![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on March 20, 2006, at 10:43:44
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 20, 2006, at 4:18:22
Yes, I also believe there are 'moral facts.'
But, like you said, determining them is tricky. So, in the meantime we're best to stick to "I believe xxx is a moral fact. Does anyone have an argument otherwise?"
My moral compass the only truly imoral thing is that which hurts some else.
But even there we have some grey areas. Should the word 'intentionally' be added? What about 'unless that hurt would save others from more hurt?' Does adding 'for fun' make it more wrong? Is it less wrong if you know (inside yourself) that you are hurting someone and you feel guilt, but you do it anyway?
So - even one simple statement has room for debate.
-----
"but i personally think that someone can act morally (actually act from morality rather than just acting in accordance with morality) even if they lack the requisite (on emotivist theories) emotional responses."
Agreed. Just as I believe a person doesn't have to believe in a god to act morally.
"
Posted by Racer on March 20, 2006, at 11:46:19
In reply to Re: Moral facts » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 20, 2006, at 10:43:44
A while back, I was on a jury, and during deliberations one of the members taught us something called a negative concensus. It was a great tool for us, during deliberations, because it kept us from wasting a lot of time on aspects of the case taht we all agreed on.
Basically, it was a case of "Does anyone here NOT agree [with/that] [x]?" Until we got to something someone didn't agree about, we could just keep going. Some was kinda obvious, but still worth asking: "Does anyone here NOT agree that a crime took place?" "Does anyone here NOT agree that the crime in question was murder?" etc. The procedure, though, worked great, overall. Kept us honest, and kept us getting along. Only when we came to a lack of concensus did we have to debate.
Maybe there's a way something like that could help us here, in communicating, without raising blood pressure or bringing down on our heads the wrath of admin? I don't know how -- I'm just the idea-bringer on this...
One thing I do want to say, though, to Special_K, is that while I see what you're saying about moral facts, I disagree with their use because I think it's too easy to slip from something which might be universal, into something which is clearly cultural. Sort of Wittgensteinian boundary issues, you know? While torturing small children for fun might seem pretty universally rejected (I am having a lot of word finding issues these days, try to bear with me), that might lead closer and closer to the edge, until you're saying something like "spanking children for any reason should be illegal." I know -- *you* personally might be able to avoid that classic blunder, but there are other people in the world who might say, "Well, since it's always wrong to torture small children for fun, then it's clearly wrong to give them shots, because they experience that as torture." Yes, that's extreme. But it fits in trying to make my point. Does that make any sense to you?
Keep in mind, I'm one of those who says that it's wrong to judge someone else based on culturally defined measures, if that person is not part of the same culture. It happened to me as a kid, too. "That's close to child abuse, giving those children alcohol!" Uh, no, it's about a spoonful of wine in our water at dinner at family dinners. It was considered appropriate to teach us to eat like the adults we would someday become. Culturally appropriate for us, but others saw it as Morally Wrong. Make sense?
OK. I gotta go. I get to take my mother shopping today...
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 2:18:45
In reply to Re: Moral facts » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 20, 2006, at 10:43:44
> Yes, I also believe there are 'moral facts.'
> But, like you said, determining them is tricky. So, in the meantime we're best to stick to "I believe xxx is a moral fact. Does anyone have an argument otherwise?"Yeah. Though I guess you can just say 'I believe' and leave the 'moral fact' bit out of it. Still having a little trouble with phrasings...
> My moral compass the only truly imoral thing is that which hurts some else.Though there can be counter-examples here (perhaps). If (for example) you were forced to choose between torturing one innocent child and torturing 10 innocent children then on some accounts the morally right thing to do (given the situation is as described) is to torture the one. So here... The morally right thing to do involves hurting someone else...
> But even there we have some grey areas. Should the word 'intentionally' be added?
