Is it worth the lives?

[techweenie]

So far, the unintended consequences have been the opposite of what (I hope) we intended.

--------------
Al-Qaida thriving despite war on terror - Yard chief

Vikram Dodd
Wednesday April 25, 2007
The Guardian

The head of Scotland Yard's counterterrorism command said yesterday that al-Qaida had survived the six-year long "war on terror" launched by President George Bush and Tony Blair, and its central leadership had retained the ability to order devastating attacks on Britain.

Deputy assistant commissioner Peter Clarke, the national counterterrorism coordinator, warned in a lecture last night that terrorists "have momentum" and were on an "inexorable trend to more ambitious and more destructive attack planning".

----------full story---------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2064947,00.html

Worth it to create a stronger enemy? I don't see how.

[Seahawk]

Moral relativists dealing with moral relativism they do not agree with...this is fun...thanks, Len

[Moneyguy1]

Actually, sea....

Morality has very little to do with it, but I do catch your drift.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by lendaddy
So you believe the intention of the war was to cause negative effects? That even the motivation was "evil" and destructive?

Nope, don't think that at all.

I think that even a casual glance at the history of the region specifically Iraq tells you that it was doomed to fail from day1.

Blind arrogance is costing us dearly for no net gain.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
len:

Unintentional death is the fate of all living things except for those whose lives are cut short intentionally. No lapse of logic here; no denial. All things die.

I really do not see where death by accident equates to lives deliberately cut short. How can any sane person make this comparison?

Please...be consistent.....the argument has been made that we DO send our soldiers to die...after all, that is the purpose of an armed force; to be put in harm's way.

Nah.....there will never be a common point here. Like I said: "Insanity is defined as......" I am certain you know the rest.

Yes; all life has value. All cessation of life constitutes a loss to someone. John Donne's words come to mind.

You're giving me distinctions in the cause without explaining why you feel that makes one worth stopping and not the other.

Regardless if the soldier dies from a malicious act and the cyclist from an accidental one, we have the power to stop both. Why do you see one as an immediate necessity and the other unworthy of even your thought.

Most of this is obviously tongue in cheek, but I didn't think it that hard to follow.

[Purrybonker]

This thread reminds me of what, in my view is one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. There’s nothing wrong with conservatism until it’s underlying cynicism begins to eclipse objective assessment of actions and conditions. That’s what’s happening with Len in this thread. His issue is not that the (to his mind) demonized “left” is railing against the deaths in Iraq – his issue is rooted in cynicism about the reasons why they are railing against the deaths in Iraq. Cynicism bordering on paranoia eclipsing reason. And he tries to use that as evidence of the invalidity of the anti-war argument.

Oh yeah – the liberals don’t really care about dying soldiers, they only say they care as a way to advance their evil agenda to undermine the current administration.

[Moneyguy1]

len......

There will never be, as I have said, any common ground. I have patiently tried to answer your question, but as usual, no matter how succinct and rational, no answer will satisfy you because it does not jibe with your notions.

Do not fear to open your mind to other alternatives in thinking.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Actually, sea....

Morality has very little to do with it, but I do catch your drift.

I figured you would, and it isn't really fun at all. We have all done the mental calculus and find abhorrence in every death.

What I find puzzeling is the lack, by some, of acceptance on the nature of the war in which our nation is engaged and the stakes we face and the cost, in lives, should we fail.

I have lost friends in this war, so nothing I post about this issue has an ounce of bravado...I simply wish the bicycle analogy wasn't so apt.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by techweenie


----------full story---------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2064947,00.html

No mention of Indonesia or Pakistan, it's not really an article focused on countries, interesting.

EDIT:
To join the argument, nobody has mentioned the 3,000+ who died on 9/11/2001 and the meaning of their deaths.

Their deaths by the actions of lunatic fringe elements of a deranged Islamic movement, all freaking nutbags overshadow all.

