world and live in the dark ages. But they're not like the Amish; they also want to take the rest of Muslims with them, kill all the Jews, and, if possible, convert the rest of the world to Islam.

They also want us to roll back our support of Israel, presumably in order to erase that state off the face of the Earth. There is no way any rational person in the world is going to agree with them on this.

So now we're faced with two choices: fight the terrorists before they can strike us, or go back to pre-9/11 mentality, where if the problem doesn't hit us, it doesn't really exist. I choose the former, and on that I agree with Bush.

Innocent people have died because of that decision, but the terrorists have also gotten the taste of their own medicine. For too long have they gone virtually unpunished, while being appeased by the world. Now they know that the actions they take will result in retaliation. Think of what happened in Israel this year: once Ariel Sharon chose to take drastic measures against Hamas leaders, the number of suicide attacks was reduced greatly. Hamas leaders are afraid now, as they should be; they no longer go unpunished.

Sorry about the excessive pathos, but I feel that people for too long have been defining Bush administration in the context of Iraq War; it goes much further than that. He is the first president who took such a strong stance on terrorism (mainly because he had to), and I simply do not believe that John Kerry has what it takes to continue the fight.

my answer remains the same. Technically, my analogy is not flawed at all .. because that still puts me in the predicament of taking a life that is not responsible for any part in the killing of mine ...

As far as I'm concerned Krem, in a situation like that, one is not thinking of anything but yourself ... one might say they said kill the others and justify it with "oh but he wanted to kill me or he would have killed someone else" cause thats really in the end, just an excuse to live with yourself ...

the way i see it, i still traded someone else's life for my own ...

To be quite honest, i wont even know what to do if it comes down between my life and that of someone elses who DOES WANT TO KILL ME FOR NO REASON .... and the decision in the end is mine but the trigger is to be pulled by someone else. Unless its between me and my would be killer, and no other external parties, I do not want to be in a position to trade one person's life for mine ...

I havent read the entire answer Krem but coming from a society where there might be a few who probably rejoiced at the attacks during 9/11, which is sad in itself, I can safely tell you that most people wanna hurt Americans mainly for how they treat them, how they bully them, how they sanction them ... the US foreign policy is something no one cares much about ...

Ughh, this is why I hate analogies.

In any case, bottom line is, I consider us to be in the right, and terrorists and their allies to be wrong. I don't believe in moral relativism.

Personally I don't really believe there is 100k plus civilian casualties. But it does seem like there was more than the lowish numbers already out there, I don't believe the 14-15k numbers either. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, I wouldn't be surprised by a 30-40k number, but who knows.

Well its nice to know that you consider the entire Iraqi population as an ally to the terrorist as you basically justified the deaths for 14 to 16 thousand people by this moral relativism theory.

Hey you know what i just remembered ... theres a massive populace out there (including many americans and yours truly as well) that believes the US conducts State terrorism ... I guess the killing of the 3000 americans plus countless beheadings of innocent american and ally partners no longer seems all that bad .. cause as far as theyre concerned, they just engaged in this 'moral relativism' as well



I've seriously been avoiding all threads concerning world affairs and politics but this type of mentality just doesnt bode well with me ...

Oh please, spare me. You don't want to be "bullied"? Then don't do business with Americans. Nobody is forcing you. You don't want to be "sanctioned"? Then let women go to school and don't execute them for being raped.

On the other hand, Al Qaeda has clearly stated the reasons why they declared Jihad on America. Those who support Al Qaeda in their Jihad agree with those reasons.

Nowhere did I state that.
Except for the fact that you have not provided your definition of terrorism, and I would bet almost anything that it is very different from any accepted definition.

What type of mentality? Not waiting around till somebody kills you? Yes, that truly is repulsive.

OH PLEASE! You want to people to listen to you, do not pass comments like "we'll ask you once to enter your country but if you disagree, we pretty much don't care for your country's sovereignity and will come in and do our business in any case ("in reply to an event that was to take place in pakistan)

oh and please .. .dont tell me the bullying exists because poor little countries arent sending their girls to school or because of anything like that ... thats just an excuse for justifying actions, just the way Al Qaeeda tries to justify teir stand on things!

I'll answer this in one shot but in mainly pertains to your first and third sentence ...

This thread is about civilians
The discussion that has been happening (involving wives, involving the 100K or 14K number has all had to do with civilians)
All deaths that were talking about have so far concerned civilians.
You've passed a statement saying:
In any case, bottom line is, I consider us to be in the right, and terrorists and their allies to be wrong. I don't believe in moral relativism.

Which was a direct response to my answer concerning if i would take the life of a bad person and his wife.
I dont know about you, but in the complete context of this thread and your reply, it pretty much sounds like the bad dude is the terrorist and the wife is the ally.

In regards to "type of mentality", the attititude that I'm right and theyre wrong ... because I can guarantee you that the terrosists feel the same way .. neithe wanting to take any responsibility for any action as bad! In addition, making everyone around them guilty by association (9/11 victims for being americans) and the 'wife' as an ally ... because this wont end till one side is completely finished ... but that won't ever happening because these so called allies keep suffering, and keep getting recruited because of it .. its a tireless cycle until its a definitive victory on the part of one.