People aren't typically thought to be morally accountable for accidental acts (unless they failed to take appropriate caution and arguably... stupidity is no defence either)
> What about 'unless that hurt would save others from more hurt?'
yeah :-) Though Kantians would say that you would be doing the wrong thing in torturing one and doing the wrong thing in torturing the 10 so basically you are damned if you do and damned if you don't
it is precisely that kind of case (the one or ten case) that some utilitarians have been led to change their thesis from:
'one should do that which leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people'
to
'one should do that which leads to the least amount of harm for the greatest number of people'.
i'm not too sure on this... but i think some conjoin both claims together...
then the problem for the utilitarian is:
- how to cash out happiness / utility (hedonistic pleasure, high vs low pleasures, preference etc)
-how to cash out 'greatest number' (does every individual count for one and do some people get two preference votes because they are really very unhappy for instance)
- how to work the stats (part of the last problem really...)then there are counter-examples to all utilitarian theories... the case of the lonesome stranger... utility is to frame the stranger so the townspeople don't riot (where many lives will be lost) yet framing an innocent stranger is clearly UNJUST (according to the Kantian) and hence utilitarian considerations aren't adequate for a comprehensive theory of morality...
> Does adding 'for fun' make it more wrong?
'more' wrong... hmm. i guess there is better of worse. better to break your promise than to torture someone for fun...
> Is it less wrong if you know (inside yourself) that you are hurting someone and you feel guilt, but you do it anyway?
yeah. i struggle with that re: whether it is better to be conscious that i believe it is wrong to eat animals yet continue or whether it would be worse to not be conscious that it is wrong (on the assumption that it is in fact) that is a hard one...
> So - even one simple statement has room for debate.plenty. one could write a thesis in fact...
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 2:30:21
In reply to Something I learned in jury duty, posted by Racer on March 20, 2006, at 11:46:19
> Basically, it was a case of "Does anyone here NOT agree [with/that] [x]?" Until we got to something someone didn't agree about, we could just keep going.
:-)
That is a really terrific idea :-)
I guess the trouble with that here is that some people might be reading along but not posting...> while I see what you're saying about moral facts, I disagree with their use because I think it's too easy to slip from something which might be universal, into something which is clearly cultural.
yeah... can be frightening where you end up at times... i take your point. of course that shouldn't happen upon ideal reflection ;-) but fact is none of us are idealised thinkers ;-)
> While torturing small children for fun might seem pretty universally rejected (I am having a lot of word finding issues these days, try to bear with me), that might lead closer and closer to the edge, until you're saying something like "spanking children for any reason should be illegal."
I would say there is an equivocation in the use of the term 'torture'. it means one thing when we agree it is universal... and then it means another when spanking children gets classified as torture (i dont like the idea of spanking children but i wouldn't try and argue that spanking children is torture...) also... i don't like the idea of spanking children for fun though i appreciate spanking children on discipline grounds is different from spanking them for fun. (and a playful wrestling smack is different from a spank>.)
but... i hear what you are saying.
your point does make sense :-)
> Keep in mind, I'm one of those who says that it's wrong to judge someone else based on culturally defined measures, if that person is not part of the same culture.though genocide? was an accepted part of nazi culture... how about (on some accounts) iran's desire to eradicate the israleis? can we not say that is wrong? i'm not iranian...
> It happened to me as a kid, too. "That's close to child abuse, giving those children alcohol!" Uh, no, it's about a spoonful of wine in our water at dinner at family dinners. It was considered appropriate to teach us to eat like the adults we would someday become. Culturally appropriate for us, but others saw it as Morally Wrong. Make sense?
yeah. makes sense. i agree that the latter eg shows insensitivity to others cultures... also... there is some evidence that teaching sensible alchohol usage (and aclimitising children to it) tends to lead to less problems with alchohol abuse etc later in life...
so... it some ways... it might even be thought to be (objectively) a better thing to be doing...
