Can’t say that I am surprised you’d “think” that way, for the fact that you’re a blithering idiot and a clueless cheerleader has been amply demonstrated in all your prior postings on this matter.
You’re the kind of simple-minded American, Kubrick had in mind when he wrote this line for Full Metal jacket:
**
Rah rah, Go USA!
*Replace with any nationality you happen to be butchering the time.
Given that the US had an opportunity to kill him, then I’m willing to say we were negligent in the deaths that were sure to follow as a result.
No so straight forward in this case. Killing Al Sadr would have certainly lead to a complete uprising in Sadr city. Even those who did not previously give Sadr active support would be bound to do so by tribal loyalties if we blew his head off. Would the amount of deaths caused by unrest because of his death be fewer than the amount he may possibly cause in the future? There’s no definite answer there.
Basically. It’s kind of like violent improv night. And once it starts you can’t stop it without abandoning the audience to the cast that shows up.
Good. Keep that in mind, because it’s just one of the many ways we’ve fucked up this invasion.
Sure, this one is a bit tougher, but at least you’re employing dialectical thinking.
I personally believe in the long run that killing him would have saved us some big headaches down the road. Wouldn’t it be funny as hell if he’s elected to lead Iraq?
And many of us told them to cancel the play before it started.
My brother have only half-jokingly parroted this line since the beginning of our recent jingoistic ventures into other nations to instill upon them western ideals, freedom and good old USA liberty.
Sam
Maybe I’m not being clear: yes, the US is responsible for those inevitable reprisals, since those reprisals were predictable. Sometimes there’s no good decision to make, and wherever you turn you’re going to get spattered with blood. In such cases, you’ve got a responsibility to minimize that bloodshed.
I don’t criticize the US’s initial actions in Afghanistan, except that I criticize them for being belated. Taliban Afghanistan made Baathist Iraq look like Socialist Sweden; if ever a country needed invading, it was Taliban Afghanistan.
SUch an invasion would’ve led to bloodshed. Such an invasion would also lead to the reduction in bloodshed.
I just don’t get the moral difference here. Isn’t the mess composed of multiple acts? If none of those acts are the responsibility of the US, what is?
The mess has only one real cost, and that’s a cost in human suffering. Human suffering doesn’t exist in the aggregate: it exists in the hearts and bodies of human beings. To locate the mess, you have GOT to point out the individual human beings who are devastated by it.
Note also that I’ll hold the US responsible for the good that’s happening in Iraq. If a child is getting proper medicine today who wouldn’t have been getting it two years ago, and that’s due to Hussein’s ouster, I’ll consider that due to the US’s actions, and give the US credit. Would you?
Daniel
How’s this: the US is responsible for the fact that a range of atrocities are taking place, because that was predictable. But since it wasn’t predictable that group X would disembowel person Y on day Z, the US isn’t responsible for that specific atrocity, but just the fact that atrocities of an unpredictable nature would ultimately happen as a result of blundering around like a damned fool.
Like Daniel, I see the distinction, but agree that it seems to be one without a moral difference.
Works for me.
Blackclaw, thanks for getting back to me.
Well, as near as I can tell, only the OP in that thread used the word “murder,” and he later went on to acknowledge that it was out of frustration. Also, the issue at hand was the fact that one of the men killed in that attack was an American citizen, executed without process.
Sorry, I just think you’re misremembering. There wasn’t much stir over that attack in Yemen, here or elsewhere.
whaddaya mean “We,” kemosabe?
I can’t believe that you’re using these as analogies. It’s not that we are being assholes in Iraq. It’s not that we refused to buy Iraq a car.
Want your analogies to work?
What if your boss and coworkers were killing your family and friends, and threatening to kill you?
What if your parents refused to buy you a car, then killed your sister, and while sexually humiliating you, threatened to kill your brother?
Would you feel a little more justified in using violent force then?
I cannot believe that some of you have actually criticized my use of the word “Western” in the OP. You darkly hint that I must believe that the death of a Western woman is more tragic, more meaningful, than the death of an Iraqi (or any non-Western) woman. This is utter nonsense. If you read the OP carefully you will see that, by using the word “Western,” I am merely anticipating the next paragraph in which I remark that the dead woman may be Teresa Borcz or Margaret Hassan - both of whom are Western women. Forgive me for displaying a sense of dramatic timing.
Liberals are all too eager to slap the “racist,” “bigot,” and “Nazi” labels on anyone they disagree with.
However, it is worth pointing out that, since Margaret Hassan was a Western woman who utterly devoted herself to the Iraqi people, her death does carry a special extra resonance.
Also, they have apparently found Hassan’s body. In that case, who is the dead woman in the OP?
Says the person who has never begun a thread about Iraqi civilian deaths, now well into 5 digits.
Liar. The labels apply to those who show those characteristics.
It does? Why does her Westernness make her death more tragic or wasteful? Please explain. Is her death any more tragic than that of any other war victim of Iraqi or other non-Western origin, many of whom doubtless had devoted their own lives to the betterment of others’ but somehow escaped your notice or respect? No. Only when it happened to “one of us” did it move you to doubt if the war was a good idea. Here’s a bit of news: Many of us knew that shit like this was going to happen, and that’s one of the many reasons we opposed this war right from the beginning, when bigots like you who imagined only furriners were going to die were supporting it. You have earned those labels by your own actions and statements. Now deal with it.
Her Westernness does make her death more important to a certain group of people(people like Roseworm and Ryan_Liam), because it “proves” to them that the Iraqis don’t care about anything but themselves and they are so ungrateful to have killed a woman like Hassan who dedicated her life to trying to improve their lives.
It makes the invasion of Iraq, the razing of their cities and the death of insurgents and innocent civilians more palatable. An act of justification if you will.
Sam
Stupidity just cancels itself out doesn’t it?
Holy shit! We’re going after Sweden next?!? :eek: 
Sounds like a plan. You already had the cars, Iraq had the gas - all you need now is a woman.
That, Mr. Moto, was a rather brilliant post.
Dibs on the tall blonde ones.
Sell my wife on the idea and I’ll enlist tomorrow.
BTW, how is Aberdeen this time of year? That’s where my father’s side of the family emigrated from.
Wife? Ha! If Americans were getting laid, they wouldn’t have the urge to swing their tiny pricks at the world. 
We just got the first heavy snow of the year. And I have to go out in it, right now.