Household Survey Sees 100, 000 Iraqi Deaths

[Arwin]

Social costs can be much more heavily valued than life itself. If not, then why did so many Americans line to fight for independence when the only cost was taxes, laws and unfair treatment?

You said civilians. Once they pick up arms, or even voluntarily sacrifice themselves, they're martyrs or militia, etc. It's a completely different thing. If you're sacrificing more people who have nothing to do with the conflict to protect fewer people who have nothing to do with the conflict, you'll have to start thinking how much more value the civilian life you're protecting holds over the civilian life you're sacrificing. Once you start doing that, you're in a moral danger zone.

 

[Danoff]

You said civilians. Once they pick up arms, or even voluntarily sacrifice themselves, they're martyrs or militia, etc.

When did I say civillians and what are militia or military officers besides people who voluntarily choose to fight?

Once you start doing that, you're in a moral danger zone.

But I'm not doing that.

Way to go Danoff, very well put.

Thanks.

 

[Arwin]

When did I say civillians and what are militia or military officers besides people who voluntarily choose to fight?

Please look at the top post on this page ...

 

[TheCracker]

Leaving the issue of WMDs aside, how many civillian deaths would be worth it to root out terrorism on a global scale?

Attacking Iraq has created many more terrorists than existed before. People arn't born terrorists, they become terrorists when they start to plan and attack innocents for political gain - therefore you can never wipe out terrorism on a global scale because that act in its self just creates even more terrorists - its fighting a battle you just can't hope to win. All you can do is work on what causes people to turn this ay in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

Please look at the top post on this page ...

Neon said civilian, not me.

And my response holds for collateral damage as well.

All you can do is work on what causes people to turn this ay in the first place.

Or wipe out all of their support and kill the ones you know about.

 

[Arwin]

Neon said civilian, not me.

At this point I expected an apology.

And my response holds for collateral damage as well.

Ok so if a killer kills someone and the police kill two innocent bystanders while catching or killing that killer, that's ok in your book?

Danoff, sometimes I wonder if you argue because you hate losing a debate rather than for the sake of actually making the world a better place (which is my humble goal).

 

[Danoff]

At this point I expected an apology.

Actually I expect an apology from you. For mistaking me with Neon.

Ok so if a killer kills someone and the police kill two innocent bystanders while catching or killing that killer, that's ok in your book?

Nope. Not if it was reckless. If it's an honest mistake it's obviously ok, legally and morally.

(Just to clear this up for you I'd make this same argument about collateral damage in war)

Danoff, sometimes I wonder if you argue because you hate losing a debate rather than for the sake of actually making the world a better place (which is my humble goal).

Well I'm glad you're so noble. I argue for my own sake - to better understand my own positions.

 

[Arwin]

Come on!!! Really? Are you serious about that? Tell me, please, that you didn't think about this statement before you said it! Tell me that this was just an off-the-cuff remark that you didn't really mean!! Please tell me that up reflection you realize just how wrong that remark was.

Holy crap!!! You've got to be kidding me.

It's hard to know where to start and I'm not sure it dignifies an actual response.

EDIT: Sorry mile, removed your comment ... You were probably confused by Danoff.

This was your reaction, to my reply to neon_duke. There was no reason to believe my reply came out of the blue and was totally unrelated to neon_duke's reply, as I quoted him. Now you expect ME to apologize? I'm known for my patience, but you are certainly testing it.

 

[Danoff]

This was your reaction, to my reply to neon_duke. There was no reason to believe my reply came out of the blue and was totally unrelated to neon_duke's reply, as I quoted him.

Correct.

Now you expect ME to apologize?

Well expect can mean a few things. I think you should as it is common courtesy to do so when you mistake one person for another, but I don't expect that you will. And now you should apologize to milefile as well for mistaking him for me.

I'm known for my patience, but you are certainly testing it.

I'm sorry you feel victimized, can we get back to the discussion now?

 

[Arwin]

Correct.

Well expect can mean a few things. I think you should as it is common courtesy to do so when you mistake one person for another, but I don't expect that you will. And now you should apologize to milefile as well for mistaking him for me.

Fair enough, I see what you're getting at - I should have said 'we were discussing civilians'. My apologies for that. Also my apologies to milefile and I edited the post above. However, you were still wrong in assuming I talked about anything but civilians - there was no reason for you to believe so.

I'm sorry you feel victimized, can we get back to the discussion now?

Define collateral damage.

 

[Danoff]

Fair enough, I see what you're getting at - I should have said 'we were discussing civilians'. My apologies for that. Also my apologies to milefile and I edited the post above.

...and you would have been correct. You were discussing civillian casualties and I moved over into military casualties as well - I changed the subject and I apologize.

I'd like to ask whether you agree with me that it can very easily be worth more total casualties to fight a war than the original problem caused.

Define collateral damage.

Uninteded damage one causes in the process of pursuing a different goal.

I suppose I can't include the idea that the damage was not caused recklessly, so I would need to ammend my earlier statement:

Just to clear this up for you I'd make this same argument about collateral damage in war

add the phrase "not caused recklessly" on the end.

 

[K_Speed]

and this is the war on terror?

 

[ledhed]

Collaterall damage is when my house gets broke after mortgage it ?