Massacres are not only a first world problem

acotrel says:

06:04am | 19/12/12

And Martyn Bryan’t was fitted up to disguise an attack by the SAS so Howard could get our guns ?

A Concerned Citizen says:

09:21am | 19/12/12

Andrew and acotrel- not this ridiculous conspiracy again.
What does America and Australia gain from gun control other than PR?
I hate to break your fantasies, but the American and Australian governments and the tanks, jets, helicopters, armoured cars, trained professional soldiers with state-of-the-art weapons (and drones) they command are NOT in any way threatened or impeded by a few rednecks wielding civilian rifles. This story should come to point.

Furthermore, you are implying this gives them control over the population. The problem with this is they already DO control the population- they’re the government. It’s their job. Everybody practically demands this.

scubasteve says:

09:38am | 19/12/12

2 more days till the end boys… wheres that damn roll of tin foil…

Levi says:

06:27am | 19/12/12

Yep, getting rid of the medieval Talibans is really a crusade. Pfft

A Concerned Citizen says:

10:30am | 19/12/12

I agree with the point that it isn’t about what weapons we use in the crusade- as at the end of the day there really aren’t many weapons that are “more moral” than others;

But I disagree we shouldn’t be wondering “WHY” are we even going on a crusade to begin with? The crusade most of these terrorists are taking outside their immediate region is to stop countries like us from coming to their countries looking for terrorists. Meaning every time we bomb terrorists, the collateral damage makes more terrorists.

It is a pointless exercise that costs us money, costs other people lives, and brings us deeper into the problem and makes the problem last longer.

America can’t afford the exit as part of the reason it gets attacked is because it stands up for Israel’s right to exist. The rest of us could easily distance ourselves from it and prevent terrorism simply by being much meaner and stricter about who we accept into our country.

DocBud says:

01:29pm | 19/12/12

“just as the Kings or Queens of England were far removed from any involvement,”

You’ve not heard of Richard the Lionheart then, Gregg?

TChong says:

06:36am | 19/12/12

SAm
A philisophival question, ( no personal attack) -
Fleet Base Wooloomooloo ( a military base, and legit target) is in the most densly populated part of Australia.
Richmond air force base ( also a legit military target) is surronded by suburbia.
Australia, like other western nations has barracks, depots, etc scattered all thru major cities.
If we were in a conflict, and our military bases were hit, with resultant civilian casualties ( like at Potts Point) , would the ADF also be guilty of hiding behind civilians?

SAm says:

06:55am | 19/12/12

Problem is Tchong, that those are highly visible military bases. They arent parking hercs inside someones garage, or having fighting forces live amongst the population..pretty big difference IMO.
If the US decided to attack Woolloomoolo for example, a drone would only damage military assetts, not general population

Josh Thomason says:

08:12am | 19/12/12

Firstly, I’m not defending the actions of the small terrorist groups who are certainly hiding amongst civilians, however, that does not give licence for America, or any other country to kill civillians.

Can you imagine if a country from the Middle East sent a drone to America or Australia, and bombed children? I think that we’d find support for a new war, after only one incident, and Pakistan has suffered 300.

TheRealDave says:

08:34am | 19/12/12

@TChong - given that every single base you mention is clearly signed and off limits to civilians - no.

Unlike those human rights champions from Hamas and Hezbollah the ADF does not fire its weapons from civilian housing or from behind civilian shields, nor does the ADF use Ambulances to ferry troops and equipment around etc nor does it barrack its troops in civilian housing.

No, the ADF, much like every other professional modern military, has clearly designated operational areas that are distinctly segregated from the civilian community. Historically you’ll find that those bases were established in what were once fringe areas, or close to sea/port access.

To even intimate that the ADF is ‘hiding behind civilains’ is disgusting quite frankly.

Hoppity says:

08:55am | 19/12/12

Josh, when you are fighting a war it is inevitable that civilians will be killed.  I am not at all suggesting that we should shrug our shoulders and not worry about it. (For example, 17-20 million Russian civilians died during World War II).  However, drone strikes are far more targeted than ground warfare, or launching a ground based missile, and generally targeted strikes signficantly reduce civilian and troop casulties.

