Haditha - Moral Question

[Ted Striker]

On top of this we have the power of the internet which didn't exist in the same access that it did in the past.

Word spreads around the world FAST now when you're up to no good. It just can't be covered up the way it used to be.

[SlowwHand]

Today, really yesterday, a woman and....I'm thinking cousin drove through a barricade. Troos opened fire. Killed was the driver and the pregnant woman she was rushing to a hospital.

Who was wrong? How would the military know the circumstances? Answer: They couldn't. You have to assume the worst.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Because...?



You're still arguing the tactic doesn't work. I'm asking if it does work, what does the greater good require?

No I'm not. You're defining defeating the insurgency as, inherently, the greater good. I'm rejecting that.

If I don't, your argument boils down to this: in achieving an inherent good, is it better that fewer people die? The answer is obviously "yes" and the question is boring.

You're trying to make the question less boring by applying it to Iraq, but it doesn't apply, because defeating the insurgency isn't an inherent good. It's a relative good. Making sure that the world's only superpower adheres to the rule of law may be a greater good; keeping Marines out of situations that will haunt them for the rest of their lives may be a greater good. Just plain not killing unarmed people may be a greater good. If you're not willing to discuss that, then your question has no bearing on Iraq, and your use of Haditha in the thread title and OP is gratuitous and misguided.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

The greater good, Berz, requires that this not happen. It does not benefit my nation to engage in barbaric acts like killing Iraqi civilians to scare other Iraqi civilians.

Especially considering that the US is an occupying power in a region that is vehemently anti-Western-occupacency (I reserve the right to make up my own words). I'd rather not add to the numbers of 1.) unneccessary civilian casualties or 2.) insurgents.

[SlowwHand]

We need to leave. We got Hussein, time to go. The insurgents will win, have no doubt. What you need to think about is what then?
This is why we stay. Why give up ground over something that will have to be dealt with again, if we will.
Abandon, and say You're on own, or stay. What is right?

There are questions beyond the immediate you all ask.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

[Berzerker]

No I'm not. You're defining defeating the insurgency as, inherently, the greater good. I'm rejecting that

I'm defining the greater good as the lower body count, the longer the insurgency continues the higher the body count.

If I don't, your argument boils down to this: in achieving an inherent good, is it better that fewer people die? The answer is obviously "yes" and the question is boring.

Then it can be argued those who believe in the greater good would have to support this tactic if getting brutal suppresses the insurgency resulting in fewer deaths over all, true?

You're trying to make the question less boring by applying it to Iraq, but it doesn't apply, because defeating the insurgency isn't an inherent good. It's a relative good.

Inherent or relative are your words, I'm asking about the greater good.

Making sure that the world's only superpower adheres to the rule of law may be a greater good; keeping Marines out of situations that will haunt them for the rest of their lives may be a greater good. Just plain not killing unarmed people may be a greater good. If you're not willing to discuss that, then your question has no bearing on Iraq, and your use of Haditha in the thread title and OP is gratuitous and misguided.

If only we had a time machine... but we dont... You're put in charge, either you suppress the insurgency or you withdraw. If you withdraw and civil war results, the greater good would have been served by staying. But by staying people will still die, so do you get brutal or do you continue avoiding the innocent prolonging the insurgency?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I'm defining the greater good as the lower body count, the longer the insurgency continues the higher the body count.

Then I disagree with your definition of the greater good.

[Dinner]

Bezerker, this will not hurt the insurgents and instead will piss of ordinary people making them more likely to help the insurgents.

[Berzerker]

The greater good, Berz, requires that this not happen. It does not benefit my nation to engage in barbaric acts like killing Iraqi civilians to scare other Iraqi civilians.

Not even if killing and scaring them suppresses the insurgency thereby saving lives in the long run? The rationale behind dropping the bomb was to save lives by ending the war, it quite likely did.

So wouldn't those who believe in the greater good be required to wait and see the effects of an action before judging the act moral or immoral?

[Berzerker]

Bezerker, this will not hurt the insurgents and instead will piss of ordinary people making them more likely to help the insurgents.

Perhaps, but Saddam stayed in power a long time by using this very tactic. Thats how dictators usually stay in power, you piss them off and they not only kill you they hurt or kill your family.

Then I disagree with your definition of the greater good.

Then clarify this

in achieving an inherent good, is it better that fewer people die? The answer is obviously "yes" and the question is boring.

But this inherent good is not the greater good? The greater good is that more people die? Define greater good in terms of body count...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Not even if killing and scaring them suppresses the insurgency thereby saving lives in the long run? The rationale behind dropping the bomb was to save lives by ending the war, it quite likely did.

No, no, a thousand times no. The rationale behind dropping the bomb was to save American lives. In other words, teh greater good was the service of the national interest, not saving lives per se.

What several of us are arguing here is that, even granting your (I think absurd) hypothetical that Haditha saved lives, and even if it dealt a blow to the insurgency, it absolutely did not further US national interests.

[Ted Striker]

To me Haditha has been one of the worst events of this war

It is of the same scale in damage as Abu Ghraib

So there you have it, everything I ever believed in has pretty much been destroyed



USA **** you

[Berzerker]

Gee, Americans dont count as lives? Of course we were looking out for ourselves more than Japanese civilians, but how many Japanese would have died without the bombs?

What several of us are arguing here is that, even granting your (I think absurd) hypothetical that Haditha saved lives, and even if it dealt a blow to the insurgency, it absolutely did not further US national interests.

I dont know if Haditha saved lives (only the future will tell), I'm referring to using the tactic of intentionally hitting towns that support the insurgents to send a message to other towns.

So, if being brutal saved lives in the long run, would the greater good require the brutality?

Seems to me those who believe in the greater good and judge Haditha immoral dont really believe in the greater good because they made their judgement based on what happened to people there and not on the future fall out which could result in fewer total deaths. The greater good requires waiting to see the future effects of an atrocity before making a moral judgement about the atrocity.

[Guardian]

I think Lancer actually has a point when he brings in the nazi occupants and their "counter-insurgery" tactics in WWII Europe.

First of all, these were nazi tactics, and so although they may have helped reduce German losses in the early stages of the war, by no means could they be called "good".

Second, while this may have scared and "pacified" people in the short run, in the long run it only made people hate the occupants more and increased support for their enemies everywhere. In the end they were defeated. They took horrendous losses that made the early days of the war look like a walk in the park. And no one felt sorry for them.