Posted by Sobriquet Style on March 21, 2006, at 7:09:02
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » Sobriquet Style, posted by Declan on March 19, 2006, at 14:43:59
I feel confused by the Admistration? The figures roughly that I've heard of American soldiers killed is 2 or 3,000, UK 1 thousand or so. Iraq soldiers 6 or 8,000 - i'm not too sure but its a fair bit higher than the Americans. But, Iraq civilians is over 38,000 at the last count. The results of the war 3 years on, is that now theres civil war out there.
What makes me feel rather confused though, is that Saddam was said to have tortured his people, but only last week when watching the news I saw and heard accounts of people being strung up, hands tied above their head like in a star postion, whilst American soldiers were torturing the Iraqi's with electrodes attached to their finger nails and genitals. They also had bags over their head, and were then almost passing out through extream exhaustion they would then stamp on their heads. Only to find out they were torturing innocent victims. Other torture methods have been conducted by the British, one was where about 5 soldiers were beating an Iraqi, whilst another was filming it on the video phone.
I'm rather confused, Saddam is the one trial for international crimes, killing 140 people. I'm not saying his inncicent, because I really have no idea.
The following is a description of the case taken from IST documents:
"In July 1982, a small group of villagers attacked Saddam Hussein's convoy as it travelled through the town, located about 60 kilometres north of Baghdad. As a result, several state security forces of Saddam's regime composed of units from the Iraqi Army, Iraqi Intelligence Service and the Baath Party descended upon the Dujail. In the following few days, hundreds of people were arrested, some were executed and others including women, men and children were wrongly arrested and held at Sumawa desert in Lia location for four years. In addition, the fruit groves of the families of those arrested were destroyed."
I wonder what the history books will say in 2003 - 2006....
~
Posted by Sobriquet Style on March 21, 2006, at 7:41:41
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » Declan, posted by Sobriquet Style on March 21, 2006, at 7:09:02
Posted by Declan on March 21, 2006, at 16:03:55
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » Declan, posted by Sobriquet Style on March 21, 2006, at 7:09:02
What will the history books say in 2050, or even later when there's a replacement for oil and the area settles down to a well deserved rest?
In Vietnam it was 60,000 to 2,000,000, very roughly from memory. That's 1 to 30. I don't think anyone knows the figures for Iraqis all up. Certainly over 100,000, maybe under double that?
Declan
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:52:46
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » Sobriquet Style, posted by Declan on March 21, 2006, at 16:03:55
apparantly more iraq citizens have died under US military occupation than under saddam's rule.
something to think about...
Posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 9:02:27
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:52:46
"apparantly more iraq citizens have died under US military occupation than under saddam's rule"
Uh, no. Or at least that can't be determined by Sobriquet's post.
The trial is for *one* instance. They haven't listed all the cases, just the one they have the most evidence for.
That tactic is often used in murder cases if the person killed more than one person. They'll have a trial for one murder and hold some in reserve just in case the first trial goes bad.
Even Andrea Yates was only charged with killing 3 of her kids.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 9:33:03
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:52:46
Here's a few other charges that *aren't* included in this trial. Remember, he is innocent until proven guilty.
---------------
1) On March 16, 1988 the people of Halabja were chemically attacked. 5000 people died instantly, 75% women and children. (source Kurdistan Democratic Party)
2) "Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988....." Refugees from several villages interviewed at the time reported that for those close to the bomb bursts which were delivered by low-flying jets, death came suddenly. First to die were birds and domestic fowl, followed by sheep, goats, cows, and mules. Humans also died within minutes, without evidence of physical trauma."
