5 ms·

>However, if my house were on fire with 10 of my family trapped inside, and the firefighters racing to the scene accidentally ran over one family member in putt

>However, if my house were on fire with 10 of my family trapped inside, and the firefighters racing to the scene accidentally ran over one family member in putting out the fire, I would not consider this to be "murder". What does this example have to do with occupation? Likening an invading military force (especially when there was no reason for the invasion as is the case in Iraq) is pretty insulting to everyone involved except, of course, the invading force. >There are definitely people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had family members killed, but who overall are still happy the US invaded. This might be the case in Afghanistan (I can buy that you might find someone somewhere, but I doubt the average Joe is very happy about it) but you're going to have a hard time finding someone "better off" in Iraq after the invasion. The country is less stable, less safe. There are extremist roaming around kidnapping and killing that were not doing so before. I've met several families that had decent lives in Iraq that had to leave after the invasion. > There was one report about a guy who had a US bomb hit his house, killing several family members, who then went to the US commander, told him what had happened, and asked that we be more careful and continue to get rid of the Taliban. Were they two such reports? What was the source of this story? Was due diligence done on the story? Sounds too patriotic/"feel good" for me to take it at face value. >and in a lot of ways, even at the peak of badness in each place, outside of localized areas, quality of life is better for most civilians. In the case of Iraq this is demonstrably not true. In fact the situation is almost exactly the opposite. What do you think Sadam was doing exactly? He was for sure a bad person and not someone who's radar you want to be on but for the average citizen there were definitely worse people to have as a ruler (e.g. Kim Jong-il). >The US has killed maybe 200 Afghan civilians in about a decade of operations. Based on what definition? The one you gave elsewhere about following US military protocol? My definition of civilian death is if a non-American who isn't a terrorist gets killed, regardless if the people who killed him where within their protocols or not. If they hadn't been there the person would likely still be alive. Given that definition your "200 in 10 years" sounds impossibly low. >There are definitely grounds for not wanting the US to be there, but they're more "moral" or "honor" than practical quality of life, for most people. This statement could only possibly hold for Afghanistan. Clearly it doesn't apply to Iraq.

rdl 16y ago
I was trying to use an example/scenario which might be more relevant to 99.999% of HN which does not live in a war zone. More precisely, "If I lived in a town where a criminal gang would kill members of my family, confiscate my property, and oppress everyone, and someone came in to kill the gang and stray gunfire killed my family". In the case of a legal invasion (pretty clear in the case of Afghanistan), that someone would be the police; in the case of Iraq, that someone might be a random concerned citizen.. I would definitely be upset, but it would not be murder -- it would be anywhere from purely accidental to some form of manslaughter. During a legal war, it is clearly legal, provided the belligerent obeys the law of war. Depending on the exact situation, I would be more or less upset; there are definitely situations where I would remain very upset (i.e. if the shooting was highly negligent). Under pashtunwali, accidental death during a conflict, if you take responsibility for it and apologize, is not the same level of offense that it is in western culture. The quality of life in Afghanistan is probably better today for 90% of Afghans than it was in 2000, although definitely worse than it was in 1954. In Iraq, the quality of life is absolutely better for the Kurds, and quite possibly better for most Shia, than it was under Saddam. Around 2009 and 2010, it's probably reached the turning point of being better on a daily basis than it was in the past, at least for those who didn't leave Iraq; there are definitely displaced persons who are worse off. I don't think the decrease in quality of life from 2003-2007 was inherent to the invasion, but to incompetence during the occupation -- if the military vs. state department were doing the same thing today, it would have been a lot less bad. Perhaps still not worthwhile, but definitely less bad.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >a legal invasion From who's point of view? I don't care if the invading force claims it is legal or necessary. > I would definitely be upset, but it would not be murder Well what if it was the mafia who "saved" you? >During a legal war, it is clearly legal, provided the belligerent obeys the law of war. The problem with this line of thinking is it's completely one sided. If an entity declares war on another entity the second entity can't simply say "we don't accept". They are at war at this point and now all sorts of nasty and immoral things become technically "legal". This is compounded even more with the US' current "war", the ludicrous "war on terror". >The quality of life in Afghanistan is probably better today for 90% of Afghans than it was in 2000, I need some citations on that. And non-US military (or pro-US military) ones. >In Iraq, the quality of life is absolutely better for the Kurds, and quite possibly better for most Shia, than it was under Saddam. Around 2009 and 2010, it's probably reached the turning point of being better on a daily basis than it was in the past, at least for those who didn't leave Iraq; there are definitely displaced persons who are worse off. I disagree. And my "displaced" friends would also disagree. The people I know who do mission work there would also disagree. I wish I could somehow inspire you to get your news from sources that aren't so... sympathetic to the US' imperialistic causes because the picture your sources are painting seem to be particularly rosy. >I don't think the decrease in quality of life from 2003-2007 was inherent to the invasion, but to incompetence during the occupation It was a direct result of the invasion. Sadam was gone, extremists who were afraid to do certain crimes became free to do them. It's very clear.

