DISQUS

Dave · 4 years ago

In the even bigger scheme of things, we've lost around 100,000 people in Iraq since this war started.

Thatedeguy · 4 years ago

I'm just guessing here, but it took far less time for us to reach the 2,000 mark in pretty much every other war we've been in. I think that, as far as wars go, this has probably been one of the safest in history. Of course that doesn't seem to make any difference. I am so glad that I get most of my news from the blogosphere and not from the perverted mainstream news sources that are available.

The Whistler · 4 years ago

In the bigger scheme of things we lost 3,000 in one day in the global war on terrorism on 9/11/2001.

Dave · 4 years ago

Which demonstrates my point even more. We keep an extremely accurate running tab of the death of American soldiers; but as for the deaths of Iraqis, too many have an attitude like, 'what's the big deal? 4,000 or 200,000; it's not like we're gonna lose any sleep over it.' (This site lists all reported civilian deaths, and it says the total is somewhere between 26,000 and 30,000.)

The death of the 2,000th American soldier should be just as great a tragedy as the death of the 2,000th Iraqi civilian was.

But it's not.

Carrick · 4 years ago

Dave:

The death of the 2,000th American soldier should be just as great a tragedy as the death of the 2,000th Iraqi civilian was.

No need to get belligerent... I think everybody here agrees with that.

The upper end numbers are basically made up, or at least as far as I can tell.

The real casualty rate of civilians has not been tracked, unfortunately. Somewhere around 30,000 sounds about right. Keep in mind a fair number of those are insurgent caused deaths... and are mostly Shi'ites. The real question, is given Saddam's proclivity for killing Shi'ites and Kurds is... what is the differential between the number dead and the death toll that Saddam would have inflicted?

To give you a calibration, it is estimated that roughly 400,000 children died between 1996 and 2001 as a result of Saddam's mishandling of the oil-for-food money. That works out to about 80,000 children per year.

The Whistler · 4 years ago

Actually that 100,000 number is very likely made up. I read a story that said the number of bystander deaths was between 4,000 and 200,000. So of course you have to average it out at 100,000.

A number with that large of a variation is worthless.

The Whistler · 4 years ago

I think number 2003 will be tragic too.

Dave · 4 years ago

To give you a calibration, it is estimated that roughly 400,000 children died between 1996 and 2001 as a result of Saddam's mishandling of the oil-for-food money. That works out to about 80,000 children per year.

You're walking a very slippery slope if you make that argument, Carrick. (I'll complete it for you: Can we then say that George W. Bush is responsible for every American who dies whose life could have been saved if Bush had implemented, say, universal health care, or had donated all his money to charity? No, you can't. When Saddam gased the Kurds, he's responsible for their deaths. When Iraqis starve because he doesn't hand out money, his role in their deaths is much, much smaller--so small as to be negligible.)

The Whistler · 4 years ago

I would disagree with that.

Dave · 4 years ago

I wrote like 7 different things. "That" is not very specific. With which do you disagree?

Carrick · 4 years ago

Dave, exactly where is the slippery slope? What we are dealing with here is basic ethics and morality, the sort of coursework I would recommend that you take as an elective if you haven't already. I found this sort of coursework to have a profound effect on the way I viewed the world, and as important to me as coursework related to my major (physics).

If you are trying to make a moral equivalence between 1) the US invading Iraq and its consequences, and 2) the US not invading Iraq then you must including both the positive and negative unintended consequences of invading versus not invading, to the degree with which it is possible to make such a prediction.

That's how moral equations work. In the case of Saddam, he had a long pattern of repression and murder of his people, so a continuation of carnage would be a reasonable expected result from not invading. It only gets into gray areas when it gets hard to anticipate the consequences of action/inaction.

Catholic doctrine makes a distinction between sins of commission (things we do that harm ourself or others as a result of our actions) and sins of omission (things that we don't do that harm ourself or others as a result of our inaction). I'm not Catholic, but I always liked this delineation.

As for your examples, first nobody is going to hold you or George Bush accountable for not donating all of your money to charity... though you would be a better person for doing so. If the action that you fail to take is a) within your grasp and b) can reasonably be expected to have a beneficial outcome, then it is reasonable to expect you to do it, and if you still fail to do it.... then you are accountable for the consequences (at some level).

Secondly, the example of universal health care is a tricky one... we won't know all the effects of implementing such a system until after it gets adopted. It may be the case that the harm outweighs the good. I personally think that the jury is out on that one. If there is no easy way to predict the outcome, then the action would be "morally ambivalent".

Finally, you can choose to act, or not act, based on moral considerations, be wrong and cause more harm than good, and still have acted in a moral fashion. Life is complicated, what can I say?