...... No count was given, but 2 bodies were examined and found to contain traces of Sarin, mustard gas and other chemicals. Thousands fled to Turkey. (Source Physicians for Human Rights)3) The first known case of chemical weapons used on the kurds was in April 1987. Saddam's cousin, who took over the "Northern Bureau" did some experiments on April 15. The experiments were quite a success, with hundreds dying. His report said:
"As soon as we complete the deportations,” he informed them, “we will start attacking [the Pershmega resistance] everywhere... then we will surround them in a small pocket and attack them with chemical weapons. I will not attack them with chemicals just one day; I will continue to attack them with chemicals for fifteen days... I told the expert comrades that I need guerrilla groups in Europe to kill whoever they see of them [Kurdish oppositionists]. I will do it, with the help of God. "
"By the time the genocidal frenzy ended, 90 % of Kurdish villages, and over twenty small towns and cities, had been wiped off the map (4). The countryside was riddled with 15 million landmines, intended to make agriculture and husbandry impossible. A million and a half Kurdish peasants had been interned in camps. Since 1974 over 400,000 had died in Baghdad’s war against the Kurds. Almost half had disappeared without trace. About 10 % of the total Kurdish population of Iraq had perished." (Source Le Monde Diplomatique)
-------------------
This was the campaign in Northern Iraq. I can look up what he did in Southern Iraq if you like.
Posted by Dinah on March 22, 2006, at 10:20:29
In reply to Re: A few other cases *trigger* » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 9:33:03
Thanks Mel.
I didn't have the energy to look up the numbers.
I really admire the way you take the time to back up your assertions with the facts. And that you generally look up *all* the relevant facts.
Have you ever read "A Hundred and One Days: A Baghdad Journal" by Asne Seierstad? It's not so much a book of facts as a book of her experiences and interactions with the people of Iraq. It really brought home for me the moral ambiguities of the situation.
In retrospect, I probably wish we had never gone in. I'm so regretful that Saddam Hussein didn't allow the inspectors to continue to inspect. I understand the issue of pride and considering that he shouldn't have to answer to the UN, but it came with a very high price in this case. I am horrified to read about the regime's alleged actions against its citizens. But is that enough to invade a sovereign country? We've generally decided that it isn't. But retrospect is easy. Especially given the history of his alleged use of chemical weapons and his invasion of Kuwait. The first Gulf War I thought was totally justified given the invasion of a sovereign country. And it wasn't carried forward, and we left a lot of the people who rose up against the government in an awful position. Was that right either?
It's hard to decide when intervention should come for humanitarian reasons. I was really worried about intervening in central Europe given the resulting unrest, but it seems to have worked out ok? Or maybe I'm missing something.
And sometimes I look at what's going on in the Sudan and wonder how it's possible to not get involved. But on the other hand... Well, self determination and all that. Has aid been requested?
I just don't envy people with the power to have to make that kind of decision. It must be such a difficult position to be in. I wouldn't want that kind of responsibility for anything.
However we got in though, would it be responsible to pull out at this point? With the country destabilized by the loss of it's ummm... strong leader who managed to keep ethnic tensions ummmm... from being expressed freely. Having removed that strong leader, don't we have a responsibility to stay there until some way is found for the people of Iraq to live in relative harmony? The same way we did in Bosnia/Croatia?
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 18:42:14
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 9:02:27
sorry. didn't mean to deduce that from the previous post.
you know...
news is coming out... iraq citizens... 'tis being translated now :-) was hard to find stuff before.
have a dig around from here:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm
more recent stuff... interesting.
Posted by Sobriquet Style on March 23, 2006, at 6:21:22
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 18:42:14
I don't think I can post the link to the body count website because of the rules, my guess is that one or two sentances may be uncivil. So to be on the safe side, i'll cut and paste what I think is civil and blank out parts which are possibly not, and won't quote the link. The Iraq body count is what its all about anyway.
"IRAQ DEATH TOLL IN THIRD YEAR
OF OCCUPATION IS HIGHEST YET""The civilian death toll has risen inexorably for the entire duration of the US-led military presence in Iraq following the initial invasion. That is the **** reality uncovered by ongoing tracking of media reports by the Iraq Body Count project (IBC).