Krem, I know you don't consider the wife as an ally ... and i've given you shit for it and i apologise for that ... it was no more than a slip of the tongue but it does say something about the value of life someone is putting on another person ...

I can have a gun to my head and I can very well say kill the mother f'er in front of me who prolly has nothign to do with it to save my own life but at the end of the day, what i did may work out in my favor but it wasn't RIGHT.

This whole thing started off with a comment made by Rusty ... all I say is in that context really ... I expect deaths to take place and like Krem, some sick part in my mind is glad that the toll is lower than expected (11 to 13 when we last spoke) ..... again, i just want my comments to be taken in light of the conversatio nthat sprung up ... nothing more ..

and i've been extremely bitchy and heated in this discussion, i apologise ... it just brings back the millions of memories i just grew up with ....

ARe you referring to Iraq here? Do 12 years of dodging the disarmament treaties mean anything?

That was a metaphore. Like I said, if you don't want to be bullied, then don't deal with Americans. Nobody is forcing anyone.

1. Yes. I won't argue you on that.

2. Yes, but that's why it gets tricky invading "Nations" (Iraq, Iran, wherever) when we're not dealing with a strictly national institution. You yourself have said its a couple terrorist organizations, and that a majority of the Middle East does not have the same interests (yet.)

3. Yes, again I agree with you, but Israel is very tricky. It is a new state (60 years) and I'm sure is pretty much undergoing what the U.S. did 60 years into its founding. The difference is the rest of the area is not 60 years old, and their technology is centuries of compiled information. So while my initial instincts are to think the violence will ride itself out in much the same way it did in places "founded" in the 1700's, now I'm not so sure. So, questions about dealing with violence pertaining to Israel are very tricky. As you know, I don't really mean that in a condescending tone, I'm just thinking out loud right now. I do think Israel has to withdraw from certain areas, and unfortunately the "wall" idea that was being kicked around for awhile is useless, and just reminds me of check-point charlie. It will biuld hostility. Few areas have yet to handle border issues (when the two nations hate eachother) that we can use as case studies. Its not like we can just peek on over to India/Pakistan and say, "Well there's someone who got it right that we could imitate." Mexico/U.S.A? Not really. And even then, the religious resentment, etc, is really not nearly as agressive.

So, I still don't know how to handle it. I like to think Rabin was well on his way, but I was also 15 when he was shot, so I know I've been fed alot of sweet nostalgia that may or may not be true about his policy. I like to hope it was true. I still thinking passing over Perez at that crucial moment was a big faux pas. I don't know what the hell Israeli's were thinking when it was actually an Israeli who shot him. I think people forget that. My father used to joke that Israel imploded the minute they didn't have an enemy. Its not funny. The Conservative orthodox could get along with the reform only when they needed to unite against a common enemy. The minute that threat wasn't present, some orthodox goes and shoots the prime minister for corrupting Jewish values or something. There have been a series of mistakes since, then. Barak was seriously willing to give it all away, to the point where his own people got resentful, just to end it. Sharon walking into Jerusalem and planting the Israeli flag on the Mosque was pretty threatening, aggressive, and idiotic, and, lets not forget, kicked off the antifada.

I have alot more to say about this. But, to cut Arafat some slack, he's corrupt as hell and I can't stand himl, but I don't pay him to much attention at this point because I honestly think he stopped having any control over the situation years ago. He could have tried to fight it at a time when he did have more ocntrol, but he nurtured the groups that now wouldn't pay him any heed if he called for a stop to fighting anyways. He dug his own grave. Now he can't make that call, because the minute all these organizations don't listen to him, it'll just be a visual and symbolic indication of how far removed he actually is from any minute form of control. Instead he's thrown in his bag with them, but is still, not even second fiddle. He might be the understudy to the fourth back-up fiddle or something. But I won't say at a much earlier stage he wasn't responsible for backing himself into that position.

That leaves Israel, and currently, Sharon. Say what you will, but he has power. The army will listen to him. The same thing can be said for American/British/U.N troops, whatever. These are institutions which will hold themselves in check if their respective authorities tell them too. It unfortunately puts alot more of the responsibility on those countries than they should otherwise have. It should be 50/50, but in light of Israel's relative stability and Palestine's relative instability, Israel is going to have to shoulder alot more of the responsibility. I am only critical of Israeli actions becaus eI know I can be, and because there is enough of a progressive system set up in which this kind of criticism and discourse has a place and a potential effect on the situation.

I want to see Israel continue on, and continue on in a healthy fashion. It is not healthy there now. When I went to my grandfather's funeral in Tel Aviv a few years ago it was horrible. The problems getting on the plane (it was alast minute ticket of course) were insurmountable, ocnsidering I even spoke Hebrew to the flight workers. EL AL was placed in a special seperate, glass encompassed terminal with armed security at its entrance at Fiumicino airport. And that was before 9/11, but after the first uprising. Even then, Tel Aviv was a mess, Israel has lost alot of investment from companies and individuals, the houses were incredible delapitated, the main fountain at dizingoff center didn't even run anymore. No one was walking in the streets or sitting in the restaurants and cafes. Unemployment has gotten very high, and everything just seemed really down. Now, my parents just went back for my grandmother's funeral last year, and say its even ten times worse. I think its in Israel's best interest to pick up that slack and shoulder more responsibility because unfortunately, they really suffer if they don't.

