So it's okay to kill innocent civilians?

[shugah]

i only caught part of the debate tonight - this 100 year campaign season seems far too soon/early/intense/ridiculous/tiresome/etc. i don't know about everyone else, but just when i was focusing on some results from the 2006 election, it seems like we have to focus on THE FUTURE ...

the hour or so i watched ... yes, wolfie was asking stupid questions, and no one was candidly answering the questions of the audience. but the "you've got 20 minutes to answer yes or no to taking out bin laden, but innocent civilians will also die!!!" sure, stupid question. but why so many raised hands to respond "yes"? why not call wolfie on the stupidity of the question?

i was pretty disgusted. i know that if we call innocent civilians "collateral damage" that it's supposed to make it more palatable - but why didn't anyone suggest that if "we" were that close to catching bin liner that we could a) isolate him b) capture him c) follow him and "take him out" when there were no innocent civilians in the area?

what is this new blood frenzy of the democratic party? they all seem fairly ready to bomb iraq too!

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

1. That's why

Senator Clinton denounced the question as a silly hypothetical.

[shugah]

4. senator clinton also raised her hand for 'yes'

and was the one that applied the phrase "collateral damage".

and i believe it was another question altogether that she voiced the "hypothetical, i can't answer" response to.

[StudentProgressive]

2. The idea is to look TOUGH and MANLY

Of cousre that's the reason the whole fucking world thinks Americans can be assholes, but the candidates have to maintain their boners for bloodshed lest they look like they like PEACE

*SHUDDER*

[MnFats]

6. 'boners for bloodshed' sounds like a GOP fundraising group....n/t

[Quixote1818]

3. They did get on Wolfie for that being a stupid question.

Clinton told him to get away from hypothetical questions.

[WinkyDink]

5. THAT'S why I thought Dennis had the BEST answer.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. And DK's answer

ensures he'll never break 4% in the voting.

[StudentProgressive]

18. Money and Media ensures that; take a Poli Sci class

And stop pretending that Dennis's positions are not the most popular for the most part.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Really, his answer lost many people

who'd follow him

take a poli sci class

Learn about Real Politik, one thing he is not

[MonkeyFunk]

79. we'll see what happens

I maintain he won't break 4% anyway. He certainly won't break 10%.

We'll see who's right.

[MonkeyFunk]

83. The big unspoken truth about politics

is that we don't elect people on their positions. There are multiple reasons for that, some good, some bad.

Kucinich's positions, regardless of their merit, have practically no chance of being implemented. If we got to vote for a dictator, I might well vote for DK. But he has no chance of actually accomplishing what he espouses.

A President needs two things to do what he wants: a popular mandate and a willing congress. Kucinich would have neither, and the fact that he's been so unsuccessful as a member of Congress indicates he'd do even worse as the Executive.

So, like all things in politics, a reasonable person reaches for what can be accomplished, not what's ideal. I like Clinton because she understands that. So does Obama, Richardson and Biden.

We're not voting for a speech-maker-in-chief. A President should actually be able to accomplish something.

[shugah]

19. even so

DK :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[MonkeyFunk]

80. There's much to admire about him as a rhetorician....

but he won't ever hold an office higher than the one he currently holds.

[Maat]

28. I missed it.

What did DK say?

[sandnsea]

7. Yes, reality is ugly

Sometimes you have to make decisions like that when you're a President, whether it's Bin Laden or somebody worse. It's not Candy Land out there.

[shugah]

10. well, i'd hope my president would make the right decision

wouldn't you?

candy land? huh? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

21. Afghanistan was the right decision

Innocent people died.

There is a point where you have to defend yourself if you don't want to send the message that you never will.

[shugah]

27. first, i have no idea what you are trying to say

a lot of people died in afghanistan - for a long time before 9-11 too. yes, innocent people died, and guess what? - they shouldn't have.

what is the message you are trying to send?

[sandnsea]

33. That's the way the world works

When people do bad things, and others try to stop them, sometimes innocent people are killed in the process. Should we not have tried to stop Hitler because innocent people died?? That's the answer everybody except Kucinich gave, and why Kucinich was wrong.