• 6,331 from 1st May 2003 to the first anniversary of the invasion, 19th March 2004 (324 days: Year 1)
• 11,312 from 20th March 2004 to 19th March 2005 (365 days: Year 2)
• 12,617 from 20th March 2005 to 1st March 2006 (346 days: Year 3).
In terms of average violent deaths per day this represents:
• 20 per day in Year 1
• 31 per day in Year 2 and
• 36 per day in Year 3.
The IBC figure for Year 3 includes no deaths from March 2006, excludes the bulk of killings which followed the 22nd February bombing of a major Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, and lacks Baghdad morgue data for January and February this year. If January and February 2006 are excluded as being clearly incomplete, then the daily death rate for the remaining part of Year 3 rises to 40 (11,480 deaths over 287 days = 40 per day). However even before Year 3 has ended, and with incomplete data for its final months, the number of civilians reported killed is already higher than for all of Year 2 (12,617 vs. 11,312).
Although what has been described as ‘sectarian violence’ undoubtedly contributes to a growing proportion of deaths, the last year’s total includes 370 known civilian deaths from military action by US-led forces and 2,231 from anti-occupation activity against coalition and Iraqi government targets. The post-invasion increase in criminal activity remains an important concern, but the majority of media reports do not allow a clear identification of the perpetrators or their motives. The “unknown agents” who did most of the killing could fall into any of the categories above, as well as other types of ‘terrorist.’ Reports also indicate that the past year has seen an increasing number of extra-judicial executions.
Speaking from London, *** cofounder John Sloboda said, “Today’s figures are an indictment of three years of occupation, which continues to make the lives of ordinary Iraqis ***, not ***. Talk of civil war is a *** to mask the real and continuing core of this conflict, which is between an *** and *** occupying power on the one hand and a nationalist insurgency fuelled by grief, anger, and humiliation on the other. This conflict is proof that violence begets more violence. The initial act that sparked this cycle of violence is the *** US-led invasion of March and April 2003 which resulted in 7,312 civilian deaths and 17,298 injured in a mere 42 days. The insurgency will remain strong so long as the US military remains in Iraq, and ordinary Iraqi people will have more *** and *** to look forward to.”
*** cofounder Hamit Dardagan added: “In September 2003, after our first major review of civil insecurity in Iraq informed by data from the Baghdad morgue, we noted that:
‘The US may be effective at waging war but the descent of Iraq’s capital city into lawlessness under *** shows that it is *** at maintaining public order and providing security for the civilian population. The US has toppled Saddam and discovered that it won't be discovering any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So why is it still there? And if the US military *** ensure the safety of Iraqi civilians and itself *** a danger to them, what is its role in that country?’
“The question still stands, and Iraqis are still being killed in increasing numbers. How many more must die before the architects of the ‘military solution’ for Iraq realise that the only sure way to reduce violence is to stop *** it?”
MONTH* NUMBER KILLED
May-03 554
Jun-03 573
Jul-03 633
Aug-03 781
Sep-03 543
Oct-03 485
Nov-03 460
Dec-03 524
Jan-04 562
Feb-04 580
Mar-04 953
Apr-04 1227
May-04 612
Jun-04 829
Jul-04 746
Aug-04 812
Sep-04 893
Oct-04 894
Nov-04 1490
Dec-04 882
Jan-05 993
Feb-05 1148
Mar-05 734
Apr-05 955
May-05 1181
Jun-05 1188
Jul-05 1393
Aug-05 2078
Sep-05 1211
Oct-05 1100
Nov-05 1192
Dec-05 916
Jan-06 613**
Feb-06 524***This table begins with the occupation-phase, and therefore does not include up to 7,312 reported civilian deaths caused during the US-led military invasion phase to 30th April. During the excluded period of 42 days civilian deaths averaged 174 per day (or nearly double that if one considers only the most intense period of activity to 9th April).
**January and February 2006 lack Baghdad morgue data and should be considered less complete than other months.Apologies for all the ***, after that editing I hope this is civil here.
