in response to Civilian deaths in Iraq

>>Except that in Iraq we're not talking about the insurgents killing people in the crossfire, we're talking about them targeting civilians to be murdered deliberately.

You’re very right about that. Deliberately attacking civilians on the assumption that they are cooperators with the invading force or the terrorists is bad practice. I assume you condemn both practices as I do. (As you correctly point out its not morally right to go around shooting unarmed civilian and voting officials. That is clearly a violation of any moral code of conduct. Likewise delivering air strikes on questionable “intelligence” and slaughtering a weeding party or civilian dwellings is not of high moral standing. I will assume you agree with me that those choices represent poor judgment.

<>I imagine you will point to intention. ie the “Terrorist” intends to kill civilians while the US does so in its benevolence. This statement certainly has some validity. But I doubt such rational caries much weight in the eyes of the victim.
You may also point to the scale of such killings. But for this we should take into account context. Maybe those “terrorists” would be bombing Iraqis if we did not invade I guess there is no way to tell.

Furthermore how would we measure “success” could we build a giant scale and stack up the bodies of all those killed in this conflict and put on the other side all those that potentially would have been killed without the invasion? At what point would it cease to be a valid form of rationalization, 10 to 1, 5 to 1, 1 to 1? Or are there some problems with that that form of rationalization? Certainly the disaster in Iraq is pale in comparison to Clintons indirect killings during the sanctions. (sorry for my gross negligence on numbers in the previous post I meant .5 to 1.5 but I now take this to be my opinion of those facts: a fair assessment of the human cost of sanctions, section 5.7)

>>That doesn't make targeting civilians native to the country an acceptable means of making war. Blow bomb a US convoy and that's an act of war. Shoot unarmed civilian voting officials in the back of the head - that's murder.

Again I agree, but statistically the insurgents are targeting police stations, and US convoys. Although again we could bring out some imaginary scale showing "them" targeting unarmed civilians more the "we" are but by accedent I am not sure how productive that would be.

>>Never assume ANYTHING the UN says to be true. see the a fair assessment

>> >>I am not concerned about if the dead were suicidal resisters or defenseless civilians >>You should be. It's a vital difference.

True but at this point in the post I had sort of transitioned in to an emotional state.. Where I am expressing the universal value in human life…I feel bad when people die, just like how I morn for every solder that dies and his family that must struggle on.

I feel really sad when people are killed in wars but certainly understand what you mean by war being necessary in certain cases but in deconstructing the rational I often find them not to be justifiable.

If I had to build a scale of true rational for this Iraq war conflict for example I would likely point to peek oil theory, potential of OPEC moving to the ERUO and how Iraqs resources play a crucial role in maintain US hegemony. (Its no mystery why the strong players in the ERUO based economies where reluctant to jump on the Iraq bandwagon).

The justifications for war is always been filled with heart warming redirect, in almost every case I can think of. (ie democracy liberation, freedom for all, salvation through Christianity, salvation though Islam etc)

>>Actually, there's no relationship between the level of civilian casualties and the justness of the cause itself. There may not be any just civilian casualties at all, but that doesn't mean that the overall objective of the war is unjust.>>

>>Opposing war solely because it is war and is therefore 'bad' is irrational. War fought to stop evil and prevent even greater, more indiscriminate bloodshed, is sometimes a necessary evil to promote the greater good.

Wow... Never seen it stated so clearly, the means are irrelevant to the ends. But was this originally not an argument about the means of the “insurgents” being wrong. Was their indiscriminate bloodshed not something evil? I imagine you will point out that the resistance does not seek greater good and hence their cause is unjust and hence so are their actions. And you might point to intent, and historic context.

Regardless, I wholeheartedly disagree with the concept of means not representing the ends, for example I would support Iraq resistance if it was nonviolent, and I condemn it for its attacks on civilians. But I also understand I am not in a position of some of the resisters; where my country has been invaded and friends and family members murdered so I don’t know what I would do in that situation likely release my preoccupation of means vs ends. Likewise it makes no sense whatsoever to blame the US military personal for what they do in pursing the ends that they ordered to peruse, and on that point I imagine we agree.

<>But what course of action do you leave those who would prefer not to be occupied or converted into a client state by the US? You agree they have a right to attack the military, and die given the occupiers overwhelming strength. But at what point would the means of killing these people intrude on the ends we are perusing? Maybe we could put out a number early on so that when that many people are killed we can stop and say wait a second I guess it was not such a great plan to take the Iraqi resources and bring them democracy at the same time after all. Obviously we would need to count the puppet government’s actions as well, for example if they peruse the “Salvador” option at how many dead will we stop supporting the puppet regime and withdraw our troops? How many did Saddam kill before we stopped supporting him? Or was our support somewhat inline with our economic interest? Will your ideology ever be able to go against what you know to already be true?

I am willing to partake in an ideological shift…if say at the end of the month all the violence ends and freedom is brought to everyone in that country. I will say "shucks I guess the "means" are irrelevant and "ends" can be achieved regardless of what bad things had to happen in the process” But somehow I know that those are idealistic goals with no real bearing on the reality of attacking and invading a country. Yet our government talks about freedom as if they are just around the corner. If we can’t achieve this idealism then why are we there? the pursuit of that idealism. How are we perusing that idealism?

Are the mass killings and incarceration of resistors and “terrorist” (people who have lost sight of means and ends and are engaged in gross human rights violations) also part of that idealism of democracy and freedom? When do we take the hard look at how our means and ends are matching up?