[shugah]

50. you should study history

and current policy and past US policy ... and when you have a clue i'd be happy to talk to you about it. :-)

honestly sandnsea - you are hard to understand and your posts are not ... ... coherent.

:-)

thanks for your viewpoint!

[sandnsea]

68. Go argue with Will then

I'm sure you won't accuse him of being incoherent.

[StudentProgressive]

13. And Washington ensures it's not Candy Land with this ridiculous policy

I'm Pakistani American if they're going to drop a bomb randomly to kill some idiot wannabe who has no signficance anymore who we don't even know was responsible for 9/11 and murder many innocent civilians along with him, they'll have to get through my opposition first for bombing these poor people in Pakistan.

[Swamp Rat]

20. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[sandnsea]

24. Bin Laden claimed responsibility

Maybe you missed it.

Maybe you missed the nuclear network of Pakistan's Khan. Maybe you missed Pakistan's support of the Taliban, who supported Bin Laden. Maybe Pakistan should think about the poor people their policies are killing.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

34. Yes it is

I'm sure you and the rest of the sudden arrival of "student progressives" are well aware of where free republic is.

[StudentProgressive]

37. You and them are on the same side on this

I just thought you might want to join the ilk here.

[sandnsea]

38. On Afghanistan?

90% of Americans supported invading Afghanistan. You're in the minority there. And you're really not supposed to call people freepers around here either.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maat]

30. I agree - and welcome to DU, StudentProgressive!!

:hi:

As a retired social worker, I believe I know the difference between cause for war (as in I have to protect myself from imminent deadly attack or others against the same) and a police action (capturing an international criminal).

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Hmm OBL claimed responsibility

what is more, he also declared war in 1998

Now to be honest, where he is hiding is either in the badlands of Pakistan or in Afghanistan

In an ideal world I'd have him arrested

We don't live in that world

And the Pakistani Government DOES not control those tribal areas, and you know that

And we don't control those areas of Afghanistan either

What is more... in an execute order like this, for real, more han just where the bombs are going comes in

If this happen, will Musharaff fall? If that happens, will that make the country even more radical?

And if the opportunity came, as they put it in the what if. They are not going to tell you until well after the bombs landed and the Bomb Damage Assessment was done

Then you can protest

Just a little reality

And in an ideal world anybody like OBL would be turned over to proper international aouthorities... in an ideal world we would not be in this mess either

And back in the real world, if the execute order was signed and OBL was killed, I still expect blow back... if he is not killed I definitely expect it

[StudentProgressive]

42. He's a criminal who should be arrested; there is no excuse for using bombs to

attack him in a situation where you'd murder many more innocent civilians.

I'm sure these multimillionaires on stage don't understand the pain the third world feels. Well, at least one of them was brave enough to stand by humanity against barbarity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Ah the third world canard comes back again

let me tell you something, I do... seen it, lived in it, breathed it... token care of people in the worst of conditions

I also have had to take real difficult decisions

Yes, some of which were life and death

In the real world, where I live, those decisions are taken 24\7\365 all over the world, by people both rich and poor

And in this case, you are talking of a VALID military target... albeit one that is a hero to many in the third world, partly due to Madrassas and externalizing their hate for their really bad leaders to others.

I'd rather try him, but when he read his Fatwah in 1998 he was the first individual to declare war on a nation state, when he does not lead a nation state

I am sure you will tell me this is propaganda too

His actions of elven of september, for which many where you come from were properly horrified, have made him a valid military target in the eyes not only of the US, but most of the West.

I'm not going to say that we are without blame, as I have said in other places, there is plenty the US has done, to bring the ahem, dislike of many in the third world, but many of them also hate externalities and are encouraged to do that as a distraction from their internal crisis (and the same happens here, propaganda is a wonderful thing)

But the world is not as simple as you think it is

Or do you think an Interpol team could walk into the tribal badlands the Paki army does not control and just issue an arrest warrant and bring this man to the International Court of Justice in the Hague?