~
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 9:48:35
In reply to Iraqi Deaths, posted by Sobriquet Style on March 23, 2006, at 6:21:22
Would Iraqi deaths at the hands of sectarian violence be less if the previous leader was still in power? Obviously. He managed to keep the lid on it for many years. It really makes you think, doesn't it? Just like I thought after the fall of the communist government in Czech - oh drat, I give up on the spelling. The removal of a strong, (insert a few adjectives here) government leads to more violence in a country where age old hatreds have been kept in check with (insert methods of keeping hatreds in check here).
The current war against Iraq may have been based on incorrect assumptions, and had the correct information been known, would probably have never been undertaken.
But isn't the question *now* what to do to minimize the number of deaths? Most analysts I've seen, whether or not they were opposed to the war, don't believe a pullout will result in the least number of deaths - other than of course deaths among the soldiers. According to Asne Seirstad's book (apologies for misspellings), one of the greatest fears in Iraq was that a civil war would ensue from the removal of the existing regime.
Wouldn't that be incredibly irresponsible of us?
What was the strategy in Central Europe? How did the ethnic fighting there end?
And again, what about the Sudan. Is it really moral to stand by and do nothing in that situation? Goodness only knows I have absolutely no desire to get involved, but what's going on saddens me so greatly that it feels wrong to me to do nothing. Like watching domestic violence and not calling the police.
There is no "good" solution at this point. But perhaps we can look to history to help us find the least bad solution.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 10:06:33
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 9:48:35
That is of course, Yugoslavia.
I really should know that as a close friend of the family is Croatian, and we were kept relatively well informed at the time of the trouble. Less informed when it was settled.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 23, 2006, at 10:40:27
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 18:42:14
GPF - yea, they've been around for a while.
It's good to read their stuff. They have some interesting things to say.
But they are, you have to admit, a bit one sided.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 13:25:42
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 23, 2006, at 10:40:27
> But they are, you have to admit, a bit one sided.
Yes they are. Their mission statement makes it clear where their sympathies are going to lie.With world peace and reduction of people dying of preventable disease etc etc..
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 13:33:29
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 9:48:35
> The removal of a strong, (insert a few adjectives here) government leads to more violence in a country where age old hatreds have been kept in check with (insert methods of keeping hatreds in check here).
Hmm. The presence of a foreign occupying force also leads to more violence in a country where the majority of citizens want... Them to withdraw (can find link if people would like)
> The current war against Iraq may have been based on incorrect assumptions, and had the correct information been known, would probably have never been undertaken.
That is one theory. ANother theory is that it was known before pre-emptive strike that there were no WMD in Iraq... And that there were other motives for the war such as oil and economic takeover etc.
> But isn't the question *now* what to do to minimize the number of deaths? Most analysts I've seen, whether or not they were opposed to the war, don't believe a pullout will result in the least number of deaths - other than of course deaths among the soldiers.i can find a link if people would like.
How many insurgents were there supposed to be?
How many have been killed now?
Either the body count means... There really aren't very many insurgents left (which doesn't seem right)
Or more civilians than insurgents are part of that body count
Or civilians are becoming insurgents at a very rapid rate...I've heard the latter is probable.
If it is about the welfare of Iraq...
Why not turn the troops over to the UN to control?What do the Iraq citizens want?
The US troops to withdraw.
Civil war...
How would the US have felt about... Oh... Russia or someone coming along while you guys were doing the civil war thing...
?
> There is no "good" solution at this point. But perhaps we can look to history to help us find the least bad solution.
Or...
YOu could look at what the majority of citizens want.
Ahem.
Iraq citizens of course...
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:44:26
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » AuntieMel, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 13:25:42
>
> > But they are, you have to admit, a bit one sided.
>
>
> Yes they are. Their mission statement makes it clear where their sympathies are going to lie.
>
> With world peace and reduction of people dying of preventable disease etc etc..