What is your fundamental objection?  That drone strikes are conducted by remote control? Or that we should not be prosecuting a war on terror at all?  What other military strategies would you suggest they take?  In the overall scheme of things, drone strikes are considerable less risky, to both civilian and military personnel than a ground based war approach.

Why target the US only?  Yes the Americans are big, brash, loud and powerful.  Yes presently, they are the only country using drone strikes, but if you are really concerned about the murder of innocent civilians why are you not jumping up and down about the wholesale slaughter of people in Syria by their own government?

You are sounding a little like Julian Assange.  He’s anti-Americanism colours everything he says as does.  Simply saying that Americans are murdering children, is not a good argument.  Provide us with a reasoned, considered article rather than a poorly constructed “The US is murdering people”. position.  The articles of war are pretty clear on what constitues murder.

K^2 says:

10:28am | 19/12/12

“The articles of war are pretty clear on what constitues murder. ” Yes, until people like the US Administration change the laws so they can not be charged on war crimes.  Bush et al have already done this.

St. Michael says:

11:40am | 19/12/12

“Can you imagine if a country from the Middle East sent a drone to America or Australia, and bombed children? I think that we’d find support for a new war, after only one incident, and Pakistan has suffered 300.”

If you don’t want to get bombed by drones, don’t deliberately support anti-US terrorist groups from your territory.  You seem to be forgetting that amongst other elements of Al-Qaeda, Pakistan was harbouring Osama Bin Laden—with the full knowledge of its security services, in case you missed it.  It’s why the US sent a SEAL team into Pakistan stealthily rather than ask for Pakistan’s assistance to catch what even you would have to concede really is an anti-US terrorist in civilian clothes.  And Pakistan is meant to be a US “ally” against the Taliban.

Also, the US does have a little justification on this.  On September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda sent four “manned” drones into US airspace.  Two of them demolished the World Trade Centre and killed a couple thousand people.  Not sure exactly what the military asset there was.  One hit the Pentagon and caused more injuries.  One, the crew of the “manned” drone were overwhelmed by its passengers.

The US has been the subject of a drone attack.  Your whinge seems to be that the US can now kill people without having to risk any of its own.  How nice.  Drones are about the smartest move the US has made in the past 10 years on terrorism.

SAm says:

12:28pm | 19/12/12

I think your also forgetting that the US isnt out attempting to kill civilians.. they are targetting MILITARY targets as best an accurate as is possible given how shamefully the MILITARY TARGETS hide among civilians.
So yes, unfortunatly whilst legitimate targets continue to use innocents as some sort of sheild, civilians will be killed.
If Hezbollah simply had bases or anything segregated from civilians, there would be little or no civilian deaths.
Some very warped logic here

K^2 says:

12:54pm | 19/12/12

St Michael - “The US has been the subject of a drone attack.  Your whinge seems to be that the US can now kill people without having to risk any of its own.  How nice.  Drones are about the smartest move the US has made in the past 10 years on terrorism” Well acording to the official story, there were terrorists on board, meaning its not a drone.  If it were a drone…that raises other questions.
Drones are a bad idea, because it divorces the person pulling the trigger from the actual consequences.  This was pretty obvious when the footage of the infamous strike was released that there was a cold, “yahoo” of the operator.  It turns war into a video game and dehumanizes the combatants but more importantly the victims.

“If you don’t want to get bombed by drones, don’t deliberately support anti-US terrorist groups from your territory.”  How will children know any better?  They are brought up in societies where this is the accepted norm, or taught that the west is evil, or through religious tenets, or perhaps through pure naivete they don’t even realise what uncle is doing with that tank in the garage they just know they arent allowed to talk about it, or touch it.  Even if the 8yr old child knew it WAS wrong, who do they go to, its not like they can pick up a rock and dial team america.  Blaming the children for being victimised is an odd perspective to me.

St. Michael says:

01:55pm | 19/12/12

@ K^2:

“Drones are a bad idea, because it divorces the person pulling the trigger from the actual consequences.  This was pretty obvious when the footage of the infamous strike was released that there was a cold, “yahoo” of the operator.”