How do we address this body count? Who made political gain of these deaths, and took advantage of them, as they lay silent?

Have we avenged them?

[dd74]

I have to agree with Purry. There seems to be a general cynicism coming from the Right these days, which suggests their desperation from finding their backs against the wall. While some conservatives have chosen to escape the detritus of Bush et al by defecting against the eroding party agenda about Iraq, others hold fast and spew increasingly vitriolic criticisms of even their own party members' abandonment of the Iraq policy, not to mention suggesting that many others who detract from Bush's agenda "traitors."

However, this combative defensiveness doesn't start with Len, nor end with Len. Unfortunately (and with great disappointment) it is perpetuated by Len and others on this board.

Purry - correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you located in Canada? You have some fairly astute observations about the political situation in the U.S.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Purrybonker

Oh yeah – the liberals don’t really care about dying soldiers, they only say they care as a way to advance their evil agenda to undermine the current administration.

That's not an accurate depiction of my comments. I think when you present anyone with the death of a soldier they cannot help but be overwhelmed with compassion. I do not however think their motivation in stopping this war has much to do with saving soldiers lives. There is a difference.

I never said it was an evil agenda, perhaps a misguided one but I see no evil in pacifism. I don't picture you folks behind the curtains plotting believe it or not. Heck I even believe you mean well, but you're just wrong.

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by lendaddy
That's not an accurate depiction of my comments. I think when you present anyone with the death of a soldier they cannot help but be overwhelmed with compassion. I do not however think their motivation in stopping this war has much to do with saving soldiers lives. There is a difference.

Then the question is begged....

If not the saving of lives, what would "their" motivation possibly be in wanting to stop the war?

Do you think it possible that even the most rabid of liberals would be against the "democratization" of Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter) if there were no price tag in terms of death and human suffering?

I just don't get this obsession with motivation - how can you discount a good thing (wanting to save human lives) by attaching a negative motivation? I can understand a difference of opinion based on an understanding of the facts and costs of war, but debating each other's motivations for those opinions seems completely unproductive.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Purrybonker
Then the question is begged....

If not the saving of lives, what would "their" motivation possibly be in wanting to stop the war?

Do you think it possible that even the most rabid of liberals would be against the "democratization" of Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter) if there were no price tag in terms of death and human suffering?

I just don't get this obsession with motivation - how can you discount a good thing (wanting to save human lives) by attaching a negative motivation? I can understand a difference of opinion based on an understanding of the facts and costs of war, but debating each other's motivations for those opinions seems completely unproductive.

I never said I was trying to solve anything here. It really is just an observation.
I already said what I think the motivation is: To solidify the "truth" of their philosophy in their minds and in the arena of ideas. A failure by Bush here represents a whole new quiver of arrows in their arsenal. I'm not saying this is an entirely conscious thing, but in the end everyone wants to be proved right.

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by dd74
Purry - correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you located in Canada? You have some fairly astute observations about the political situation in the U.S.

aw shucks... Thanks, but now you're just gonna get us both in trouble.

Yes, I am in Canada, but we get all our news from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert up here. Sort of seriously - we love and are attached to the economic hip of the US so Canadians are generally close students of US conditions by necessity. Also, I am responsible for managing several $billion US denominated assets and investments in my professional life.

Also - we have a recently elected conservative government in Canada and a Prime Minister who idolizes GWB, so we really, really need to observe the US as a bellwhether for Canadian futures. We have a mini version of your Iraq situation with Canadian soldiers in Afganistan. The issues seem somewhat less clear cut but the morality/sensitivities are the same. At least we get front page coverage of every soldier's death over there.

Plus, we live and die with you guys more than ever now with emerging asian and evolving european economies.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Purrybonker

Plus, we live and die with you guys more than ever now with emerging asian and evolving european economies.

Very true. How is the inability for the U.S. automakers to get their act together hitting Canada's economy? Is there any effect?