Now be honest here

[TahitiNut]

8. Damn civilians! They just get in the way of the "important" stuff.

:puke: :puke:

Our a$$hole politicians seem to think they can declare a "free fire zone" on a whim anywhere they want.

[shugah]

17. civilian lives

not at all important in THE BIG PICTURE - we're fightin' terra-rists.

[TahitiNut]

26. This is the very heart of the corruption in calling it a "war" instead of law enforcement.

Not only does the "war" meme obfuscate the wholesale infringments on civil liberties these fascist bastards have enacted, it clouds the whole notion of "Wanted Dead or Alive" ... which is, you'll notice, a law enforcement paradigm. (I suspect that's why it was abandoned so quickly.) Under absolutely no conditions is it warranted to use a "Wanted Dead or Alive" poster as license to kill the townsfolk. No way. No how.

What's really disturbing and indicative of how brain-damaged we've gotten is how NOBODY sees the disconnect. Appalling. Just further reason for me to believe it's going to get a LOT worse before it gets better. Once upon a time, not more than 30 years ago, people weren't so fucking obtuse about this shit.

[shugah]

39. "NOBODY sees the disconnect"

thank you for summing it up TahitiNut!

it is the disconnect - more severe for some than others, but we all drink at that well. the political pendulum that so-called swings is broke, our sad country can not find it's way.

personal note to TahitiNut: i'm not f**king obtuse about any of this! ;-)

[TahitiNut]

56. I know.

I'm admittedly self-inclusive when I say such things, though. I'm often obtuse ... and often fail to remind myself of the insidious fraud being perpetrated on us. All "war" all the time. We're drowning in it. I rarely make the mistake of excluding myself when I refer to "people," "folks," or "human beings." It's sometimes tough to stay afloat in the flood of propaganda.

:pals: :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Actually what was done today in the debate

was not alive or dead, but valid military target for classic decapitation

Given that he declared war on teh US in '98...

I wasn't surprsied they went there

Personally I'd have him arrested... and tried... but there is a good chance he is dead, Mr Goldstein... I mean how the heck do you hide a six five Arab with a dialisys machine?

[TahitiNut]

64. He didn't (and doesn't) have the standing to "declare war."

Effectively granting him that standing has been part grave error and part self-serving, corrupt hyperbole.

Should England have bombed Belfast? Should England have sent in battleships and pounded Ireland? Should England have launched cruise missles at IRA leaders?

I remember when the escalation of the "troubles" started and England sent in it's regular military to "keep the peace" and how that was regarded as questionable use of military force.

We've come a long way, ____.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. I know he does not have the right

under Internatioal law

But he did it

And we recognized it, first tacitly by the Clinton Administration, who should have used more police finaltial tools, and in fact openly by the Bush administration

I can tell you he's the inspiration for more than one sci fi yarn, but it was done

And as such, he is a valid military target since NOBODY in the world communtiy, as far as we know, has questioned this

[Egnever]

9. Yes unfortunately it is

if by killing those few inocents you save thousands or millions. It was a loaded question to be sure.

There were a lot of variables in that question, are you telling me you wouldnt let the missles fly if only one innocent civilian was going to die?

[shugah]

11. yes

i would not ever knowingly kill innocent people. happily, i am also not running for public office. and, perhaps more happily still, the current democratic candidates do not seem to have any need of my vote. :-)

[StudentProgressive]

14. Why does America have to BOMB everything?!

Why not send in some troops and arrest the bastard?! This is as bad as the terrorists who attacked us in 9/11 justifying killing civilians to kill people in the Pentagon and WTC.

[Swamp Rat]

22. Well, as far as I can tell it's a certain faction in power that wants to bomb everything

Alien lizards, to be more precise. ;)

[shugah]

66. ah christ! the f**ki** alien lizards!

my son is convinced that i am one - but i'm not!

[Swamp Rat]

78. I doubt you are an alien lizard.

THEY usually eat their young.

[Egnever]

63. Sometimes it just isn't feasible

to send in troops. For instance in pakistan where osama supposedly is. Sending troops in there would destabilize the government of a nuclear power.