You think that the religious fanatics at the controls of the four passenger jetliners on 9-11 were any more noble just because they weren’t doing it by remote control? Chances are they were even more desensitised by extremist brainwashing than the guys controlling the drones were.

All of the literature and all of the experience on the practice of war is quite clear: it requires divorcing one’s self from the consequences of your actions.  You have to suppress most of your emotions on a battlefield: fear and conscience alike, and respond to borders.  If every serviceman went through an existential crisis every time they got a successful shot off and killed an enemy trooper you would never win any war.  That indeed is what part of military training is about: suppressing fear and hesitation so you will react and respond to orders faster than the other side’s men do.  That is the only way wars are won.  Like it or not, Patton was entirely right, whichever way you slice it: the point of war is not to die for your country, it’s to make the other poor bastard die for his.

Drones are an excellent resource in that respect.  They allow you to kill people with no risk of casualties to your own side.  When you grind this article down to its core, that’s the whinge being had: that America has found an effective way to kill its enemies with no risk of American casualties.  I didn’t see Josh out there condemning the SEAL incursion as a horrid violation of Pakistan’s national borders.  Quite the contrary, he seems happy to let that sort of thing happen so long as there’s a chance a US servicemen dies as a result.

And no, I don’t think the planes were unmanned drones.  That’s Tinfoil John stuff and not for discussion here.

“How will children know any better?  They are brought up in societies where this is the accepted norm, or taught that the west is evil, or through religious tenets…”

Children don’t have control over national sovereignity.  Adults do.  Rational adults give a stuff about their children dying for preventable reasons.  And in that respect, since it’s cool to compare the consequences of massacres: at least America’s adults are now talking about what they can do to avert such things happening in future.  I don’t see the adults in Pakistan doing the same thing.  Who’s being the child now?

Your attitude is a bit funny on this, especially in light of your impassioned defence of civilians holding firearms in other threads.  In those threads you suggest with some inevitability that the criminals are everywhere, that they are masterminds, and that they can’t be stopped, and that therefore US civilians should keep their guns.  But in this thread you seem entirely incapable of accepting another inevitability, which is that in war there are always civilian casualties.  In this case, the civilian casualties are controllable by Pakistan: it could start enforcing its own laws and kicking out Al-Qaeda any time it chose to, but it won’t.  In that sense it’s as guilty as America’s supposed “failure on mental health” in that it, too, has measures it can take to stop the carnage but refuses to do so.

K^2 says:

03:32pm | 19/12/12

@St Michael - “In those threads you suggest with some inevitability that the criminals are everywhere, that they are masterminds, and that they can’t be stopped, and that therefore US civilians should keep their guns.  But in this thread you seem entirely incapable of accepting another inevitability, which is that in war there are always civilian casualties.” Well, thats a tad misrepresented, my point has been more that criminals exist, and that I have a right to defend life/liberty/property as is reflected by our law.  America has the unique difference of having “arms” meaning weapons being outlined as an object sanctioned to protect those rights, we had that right stripped from us, no matter your intent or purpose for said weapons.

I can acknowledge that, if you are using drones or current methods of conventional war, that civilian casualties are inevetible, and that seems to also be Josh’s point or at least part of it.  Hence why he used the SEAL team as an example of a method that USA can deploy which is far more “surgical” and less likely to cause innocent casualty because of the nature of it.  Yes, sovereign borders crossed, but only the sovereign border of a nation that forfeited that right, by harboring a violent offender.  Much like my home would no longer be a sanctuary if I were harboring a known criminal.

Just think of it this way, the Australian SAS are behind enemy lines for most of their deployment.  They are a surgical strike team, their purpose is to infiltrate, gather intel, and take targets of opportunity and to share that intel with foreign forces for the purposes of surgical strikes.  Now - how often have you seen SAS clean out a school “accidentally” or a synagoge, or a church?  They don’t because of the nature of their engagement.  We have the capability to be much more effective with less probability of civilian casualty. Instead, the MIC (military industrial complex) provides these “overkill” methods because ...well..Im not sure why but its probably to do with making profit.
Drones, MOAB’s, white phosphorous rounds….I mean, these are all methods of gross overkill, Americans create most of these, and deploy them which we saw in “shock and awe” with special litle messages painted on them.