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by dd74
Very true. How is the inability for the U.S. automakers to get their act together hitting Canada's economy? Is there any effect?

We have been pretty lucky, Canadian plants of the North American Big 3 seem to have a pretty good record of hanging onto production and assemblies.

The Canadian economy (and population for that matter) is equivalent to the state of California to give perspective, but our GDP is increasingly skewed to oil/gas with current values in those commodities. Resources (and more & more - oil sands futures) are keeping the Canadian economy humming and continue to grow our trade surplus with the US. On the other hand, although Canada continues to be the US's largest trading partner, China may soon eclipse US as Canada's largest trading partner.

These are interesting times with world economies (and cultural conditions) so reliant on the certainty of supply and cost of energy commodities. Can't help but think we're on the cusp of some kinda shift.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by techweenie
So far, the unintended consequences have been the opposite of what (I hope) we intended.

--------------
Al-Qaida thriving despite war on terror - Yard chief

Vikram Dodd
Wednesday April 25, 2007
The Guardian

The head of Scotland Yard's counterterrorism command said yesterday that al-Qaida had survived the six-year long "war on terror" launched by President George Bush and Tony Blair, and its central leadership had retained the ability to order devastating attacks on Britain.

Deputy assistant commissioner Peter Clarke, the national counterterrorism coordinator, warned in a lecture last night that terrorists "have momentum" and were on an "inexorable trend to more ambitious and more destructive attack planning".

----------full story---------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2064947,00.html

Worth it to create a stronger enemy? I don't see how.

Are you arguing that had the West done nothing after 9/11, that al-Qaida would now be weaker than it was then?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by Seahawk


What I find puzzeling is the lack, by some, of acceptance on the nature of the war in which our nation is engaged and the stakes we face and the cost, in lives, should we fail.

Then why aren't we doing everything we can to win?

C'mon, we've got a lame tactic at best called "The Surge". the Bush team is great at marketing, we get it. But the tactic isn't working so great, so let's build a wall. Another great tactic better album.

What's the strategy to win Seahawk?

Do you think we should have won by now?

Why haven't we won by now?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Rearden
Are you arguing that had the West done nothing after 9/11, that al-Qaida would now be weaker than it was then?

Where have you ever seen me -- or any of the others here who do not agree with the administration -- criticize our actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

The only criticism in that regard has been the incompleteness of the job and the re-emergence of the Taliban. Oh, and the deals with poppy farmers that were cut by the new Afghani government.

Instead of pursuing OBL, the pre-existing agenda against Saddam was acted on, and the U.S. military's ability to prosecute a war on another front, destroyed.

If it's not crystal clear, many of us here think the actions in Iraq have proved an excellent recruiting and training tool for our enemies. The facts seem to consistently support this. And many think al Qaeda is much larger than it was in 2001. Whatever the intent, Iraq has been a disaster. So the argument that spending those lives was 'worth it' makes no sense, since the war has cost us more than it has gained us.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by techweenie
Where have you ever seen me -- or any of the others here who do not agree with the administration -- criticize our actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

The only criticism in that regard has been the incompleteness of the job and the re-emergence of the Taliban. Oh, and the deals with poppy farmers that were cut by the new Afghani government.

Instead of pursuing OBL, the pre-existing agenda against Saddam was acted on, and the U.S. military's ability to prosecute a war on another front, destroyed.

If it's not crystal clear, many of us here think the actions in Iraq have proved an excellent recruiting and training tool for our enemies. The facts seem to consistently support this. And many think al Qaeda is much larger than it was in 2001. Whatever the intent, Iraq has been a disaster. So the argument that spending those lives was 'worth it' makes no sense, since the war has cost us more than it has gained us.

Your link was discussing the War on Terror. You know, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'll assume your non-answer is a "no".

So what is your idea of how the West can go into Pakistan and fight the Taliban and al Qaeda without causing a revolution, one we won't like, in Pakistan?