Which is why he is hiding there. He knows we cant go in.

I am not saying we could bomb there either, just giving an example of where sending in the troops would not work. I am quite sure given the choice all of them would take the send in the troops option. That wasn't the choice they were given though.

[camero]

58. With the way war is now

How many million innocents are killed to save one? It doesn't even add up logically.

Estimates for Iraq are 600,000 and using Bush's meme that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, that's 600,000 for 3,000.

Doesn't make any sense at all. Either way you look at it.

[Egnever]

65. we werent talking about a war

we were talking about a "precision" bombing

[camero]

67. No such thing

Bombs are too large and take out a much greater area than percieved. Plus you don't take out an ant with a sledgehammer.

[Egnever]

Horse shit

there are no absolutes in this question. He could be in a shack in the middle of no where with one farmers family near by guaranteeing the collateral damage would be minimal. you are trying to state a worse case scenario where he would be in the middle of downtown or something.

This is not a simple question and the answer is not nearly as simple as you portray it to be..unless of course you are a complete pacifist,if so good luck with that in the real world.

[camero]

74. These guys don't usually hang out in the middle of nowhere

They are usually with alot of people for safety in numbers. You're presenting the best case scenario which is a load of horse shit itself.

[Egnever]

77. No

I am trying to point out the fact that its not an all or nothing question. You seem to be holding onto some worse case scenario.

I am saying its a judgment call. Do the ends justify the means. Sometimes the hard choice is the right choice. Sometimes it isn't.

I am saying I can see scenarios where it would be acceptable in the over all scheme of things. It would never be my first choice but I certainly could not rule it out either.

You apparently could...thats your prerogative of course. I happen to think thats an overly simplistic view of a very complex question.

at what number of casualties would it be acceptable for you or in your eyes would it never be?

[camero]

81. In a WWII scenario, maybe. War on Terror, no.

With our CIA perfecting the use of covert actions around the world, the more likely solution of an undercover action has a greater chance of attaining the stated goal.

This thread actually reminds me of the movie Jarhead in the scene where the Marine snipers have the shot on an Iraqi officer and his superior calls him off of the shot so the AF can use some new toys and bomb the place.

Of course in the WWII scenario you're talking about totally annihalating a population. We seem to be getting up the gander to go that route with what so far have been limited casualties but with the fear of there being more.

So I have to turn the question around. How many innocents should die for one? Both questions have merit in any planned action.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. That question is actually part of the planning

and yes, the math of hell is done

How many innocents are you willing to risk for one who has killed adn will again if given the oportunity

This is not an iddle question when you are dealign with policy matters

And if any of us were in those shoes, well I do hope we'd ask all the pertinent qestions before signing an execute order

But in war, (and so far this is treated as war) there are acceptable casualties

For the record, from WW II to now, they have dropped exponentially

Back then we woudl have fire bombed a city, today we wil use precision weapons that hopefully will keep the casualties down

Oh and for those who have asked have you lost a relative to collateral damage?

yes, my fathers mother, and two sisters, on a nice September morning of 1939

So the question to me is not theoretical

[camero]

84. The planners we have now don't seem to be asking those questions

They're going on the neo-con "1% doctrine". Plus our "precision" bombs are coated with depleted uranium, thus ensuring collateral damage for generations. Surviving the war can be just as much a death sentence as dieing in the immediate bombing.

[Egnever]

85. So you dont have an answer

But you expect me to answer my own question?

ok ill play

It depends on who the one is and their potential to do damage to many more innocents. There is no clear line in the sand for me it would be very situational.

And again you are picking and chosing where you apply your answer nice to see you at least recognize there are situations where it would be warrented.

You turn... where do you draw the line?

[camero]

86. Potential, IOW, fear.

The whole thing is situational. But not every situation requires a bombing response. That's the question you're not answering.

[Egnever]

96. Of course they dont

no one said every situation does. Especialy the candidates themselves. Why do you keep pretending I or any one of the candidates implied it was better to bomb first and ask questions later.

