Now of course you can have order without freedom, like the security that you et in an authoritarian state.
Is it worse to live in a world in which a few hundred people are tortured, to death or otherwise?
Or one in which the lack of order means that there are major power wars which lead to the death of tens of millions?
What's tragic about the renditions isn't so much that they are evil, as that they are utterly fucking pointless. They serve no purpose. They don't make the world safer, but they do erode the idea that there are rules that apply to everybody and which are not to be broken.
Which means that when the US (or for that matter any of the European states wrapped up in the whole rendition affair) goes to condemn Sudan for Dafur, the whole issue of renditions gets thrown back at them. Same thing with China. That the scale of the Guatanamo is a mere fraction of what you have in Darfur or China doesn't matter, because it's taken as an absolute principal, a law. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
that's one or two orders of magnitude less than WWI, but a million here and a million there...
but if you take into account the size of the populations involved, I'm sure its probably significant. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
If a US military strike against the government of the countries that intervened could have stopped the escalation of the killing, would it have been justified because it would have saved lives?
Or condemned as American aggression against poor African states? And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Claims that any military intervention is supposed to promote democracy and human rights are going to ring hollow - extremely hollow - if there's still so much lower-hanging fruit around in the democracy promotion department. It'd look much like shooting a burglar and claiming that you did it because you're "concerned about your safety" - when you haven't even bothered to install a lock on your door in the first place. Not credible.
And I don't agree with the counterfactual either. A few air strikes here and there are not going to stop a few million people ready to kill each other with machetes and most foreign combatants in Congo came from neighbouring countries, on foot (so to speak). When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
As bad as the renditions and Guantanamo are. Is it worse to live in a world in which a few hundred people are tortured, to death or otherwise? Or one in which the lack of order means that there are major power wars which lead to the death of tens of millions?
The tragedy of the renditions is that they are evil and they are pointless and that they are being committed for years by a country founded on principles that explicitly don't allow such actions - not cooincidentally because some ancient monarchy was doing such things and 250 years ago we thought that it was time for the world to grow up...that the world is able to grow up.
I don't buy the mere fraction part either. Sure, what is going on in the camp of one island is perhaps 500 people, but there are a lot of places that the Red Cross has been kept out of, and my money is on the bet that says there is still a lot more that we don't know about. Not that this mitigates whatever specifics you are talking about in China or Darfur. Just that the whole 50, or even last 20 year, US involvement Iraq and Iran is millions of people dead. And like VietNam, which was also millions of people dead, you can't really put your finger on a real reason why. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
No excuse for torture, not ever, no matter the situation, no matter the number of lives it will supposedly save, its flat out wrong, 100% wrong in any and all circumstances.
Obamas first action should be the arrest of his predecessor and his henchmen, and if it turns out that they have presidential pardons that stop any legal action, then get the ICC charter ratified and hand the mob over to the Hague Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Is it worse to live in a world in which a few hundred people are tortured, to death or otherwise? Or one in which the lack of order means that there are major power wars which lead to the death of tens of millions?
Are you saying that the actual rendering and torturing that took place was to prevent the death of tens of millions and not alongside the unleashing of a war that has killed millions and risks escalating to tens of millions if we're not careful, and in addition to the gutting of the international system which is now weakened to the point that if a war to kill tens of millions were imminent it could do nothing to prevent it?
The problem with "realists" is that they live in a Platonic universe of ticking bomb scenarios and world wars averted by targeted torture and assassination. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
The problem with "realists" is that they live in a Platonic universe of ticking bomb scenarios and world wars averted by targeted torture and assassination.
Some background reading How anyone can say they are a realist and yet support the ticking bomb scenario makes my mind boggle. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
It's not as if we don't bitch about the European contributions to the body count as well, but everyone always only complains about the insults to their own nation.
Obama isn't going to take US forces out of Iraq, and to be honest the likely result of a US withdrawal in Iraq is an Iraqi genocide in which the Sunnis and Kurds are knocked off. I don't think that we're talking about something on the order of the Holocaust, but matching Rwanda or Bosnia? Sure.
So if it's the body count that matters, which one is better?
If another 100,000 die because of the occupation, but 2 million will die in the event of a genocide in the event of American withdrawal, which is morally superior?
We can't change the past, we can change the future.
And in the future, I think that it's important that the world community be listened to when there's a push for war. So that if the thing goes to shit it's everybody's fault, and not just placed on America's shoulders. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Then leave. And let the chips fall where they may. And promise not to do it again.
The only issue will be hammering out the details of what to do with Iraqis who want to get out, too.
MfM's assumptions are a little silly here. The idea that the Sunnis outside of Iraq are going to sit around while the Shi'ia slaughter the Iraqi Sunnis is ridiculous.
I'm also not a big believer that the Shi'ia are going to set about trying to kill all the Sunnis and Kurds the moment we turn our backs. I don't follow how our soldiers would prevent this either.
I'm skeptical, too, as these excuses for staying are the excuses provided by the Very Serious People who supported the war and want to stay in order to prop up their imaginary honor. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Which is basically what's going to happen.
Except of course the part about letting iraqis emigrate to coalition countries. I do not have the numbers but recently it was reported that the swedish town of Södertälje has accepted more refugees from Iraq then the entire US. And I bet there are towns in Syria that is housing more refugees then Sweden in total. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
And in the future, I think that it's important that the world community be listened to when there's a push for war. So that if the thing goes to shit it's everybody's fault, and not just placed on America's shoulders.
No, excuse me, what's important is for America and its leaders to understand that we go to war in self-defense should it become absolutely necessary (and as the last resort), not to go looking for these God-damned ponies just because these neocon pieces of shit decides that our troops should be used to promote their magical thinking.
It's on America's shoulders, because those of us who opposed this stupid fucking war weren't fucking listened to. The global community wasn't listened to, because the global community wasn't going to go in regardless of what fairy tale the psychos told it. Whose shoulders should it be on? The French? The Germans? They had the brains to stay out, so why the fuck would it be on their shoulders?
You're right, we can only change the future, but I, for one, am not done talking about the past, because I and others were right all along, and it's time the people who got it right were listened to in this country instead of the people all-too-willing to send other people's kids to die for nothing. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
It's a militaristic society through and through, anyone who lives here and observes the absolute reverence of all things military by the vast majority of americans can see this. And that reverence permeates everything. We gaze in wide wonder at how the so-called 4th estate toed the line so easily in the run-up to the Iraq war, but really, it's this way with every war. Americans absolutely love their wars.
As long as they win them, they don't cost too much money and someone else's kids get killed. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
You can't just compare collections of people by size - people are people, not beans to be counted.
Example: is it better to kill a hostage taker and a hostage to free another hostage, or to let the hostage taker kill the hostages and then kill the hostage taker?
Will you take responsibility for the choice to kill a hostage? Will you pull the trigger? How will you face the family of the hostage you killed in order to reduce the hostage death count by half?
If you're going to get the rap either way from the family of the dead hostages, better to not have blood on your hands on top of that, to be honest.
You're welcome to scale the problem from 1:2 to any ratio of dead hostages you like. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
