RSSBush is redeemed?
Jul 23
This is a response I sent to an email about an article claiming Bush’s State of the Union lie about Iraq trying to get nuclear materials in Africa had been redeemed. It in fact was not redeemed. Here’s both the articles:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn11.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=541511
And this was my response. I was pretty mad at the time. Lately the thought that crosses my mind whenever anyone mentions “justifying” this war, or any war, is how they’re trying to make themselves feel less guilty for murdering tens of thousands of people. This implies that (other) people are so worthless that their death can be justified so some yuppy in a rich part of the world sleeps better at night. Anyways, here’s what I said:
Ahhh… Redemption. It’s a sweet word isn’t it? I hope this makes all those supporters of the war sleep better at night, knowing those tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq died for a worthy cause! After all, they deserved it, didn’t they? Those nasty mothers deserved to leave orphaned children. Those nasty children deserved to leave grieving families.
People like this will keep groping to find their justification. Just remember the people who died. And no, their dead aren’t worth any less than ours.
Jul 23, 2004 @ 19:44:03
Neil, when you say “… trying to make themselves feel less guilty for murdering tens of thousands of people”, do you really mean to allege that U.S. troops are MURDERING Iraqi civilians? Keep in mind, murder means “to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice; to slaughter wantonly”. Do you truly believe that the soldiers of the U.S. and her allies are wantonly slaughtering innocent Iraqi civilians?
Moreover, collateral damage, including the loss of life of innocent civilians, does nothing to take away from the legitimacy of military action. I am sure that Canada, the U.S., and other Allied forces killed many, many times more German civilians during the Second World War (in fact, in the Battle of Dresden alone, 35,000 German civilians were killed). In spite of this, you would be hard pressed to find someone who agrees that the war against Nazi Germany was not righteous and just.
One of the reasons why most people (including myself) can reconcile ourselves with these German civilian deaths is that if Hitler were left to his own devices, he surely would have killed many more on his own. Likewise, if the war against Iraq had never taken place, it’s certain that many of those “tens of thousands of innocent civilians” wouldn’t have fallen due to errant damage caused by U.S. artillery, but how many more Iraqi civilians would have been killed by the Baathist regime? If the U.S. and her allies had stayed out of Iraq a year and a half ago, “tens of thousands” would probably be a drop in the bucket for Saddam by this point.
Jul 23, 2004 @ 22:08:31
Steve,
I’m suprised by your use of the definition of murder, as it seems to fit the situation perfectly. “to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice; to slaughter wantonly.” Let’s look at it:
1. Unlawfully: There was no UN resolution allowing the invasion of Iraq, therefore by international law the invasion was illegal. I could probably make the successful case myself, in court, that Iraq did not pose a “clear and present danger” to the US, and I’m not even a lawyer.
2. Premediatated malice: As they’re flying over the cities of Iraq those planes surely have the intention to drop their bombs on a target. That is the definition of premeditated, unless you’re arguing they fell out accidentally.
3. Slaughter wantonly: Over 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq sounds pretty “wantonly” to me. Whether or not “that usually happens during a war” is not my problem, the issue is still that innocent people are being killed.
As to your example of World War 2, whether the participation was justified or not, I’m definitely not proud of the fact that the “allies” carpet bombed cities all over Germany and Japan. Dropping napalm on civilian areas of Tokyo that ended up putting the entire city in flames is something that’s been largely ignored throughout history. Think of how many civilians died from those. Not to mention dropping an atomic bomb. So while I’m not necessarily opposed to the participation of Canada in that war, I’m definitely ashamed of the actions of some of our allies.
I think you’ve let yourself fall into the trap that as long as someone has been killed by a person being paid to kill (or specifically by who you see as a “civilized” country) then it’s somehow different. Would you feel any different if someone you loved was killed by an invading army versus during a home robbery? Of course not, you just lost someone you love and you’ll be angry. The people in Iraq don’t say “Oh, well my husband was shot by the occupiers, so I guess that’s ok.”
Steve, if you let yourself think “Oh well, innocent people die during wars, that’s just the natural side-effect” how are we ever going to fix this place? Please try to put yourself in other peoples shoes before assuming it’s ok to kill, for any reason.
Jul 24, 2004 @ 14:09:46
The part of the murder definition that I’m focusing on here is “premeditated malice”. Of course the U.S. plane meant to drop the bombs – but I don’t believe the U.S. ever did it with the intention – the premeditated malice – of killing civilians, though they certainly may have been aware that their actions had the possibility of collateral damage. There is a WORLD of difference between trying to kill as many civilians as possible (say, for example, by flying a fuel-filled jetliner into a civilian-filled skyscraper), and accidentally killing civilians when your military targets are trying to hide by taking refuge in civilian-filled areas.
This has nothing to do with the “paid-to-kill” scenario you presented above. If you’re out deliberately targeting innocent civilians, I agree, it doesn’t matter whether you’re in uniform or not, it’s morally the same. Do you have evidence from a credible source that the U.S. is targeting people whom they know to be innocent civilians in Iraq? Throughout this whole conflict, I’ve believed that the U.S. has strove to minimize civilian deaths, though that doesn’t mean that there won’t be any at all.
I’ll leave you with one more question – if there is a military action that you believe is legitimate (say, the next Hitler or something), does the certainty of collateral damage that will involve civilian death take away from the legitimacy of the war? If we could go back 65 years and I told you there was no way that we could stop Hitler while avoiding ALL collateral damage civilian deaths along the way, would that have deterred you from going into Germany?
Jul 25, 2004 @ 18:56:46
Steve,
I’m not implying that the US is specifically targetting innocent civilians. However, they do drop bombs on apartment complexes full of innocent people in an attempt to get one person. This is completely irresponsible and implies that a) it’s not worth risking the lives of US soldiers to go get the person, and b) since the US doesn’t do that in it’s own country to obtain a criminal, the Iraqi civilians are therefore worth less than a US citizen.
And to your question of whether a war against a “new Hitler” is justified, that would completely depend on the situation. For example, if this “new Hitler” was going to invade a country let’s say approximately 10,000 civilians and soldiers would be killed in total. Then let’s say that in order to “free” this other country, both would have to be carpet bombed in an extended campaign and say 1,000,000 people would be killed in the process. Is this worth it? Obviously it’s a very complex problem and not so black and white, but in that situation it seems very clear to me.
So, in summary, yes civilian casualties can definitely change the “legitimacy” of a war. And that’s reflected in US popular opinion as well. That’s why so much attention has been paid to US casualties in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If there had been only 50 casualties so far, public opinion would be different, by a few points at least. If it were 10 times higher than it currently is I could absolutely guarentee the public would be overwhelingly against it. So why is it so much of a stretch to not only consider the casualties of the invader, but of the people being occupied as well? The military doesn’t even consider them real people, as proven by the refusal to try to count the number of civilian casualties. But until our world does start considering them we’re going to continue in this spiral of violence.
Aug 10, 2004 @ 22:57:42
What surprises me is that a supposedly advanced society such as the USA can’t think of an alternative to war. With all your resources and brillant minds, you still feel the need to bludgeon. I hope I am alive the day we wake up from this nightmare.