It was a loaded question and the answer was obvious. Of course there are situations where it would be warented. You can not answer that question in the negative unless you could not see a situation where you would have to make that tough call.

I can see that situation? cant you? and if you can then why in the world are you arguing with me?

[dusmcj]

12. Wolf succeeded in maintaining the requisite level of FUD.

Like he always does. Is it possible to have some debate sponsors other than Time Wanker ?

[BlooInBloo]

16. No, it's not ok. It is the way it goes sometimes, however.

[shugah]

23. based on the 'hypothetical', BlooInBloo?

?

[BlooInBloo]

29. Um, no? Just based on every military action in the history of the world.

[StudentProgressive]

35. Combatting terrorism is a criminal prosecution problem

Turning it into war has lead to what could be called genocide. What's been done in Iraq and Afghanistan is atrocious most of the people killed were not terrorists. This war is terrorism.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[StudentProgressive]

46. Demeaning users is against board policy*

*You should look into that.

If you can't win an argument, you shouldn't turn to bullying the opponent.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

51. Why such sarcasm?

He's right. Prosecuting terrorist organizations as if they were Mafia syndicates, i.e. using RICO-like statutes that cut off the money, etc., is the only truly sensible course of action...and it beats the crap out of open-ended quagmire wars.

Why the snark? I'm legitimately curious.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

61. Hm.

OK.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. William using RICO is one way

remember the BCCI Scandal? (I believe the Pakis were very involved in that one)

But it also has (in an ideal world, this ain't) a military element, with very flexible spec op units

In an ideal world you also invest heavily in the countries subject to being havens for terror, drug dealing and piracy, to take the attraction away by giving an alternative

I doubt out friend though knows what BCCI is

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. If they had 20 minutes to catch he who declared war on this

country in 1998 and made himself a valid military target, that is not an hypothetical unfortunately

Remember those missiles going to Sudan?

Oh and they were late in targeting before Bush took over in Afghanistan

So the question is not that what if...but most likely when

And some of the candidates answered correctly

And unfortunately if it was me, and I had a chance to either capture or kill OBL, I'd sign the execute order.

Its not about party

I'd rather have him tried, but that is a whole different matter

Oh and it has nothing to do about being manly either

And don't tell me about mangled bodies and children dead. I know what that will do, I've seen it, I've also smelled it

In fact, someday this country will have to face what has been done in its name... and it ain't pretty

[StudentProgressive]

36. Those missles took out a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan

that made half the medicines for the country. UNICEF reported tens of thousands of death spike amongst childrens.

That's your defense against terrorism?

And some Americans wonder why those of us with roots in the Third World draw back in disgust...

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. No, it took the components for Ricine

sorry...

Thanks for playing

It also took the components for aspirin but Ricine was one of them

As to ideally what you do with terrorism you drain the swamp, by making the conditions not likely to produce terrorists

In an ideal world you would have education, money, agricultural support and other measures to drain the support for terror. These days the horn of Africa is a nightmare, partly of Western making, not only American, but partly out of African making, and the force of tribalism

By the way... we are, in your view, also responsible for piracy in the malacca straits and off the coast of Africa right? And the attack and capture of UN ships, RIGHT?

Oh and on edit, I have roots in the third world and have seen the effects of colonialism with my own eyes. I could even tell you some stories about refugees... so don't try that one here

To add, the it was only producing pharmaceuticals is a Republican talking point

[StudentProgressive]

49. This has been well documented by UNICEF, HRW, and Amnesty

The facts don't change no matter how much rhetorical flourish is used.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. And the RNC

They also documneted the Ricine

By the way, it is also well documented that we have a very serious piracy problem in the horn of africa and that UN relief ships have been taken hostage

I am ammused you didn't even aknoweldge that

(Other areas of piracy are the Philippines, the Mallacca straits and to a lesser degree the Caribean... you may now proceed to connect dots)

[ChicagoRonin]

62. Just wondering

Have any of your family members been "collateral damage" in a war?
If not, hypothetically speaking, if they were, do you think you'd be able to simply accept it as part of war and warfare?
In my experience, those who usually advocate ass-kicking, have no idea what it's like to have their ass kicked.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Civilians? Who cares about civilians? Dead civilians don't vote or contribute to campaigns.