>
I think it would be pretty hard to find a group whose mission statement promotes global warfare and an increase in people dying of preventable disease.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:50:54
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 13:33:29
> > The removal of a strong, (insert a few adjectives here) government leads to more violence in a country where age old hatreds have been kept in check with (insert methods of keeping hatreds in check here).
>
> Hmm. The presence of a foreign occupying force also leads to more violence in a country where the majority of citizens want... Them to withdraw (can find link if people would like)
>
> > The current war against Iraq may have been based on incorrect assumptions, and had the correct information been known, would probably have never been undertaken.
>
> That is one theory. ANother theory is that it was known before pre-emptive strike that there were no WMD in Iraq... And that there were other motives for the war such as oil and economic takeover etc.They're both theories. I thought your personal philosophy was that the most charitable assumptions be made?
>
> > But isn't the question *now* what to do to minimize the number of deaths? Most analysts I've seen, whether or not they were opposed to the war, don't believe a pullout will result in the least number of deaths - other than of course deaths among the soldiers.
>
> i can find a link if people would like.
> How many insurgents were there supposed to be?
> How many have been killed now?
> Either the body count means... There really aren't very many insurgents left (which doesn't seem right)
> Or more civilians than insurgents are part of that body count
> Or civilians are becoming insurgents at a very rapid rate...
>
> I've heard the latter is probable.
>
> If it is about the welfare of Iraq...
> Why not turn the troops over to the UN to control?That would be absolutely wonderful. Are they willing and eager to do this?
>
> What do the Iraq citizens want?
>
> The US troops to withdraw.
>
> Civil war...
>
> How would the US have felt about... Oh... Russia or someone coming along while you guys were doing the civil war thing...I'm not sure someone didn't? I know France took sides in the Revolutionary War.
>
> ?
>
> > There is no "good" solution at this point. But perhaps we can look to history to help us find the least bad solution.
>
> Or...
>
> YOu could look at what the majority of citizens want.
>
> Ahem.
>
> Iraq citizens of course...
>
>
Of course. If the majority of Iraqi citizens prefer us to leave them to their own devices, then I'm all for that.Ummm... Wait. Let me rephrase that. If the majority and the minority of Iraqi citizens prefer that we leave them to their own devices, then I'm all for that. Obviously in ethnic strife, the majority would usually like to be left to their own devices. Or at least the better armed side. If the Kurds and the other ethnic minorities all agree then let's by all means withdraw.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:10:28
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:44:26
> > Yes they are. Their mission statement makes it clear where their sympathies are going to lie.
> > With world peace and reduction of people dying of preventable disease etc etc..> I think it would be pretty hard to find a group whose mission statement promotes global warfare and an increase in people dying of preventable disease.
ROFL!!!!!!
((((((Dinah)))))))
Oh you are so right. Excuse me it has just gone 7am (no excuse really). I just realised my mistake and came here to 'clarify' (aka to try and squirm out of that one).Heh heh.
:-)
By 'world peace' I meant that they are fairly much pacifist. So they are going to focus on articles etc that talk about the horrors of war, rather than justifications for war.
By 'preventing people dying of preventible diseases' I meant that they think this should be done even if it means the US (and other countries) drug corporations lose money in the process, rather than talking about how to raise money so third world countries can afford to pay the prices which are high because of intellectual copyright laws etc.
They try and raise awareness of issues to do with global justice
(Some people think you should just worry about justice within a country)I guess they are fairly left wing...
Er... Is there a comperable source that is trying to raise awareness of more right wing issues?
Because that would be interesting... To compare...
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:28:06
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:50:54
> They're both theories. I thought your personal philosophy was that the most charitable assumptions be made?
Yes. Though in this case... Evidence is coming in is it not? Evidence regarding Bush admitting that he knew there were no WMD in the country before the war. I think there is an investigation into that... Yeah, charity is a guiding principle... But the evidence... IMO it is looking bad. But I guess we should see how it goes. I guess I've been hearing a lot about the claim that the war is unlawful because the initial argument... Came from a doctor in England who studied Philosophy in NZ and he was defended by a lawyer who is a QC who studied in NZ and so I have been reading a bit about that and... I think that side has a better case (though I'm probably biased towards pacifism)...