St. Michael says:

04:13pm | 19/12/12

“Drones, MOAB’s, white phosphorous rounds….I mean, these are all methods of gross overkill…”

- White phosphorus (WP, or Willie-Pete) is not overkill.  You do not seem to understand its military purpose.  WP can and is used in tracer rounds for illumination - it shows where your shots are going if you’re fighting at night.  It can also be used in shells for flares, for illumination of the battlefield - again for night fighting.  Its smoke can also be used in daytime to conceal where your soldiers are going.  And, because of how violently it burns, it can be used to flush out enemy troops from dug-in positions.  That’s a boon to the poor bastards who otherwise have to charge a heavily fortified bunker position and then fight their way in when they can’t see or shoot the enemy.  It’s an incendiary weapon - and incendiaries have been used throughout warfare, right back to Greek fire in the medieval period.  It’s not a prohibited chemical weapon, and it’s a tool for dealing with specific situations that do crop up in combat.  That’s not overkill.  That’s having the right tools to deal with the job.
- The MOAB, too, is not overkill.  Again, it is a particular tool for a particular job: in this case, blowing the crap out of opposition in cave systems or other heavily-fortified locations.  Again, a particular tool for a particular job.  Not overkill.
- The drone is also not overkill.  Again, it’s a tool for a particular job.  If the opposition is encamped in a position where you can’t get a helicopter to them without alerting the target or just can’t get to it, a big flying bomb is a pretty damn good way of getting rid of the target without having to risk 20+ squaddies up a defended hill.

In the present conflict, the only time these items are “overkill” is when the enemy deliberately hides itself in a civilian population.  Consequently, the party responsible for civilian deaths is the party that uses civilians as camoflague.  I’m pretty sure if Al-Qaeda decided to put on uniforms and fight conventionally the West wouldn’t have any objection.

I mean, why is there any incumbency on us to put elite special forces at risk just so Josh can feel all warm and fuzzy that we’re avoiding civilian casualties? Why shouldn’t we expect the arseholes hiding among their civilians come out from behind their women and children and fight in the open?

Don’t get me started about the SEAL raid on OBL.  SEALS “surgical strikes” are not how you can run an entire war.  Operation Neptune Spear was a militarily stupid plan, organised more to show off the SEALS as supersoldiers rather than because they were the best option.  Sheer luck, not skill, kept it from turning into another Operation Eagle Claw—as it is, one of the damn helicopters coughed, spluttered and died due to malfunction at the site.

Lest I be mistaken on this: I don’t regard the US being in Afghanistan as a smart idea at all.  It should not have invaded.  It should have been in Afghanistan from several thousand feet up for about twenty minutes, preferably with a few MOABs, over Al-Qaeda’s bases.  My main point is that drone use is a smart and legitimate tactical move in a misconceived war.

Josh Thomason says:

08:32am | 19/12/12

Your xenophobia is showing.

Andrew Mackinnon says:

09:19am | 19/12/12

Josh Thomason, you’re not an idiot.

I admire you.

Ritmos Satanicos says:

10:04am | 19/12/12

I admire you too Josh. You have balls.

There’s no way I’d come out in public spouting diatribe like that rubbish you wrote.

That took a fair bit of guts. And a half pound of stupidity.

Good work!

ronny jonny says:

10:33am | 19/12/12

No xenophobia in me at all. I live and work in a third world country with people from many, many nations and races. When I say live with I mean I actually share rooms with black people, asian people, muslims, all sorts. I am widely travelled and reasonably well educated. Unlike yourself I have been and continue to be out in the world seeing how things actually are, not writing opinion pieces from the viewpoint of an ignorant student.
You think a war can be fought without civillian casualties? You think it’s not a real war? You believe the evil USA wants to take over the world to get “cheap” oil? I say again, you are an idiot. Grow up.

ronny jonny says:

10:35am | 19/12/12

Andrew Mackinnon admires Josh, enough said.

K^2 says:

10:45am | 19/12/12

“There’s no way I’d come out in public spouting diatribe like that rubbish you wrote.”  Seems to me like you just did, and then you connected yourself to Satan, nice one Subotic.  If you don’t believe in it, why use it as your handle?