Dead civilians are only valuable if they are Americans that the politicians can point to, with crocodile tears, to become "electable".

[WilliamPitt]

47. Hypothetical, apart from the debate and only offered to answer the basic premise

of your question.

Imaging Adolf Hitler, or some other genocidal leader with similarly bloody hands, walking down a street. He is surrounded by 50 ten-year-old kids who are all carrying bunny rabbits, twelve Buddhist monks, and ten Normandy veterans. You're in a bomber above him, he's in your sights, but you know any bomb you drop will also obliterate that crowd of innocents.

Do you do it?

Of course you do.

Life isn't about choosing between good and evil, except in rare moments. More often than not, life is about choosing the evil that's more good.

[shugah]

75. actually, of course i don't

what a rare choice to be offered - right and wrong, so grey in all it's abstracts!

your point is taken, mr. pitt - but i would not take the life of those kids. i'm pretty well convinced that the taking of life is "evil," whatever "evil" is - the choice between good and evil is usually nothing of the sort - just the choices each person makes.

the past is past, and we are only condemned to relive it if we forget it.

[gravity]

53. If doing so would prevent more civilian deaths, then it could be acceptable

Reality does not always give us clear moral decisons for each unique situation.

A great leader should be able to determine if the risks of civilian casualties is worth the greater good of carrying the military objective. Unfortunately Bush is the exact opposite of a great leader.

BTW this is a loaded question because "collateral damage" is different from specifically targeting civilians to kill.

[StudentProgressive]

57. Always turning to "reality" calling morality "impossible"

This is the tool of the greatest moral criminals in history, and I fear our leaders do this too often -- especially when they are beaten in logical debate and have to turn to ad hominem.

[gravity]

70. That's why we need real leadership

Not this shit in the whitehouse.

[provis99]

72. by not attacking people like Osama bin Laden, you become complicit

look up Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous quote on not doing anything about Nazis for fear of one's self doing nasty things. If evil isn't stopped, there won't be any innocents left to worry about injuring.

[slowry]

73. As long as it's not me, or anyone I know -- bombs away.

:sarcasm:

[ComerPerro]

76. its a loaded question.

[MonkeyFunk]

87. do you believe

every civilian life should be preserved at all costs, regardless of military merit?

Would you kill Hitler and one civilian? Yes, it's a stupid extreme example, but it points out the real question at hand: there are military objectives that are vital and that, sadly, injure civilians.

We had to win WWII. Doing so involved killing a lot of civlians. I disagree with the bombing of Nagasaki, the firebombing of Dresden, and to I'm conflicted about Hiroshima. I would've preferred to nuke an unpopulated area to display the power of the bomb.

But the fact is, it would be pure folly to claim that all civilian life must be preserved at any cost.

[MrSlayer]

88. How many innocent civilians are hanging out with Osama bin Laden?

Or around the camps he runs or the caves he supposedly lives in?

[camero]

89. Or better yet

Why haven't we bombed Pakistan yet? We know he's there. Supposedly.

[MrSlayer]

92. The answer to that is obvious.

Nuke.

[MonkeyFunk]

90. Probably not many...

but the question is a bigger one... say you knew he was visiting a warlord on the Pakistan/Afghan border whose family was there? Say he had some children.

It's conceivable that the children could be killed in an attack.

[MrSlayer]

91. Yes. You'd have to do it.

Those kids are fucked anyway if they are the offspring of a fundamentalist Islamic warlord.

[MonkeyFunk]

93. yeah, probably

the point, though, is that a President has to make some very tough decisions. I think Clinton and some of the others were trying to demonstrate that they COULD make those decisions if need be.

I'm glad I don't have to.

[MrSlayer]

94. I concur.

It's not as easy as some would make it seem. There's a reason those guys age so badly in office.

[MonkeyFunk]

95. No kidding...

It has to be a horrible responsibility.