> That would be absolutely wonderful. Are they willing and eager to do this?
Do they need to be 'willing and eager'? Have they been asked if they would like to do that?
> > How would the US have felt about... Oh... Russia or someone coming along while you guys were doing the civil war thing...
> I'm not sure someone didn't? I know France took sides in the Revolutionary War.Did they come along with their military and occupy the country?
> Of course. If the majority of Iraqi citizens prefer us to leave them to their own devices, then I'm all for that.
Okay. I'll go on a links hunt...
Now yes I'll grant you that GPF is rather biased in the kinds of articles they collect to put links to on their site. But... They aren't funding the people who write the articles (in most cases). People write articles for the London Times and the New York Times and the San Francisco Times etc and they just collect them under various headings like 'foreign occupation' so people can read them on the net.So maybe you can find other news sources from other links off the net. But I'll have a little hunt around on GPF for some links...
> Ummm... Wait. Let me rephrase that. If the majority and the minority of Iraqi citizens prefer that we leave them to their own devices, then I'm all for that.?
You want 100% consensus?> Obviously in ethnic strife, the majority would usually like to be left to their own devices. Or at least the better armed side. If the Kurds and the other ethnic minorities all agree then let's by all means withdraw.
So seperate out all the minority groups...
And run an election for what each of them wants??
This is an interesting kind of democracy...
(Really)
Ok. So what's up with the Kurds? They are the ones most friendly to the US... Okay I'll have a hunt for that...Er...
Do you think all ethnic minorities should get... Their own govt?
Really... I'm interested because there has been some talk of having a seperate Maori govt in NZ. Currently I think they get something like 3 designated seats in parliament... Which... I might be wrong... But I think that exceeds their 10% (roundabouts) of the population status... We have around 10% asian population too... But I guess we didn't sign a treaty with them...
So... US has sided with the Kurds? ANd there is concern that if the troops withdraw the kurds will lose the civil war?
Er... Why is it the US business to make sure the kurds win the war or whatever???
Or is the idea that if the US troops withdraw then the ethnic majority in Iraq will kill the kurds (ie genocide)
Is that the idea?
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:41:48
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:28:06
I'm not sure I'm up to explaining why a minority viewpoint should be taken into account when the wishes of the majority are to... Oh lordy. Definitely not up to it. Why don't you google ethnic warfare in Iraq.
Are we siding with the Kurds? Of course not, where did you get that idea. Would we be doing them a disservice by allowing ethnic tensions to play themselves out as they have in the past? In my humble opinion, allowing that would be unconscionable. Just as standing by in the Sudan is unconscionable. But that, of course, is just my conscience and reasonable people apparently do believe otherwise.
In hindsight, I don't believe we should have gone in, hindsight being twenty-twenty and all. But I also believe that reasonable people could have concluded that the reluctance of the government to allow UN inspectors to look for WMD could have meant that there were WMD. That's why I said I regret that the UN inspectors weren't allowed to inspect.
I just think that that is irrelevant in regards to what we should do *now*. What we should do *now* should be based on an analysis of the likely outcome of a pullout.
Does the UN need to be asked to volunteer to replace US forces with UN ones?
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:45:50
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:41:48
a search of
kurds iraq
should be more than sufficient.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:50:35
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:50:54
british poll:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/resist/2005/1024britishforces.htm
british sympathy for the kurds:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/kurdsindex.htm
hmm.
okay. so if you only follow one link...
give this one a chance. it is long... but i think it is quite good...http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/0318motive.htm
the kurds... are willing to talk oil dealing with the us... does that factor into the sympathy vote?
how much does it cost to convert a tank to run on peanut oil?
how many lives have been lost?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.