rdl 16y ago

I was trying to use an example/scenario which might be more relevant to 99.999% of HN which does not live in a war zone. More precisely, "If I lived in a town where a criminal gang would kill members of my family, confiscate my property, and oppress everyone, and someone came in to kill the gang and stray gunfire killed my family". In the case of a legal invasion (pretty clear in the case of Afghanistan), that someone would be the police; in the case of Iraq, that someone might be a random concerned citizen.. I would definitely be upset, but it would not be murder -- it would be anywhere from purely accidental to some form of manslaughter. During a legal war, it is clearly legal, provided the belligerent obeys the law of war. Depending on the exact situation, I would be more or less upset; there are definitely situations where I would remain very upset (i.e. if the shooting was highly negligent). Under pashtunwali, accidental death during a conflict, if you take responsibility for it and apologize, is not the same level of offense that it is in western culture. The quality of life in Afghanistan is probably better today for 90% of Afghans than it was in 2000, although definitely worse than it was in 1954. In Iraq, the quality of life is absolutely better for the Kurds, and quite possibly better for most Shia, than it was under Saddam. Around 2009 and 2010, it's probably reached the turning point of being better on a daily basis than it was in the past, at least for those who didn't leave Iraq; there are definitely displaced persons who are worse off. I don't think the decrease in quality of life from 2003-2007 was inherent to the invasion, but to incompetence during the occupation -- if the military vs. state department were doing the same thing today, it would have been a lot less bad. Perhaps still not worthwhile, but definitely less bad.

loewenskind 16y ago
>a legal invasion From who's point of view? I don't care if the invading force claims it is legal or necessary. > I would definitely be upset, but it would not be murder Well what if it was the mafia who "saved" you? >During a legal war, it is clearly legal, provided the belligerent obeys the law of war. The problem with this line of thinking is it's completely one sided. If an entity declares war on another entity the second entity can't simply say "we don't accept". They are at war at this point and now all sorts of nasty and immoral things become technically "legal". This is compounded even more with the US' current "war", the ludicrous "war on terror". >The quality of life in Afghanistan is probably better today for 90% of Afghans than it was in 2000, I need some citations on that. And non-US military (or pro-US military) ones. >In Iraq, the quality of life is absolutely better for the Kurds, and quite possibly better for most Shia, than it was under Saddam. Around 2009 and 2010, it's probably reached the turning point of being better on a daily basis than it was in the past, at least for those who didn't leave Iraq; there are definitely displaced persons who are worse off. I disagree. And my "displaced" friends would also disagree. The people I know who do mission work there would also disagree. I wish I could somehow inspire you to get your news from sources that aren't so... sympathetic to the US' imperialistic causes because the picture your sources are painting seem to be particularly rosy. >I don't think the decrease in quality of life from 2003-2007 was inherent to the invasion, but to incompetence during the occupation It was a direct result of the invasion. Sadam was gone, extremists who were afraid to do certain crimes became free to do them. It's very clear.