People like Sphagnum d'Sphanceae would have a different way of explaining it, I'm pretty sure.

Dave · 4 years ago

As for your examples, first nobody is going to hold you or George Bush accountable for not donating all of your money to charity... though you would be a better person for doing so. If the action that you fail to take is a) within your grasp and b) can reasonably be expected to have a beneficial outcome, then it is reasonable to expect you to do it, and if you still fail to do it.... then you are accountable for the consequences (at some level).

I know for a FACT that Peter Singer would say Bush is responsible; he believes that blood is on the hands of every single purchase a person makes that does not satisfy an essential need.

Further, even using your definitions, why wouldn't Bush be responsible for deaths caused through his lack of donation to charity? It's A)within his grasp and B)is reasonably expected to have a beneficial income. I don't quite understand that.

Secondly, the example of universal health care is a tricky one... we won't know all the effects of implementing such a system until after it gets adopted. It may be the case that the harm outweighs the good. I personally think that the jury is out on that one.

I believe that universal health care, like all Socialist programs, would improve the lives of those who don't deserve improvement, and hinder the lives of those who do.

Interesting post, btw. This site could use more people like you.

The Whistler · 4 years ago

I disagree that Saddam isn't responsible for the deaths of all of those children that should have been fed.

The oil for food program was just that. It wasn't meant for him to rearm his country.

Now if you want to claim that the UN is just as guilty we may have something to go for.

On the other hand Universal Health care would probably wreck the finest medical system in the world. It would end new methods of being developed. That also would be a crime.

Still if you want to give all of your money away whereever you care to, go ahead.

Carrick · 4 years ago

Dave:

Further, even using your definitions, why wouldn't Bush be responsible for deaths caused through his lack of donation to charity? It's A)within his grasp and B)is reasonably expected to have a beneficial income. I don't quite understand that.

This is an excellent question, and for once I don't have a pat answer.

At some level he is. For example, suppose he spends $1,000,000 on a new vacation home instead of donating it to e.g. aids or cancer. One way that churches solve this problem is to establish a minimum tithe (10% of income), which is a cheap way out of the dilemma. If you read about the Microsoft millionaires, many of them assume social obligations commensurate to their wealth.

I think most people would agree that we are entitled to a portion of the wealth that we earn. If you don't have that as an incentive, many of the more productive people in the society would have no incentive to work as hard as they do, and the fact is that the wealth they earn benefits other people besides themselves. (For example, if a millionaire invests in a new small business venture, it benefits you. If a George Allen invests in private space industry we all benefit, etc.) For most people, this is a straightforward moral calculation, so these people at least would not criticize you for withholding the "entitled" portion of your income.

Interesting post, btw. This site could use more people like you.

Thanks, man.

The Whistler · 4 years ago

probably. That's the kind of thing that happens when you free people from a murderous dictator.

robert108 · 4 years ago

Less Iraqis have died, on a daily basis, since Saddam was deposed than during his repressive and murderous regime. Socialism doesn't work, so get over it.

The Whistler · 4 years ago

Darned if you do and darned if you don't.

robert108 · 4 years ago

Thanks, W. My point was that the bleeding-heart liberals are lying, once again. Our forces aren't responsible for all the deaths of Iraqis, one, and two, less are dead than would have been had Saddam not been deposed.

Carrick · 4 years ago

Whistler:

I disagree that Saddam isn't responsible for the deaths of all of those children that should have been fed.

I think we can all agree that Saddam is responsible for the people he murdered. It's a bit more complicated discussing which institutes, nations and individuals are complicit in the oil-for-food scam.

The point Dave and I were discussing is whether we can take credit for saving the lives of the children who would have died since then---personally, I would say we can, the same as when we acted as peacekeepers in Bosnia. My specific point was that you can't just talk about the number of Iraqis killed since the invasion started... you have to also take into account the lives that were saved by removing that f**king despot from power.

On the other hand Universal Health care would probably wreck the finest medical system in the world. It would end new methods of being developed. That also would be a crime.

That's what I think too. But there isn't an overwhelming consensus that this is the right conclusion.

Robert108:

Our forces aren't responsible for all the deaths of Iraqis, one, and two, less are dead than would have been had Saddam not been deposed.

Yep. My attitude as well. That's why its so necessary for some of them to inflate the number of Iraqi civilians killed...

larry borsato: October 2005 Ar · 4 years ago

[...] Rob at Say Anything mentions the comparison as well, and notes that the military would prefer this not be viewed as a milestone:"The 2,000th Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that is killed in action is just as important as the first that died and will be just as important as the last to die in this war against terrorism and to ensure freedom for a people who have not known freedom in over two generations," Boylan wrote. [...]