3 ms·

It's not the superstition that turns into hatred, it's the civilian casualties. This is part of a positive feedback loop: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/

by spot 16y ago

It's not the superstition that turns into hatred, it's the civilian casualties. This is part of a positive feedback loop: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/74916 http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/74916 Even those who "think differently" understand food, medicine, education, etc. It would be quite easy to wage peace instead of war, but Obama made his choice.

krschultz 16y ago
That is a false choice. If we decided tomorrow to just up and leave in a week, would you describe the aftermath in Iraq and Afghanistan "peace"? Is "peace" when Americans aren't getting killed? Because the US would suffer far fewer casualities if we just bailed entirely and let the sects in Iraq duke it out amongst themselves and we let the Taliban run over Afghanistan again, but the people in those countries would suffer more. Now that we're trying to get out of these countries, further US troops are basically trading their lives for some multiple of that number in civilians lives that would be lost if we just let the countries collaspe. Take your pick, it seems to me that Obama (and Bush at the end) was choosing to lose US lives to prevent the anarchy and loss of foreign civilian lives that would result of an irresponsible exit. Arguing that we shouldn't have gone in the first place (which I think is the case) doesn't change the fact that today we are already there.
- spot 16y ago
  Ah yes, the old "we are bombing them for their own good" argument. To answer your question directly, yes it would be more peaceful (it was more peaceful in both cases before we invaded and i expect things would settle down pretty soon after we left). More importantly, the blood would not be on our hands. And (I'll say it again) if we waged peace by providing food, medicine, education, etc we could save a lot of lives, instead of stoking the cycle of violence.

by spot 16y ago

krschultz 16y ago

That is a false choice. If we decided tomorrow to just up and leave in a week, would you describe the aftermath in Iraq and Afghanistan "peace"? Is "peace" when Americans aren't getting killed? Because the US would suffer far fewer casualities if we just bailed entirely and let the sects in Iraq duke it out amongst themselves and we let the Taliban run over Afghanistan again, but the people in those countries would suffer more. Now that we're trying to get out of these countries, further US troops are basically trading their lives for some multiple of that number in civilians lives that would be lost if we just let the countries collaspe. Take your pick, it seems to me that Obama (and Bush at the end) was choosing to lose US lives to prevent the anarchy and loss of foreign civilian lives that would result of an irresponsible exit. Arguing that we shouldn't have gone in the first place (which I think is the case) doesn't change the fact that today we are already there.

spot 16y ago
Ah yes, the old "we are bombing them for their own good" argument. To answer your question directly, yes it would be more peaceful (it was more peaceful in both cases before we invaded and i expect things would settle down pretty soon after we left). More importantly, the blood would not be on our hands. And (I'll say it again) if we waged peace by providing food, medicine, education, etc we could save a lot of lives, instead of stoking the cycle of violence.