Now you tend to think that that means being more aggressive about bulldozing half of gaza, and that Hamas is now immobile. I tend to think that it is just redistributing those left resentful to the larger and wealthier organizations. Hamas was never the big international player was it? I'm asking, I'm not sure. So while he may have made them lose power (the battle) in the long run Al Qaeda (as an example) may now have more power in which to mobilize resentment, poverty, and malaise towards thier own more long-term goals (the war). Its a *win the battle, lose the war* tactic as far as I can tell. Hamas may be immobile now, but honestly...so are Tel Aviv anf Haifa.

4. Ahhhhh Fighting the terrorists. How quickly we forget when Bush admitted that He was never that into catching Bin Laden anyways. I think some of his earlier appraoches weren't bad actually. I thought we were going to try to locate and freeze terrorist funding, and recruit the post- 9/11 sympathy we had in order to build a more appealing global union that governments would want to try to be part of. Look, Pakistan, and to a lesser extent Turkey, actually offered to help us. That could have been a rich ground to cultivate. Where are we now with these two countries? Not anywhere near where we could have been. We could have made governments eliminate their sponsorship of such organizations out of a self-motivated desire to join this new broad relationship. Instead we polarized the world, and especially the Middle East. I don't see dizingoff center being one ounce the better for the last three years. Lets be honest here, getting at saddam doesn't affect terrorists one bit, and the process in which we went about doing it may have just gained them support. Barring that, it definately didn't gain us any.

I don't sleep one ounce better just because "Terrorists got a taste of their own medicine" because that just means we stooped to their level, and I like to think we're better than that, and that we respect people and their lifestyles and religions better than that. I don't want to drag the rest of the world back into the Middle Ages. I'm studying them right now, trust me, they were somewhat less than spectacular. I am not against wars, but I am against frvilous battles which ultimately lead to our loss in the greater scheme of things. I just think, this war, the patriot act, things like the Congress giving Bush a free ride when dealing with the Taliban (and that is something I am faulting the congress for mind you) are all botched attempts at something that could have, in the months following 9/11 actually lead to a safer more secure and civil American and International community.

Sorry for how long this was, but you brought up interesting points and I just wanted to address each one specifically.

-Dolce

nope .. a certain pakistani event ...

Nations and people are forced cause they cannot completely provide for themselves ..thats how the world works ... once the people helping start taking advantage of it, bitter feelings are created .. its how its always been.

That's not nearly the case. While a lot of people who died were civilians, many were insurgents and terrorists.


No, the way I meant was that the bad guy is the terrorist, and the wife is the innocent people who unfortunately die.


You've constructed a strawman.

Like, I said, I don't believe in moral relativism. That is to say that I believe that in this conflict only one side can be right. The other side is wrong. Just because they "fell" they're right, doesn't make them so. How do I know they're wrong? Because they're the ones that target civilians, in both their countries and abroad. They're the ones who want to kill all the Jews. They're the ones who want to subject the world to their way of life.

And all the "tireless cycle" thing is getting tiring, pardon the pun. Terrorists have been having their way with the Western world for decades, without any repercussion. Did they ever stop? Nope.

Remember 6 months ago when Israel was killing one Hamas leader after another. Everyone, including you, was talking about "circle of violence". Well guess what. You were wrong. The number of attacks on Israel has been greatly reduced in the past six months. That's a fact. It is the direct result of the policy that was tough on the terrorists.


Value of life? What about the value of millions of lives? Are we only concerned with the value of one life, when it's on the news? But other than that we can go on living, while millions of lives are being threatened?

But if you had a gun, wouldn't you kill the motherfucker who is pointing the gun at you? And wouldn't you kill him, BEFORE he tries to kill you?


Well, don't be sorry for expressing your views; but don't expect them to go unchallenged.

I already addressed that in long winded essay. I don;t think this is the last we'll hear of it unfortunately Krem. Winning a battle doesn't gaurantee victory in the larger war. It just means all the resources the smaller Hamas had have now been merged into a larger organizations holdings. It's not that clear cut.

-Dolce

Anyone else find it a little sickening that people can honestly joke about this and, ugh, I don't know...with statements like "they won't have good legs and..."

You're very funny. Now that you've been told that I hope you're satisfied.

I don't know what estimates to believe, like someone else mentioned what makes the 16K estimates any more accurate than 100K?

The isssues is still was the war properly executed/even necessary?

If not, I find 16,000 (unnecessary) deaths as equally repulsive as 100,000.

True. I mean, how can you confirm any given number. If the Allies report the number through their own research, you think I would believe them!?!? Same for the other side really ...

dolce and arsi - don't think I'm ignoring you. I will most likely reply tomorrow, as I have to go to Brooklyn tonight.

More people died during the ridiculous sanctions imposed on Iraq than during the war....by a considerable margin. I guess only those people killed directly by Americans count as wrongful deaths.