You can disagree with him, but theres hardly any need to call him stupid.

Intolerance is evidence of impotence.

Ritmos Satanicos says:

03:07pm | 19/12/12

@K^2, sorry you think I care.

And I’ll use woteva handle I like. You’ll know it’s me.

Josh Thomason says:

08:17am | 19/12/12

I fail to see the relevance of my age in this discussion. If I was 50, I wonder if I would be labelled a tired hack? Freedom also has very little to do with it, except perhaps those who are having their freedoms limited by America.

Brad from Ops says:

08:33am | 19/12/12

Ah Josh—refer to Mick & Levi below for clarification

Borderer says:

08:45am | 19/12/12

Josh,
When you choose to piggyback on a public outpouring of grief to make a political point about foriegn policy you demonstrate your immaturity. A mature person would at least wait until they’ve held the funerals.
Shame on you.

Levi says:

09:06am | 19/12/12

Name one group whom America is currently systemically oppressing*....

*Note the group you mention must not currently participate in any form of violence, bombings, terror against civilians.

Sure, America is oppressing the Taliban, and the Iranian and NK regimes, but does enyone really think those groups deserve rights and freedoms?

FINK says:

10:18am | 19/12/12

@Levi,
“Name one group whom America is currently systemically oppressing”

Nice one Levi,
Currently the US cannot afford to oppress anyone except for a couple of tin pots that they were already committed to.
It’s a shame you didn’t expand your statement of “currently” to the meaning of say “Since WWII”

Josh Thomason says:

10:32am | 19/12/12

@Borderer

The families of the victims may never recover, much like the families of the victims in Pakistan. There is no golden moment when everyone is perfectly content.

What difference does waiting for a funeral make? Your apology for what might one day constitute war crimes is morally relativistic. The funerals of the Sandy Hook victims aren’t going to be bombed.

@Levi
It’s by no means an exhaustive list, but America has been involved in repressing populations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Palestine just to name a few. Historically you have places like Vietnam, Cuba and Korea too.

Ritmos Satanicos says:

10:36am | 19/12/12

Freedom isn’t free.

There’s a heafty furkin’ fee….

marley says:

11:02am | 19/12/12

@Josh - exactly which populations have the Americans repressed in Afghanistan?  If they’re so oppressive, why did 5 million Afghans in refugee camps head home after the allies marched in?

And if you think it’s the Americans who are oppressing people in Pakistan, you might care to have a word with Malala Yousafzai.  She would, I suspect, beg to differ.  I think the South Koreans might have a different view of American involvement there too, especially when they took a look at the “unoppressed” North.

Borderer says:

11:14am | 19/12/12

@Josh Thomason
There is no golden moment when everyone is perfectly content.

So best get in there while the body is still warm? You’re lack of proximity the incident allows you to make such statements without feeling you’re being insensitive, yet this is the exact character flaw you claim the American’s have.

Levi says:

11:39am | 19/12/12

If you consider repression to be introducing democracy to countries ruled by communists and islamic fundamentalists, then yes, they are oppressors.

I’d hate to see your “Macquarie dicttionary” definition of oppression.

“Oppression: Any act committed by an American with the ideological goal of freeing a repressed and terrified civilian population from fundamentalists, communists, aggressors and dictators et al.”

I love University student-esque left-wing idealism. Problem is everyone eventually has to grow up.

Mattb says:

12:28pm | 19/12/12

Levi

“I love University student-esque left-wing idealism. Problem is everyone eventually has to grow up.”

Haha, grow up??, that’s precious coming from you, I mean, you still believe in a 2000 year old fairytale, and immaturely label anyone who is slightly left of your far right position a “left-wing ideologue”, mostly due to the fact your argument is always piss weak.

You need to start eating your own feedback..

St. Michael says:

02:04pm | 19/12/12

“I fail to see the relevance of my age in this discussion.”

That’s easy.  If you’re under the age of 25, which is likely as you’re still at university, then biologically your brain has not fully matured.  Your brain’s centres for sound judgment are still growing.  That’s kind of why we don’t let you drink until you’re 18, or vote, or join the Army - because “youth”, “poor judgment”, and “inexperience” go together like fish and chips.

Levi says:

03:03pm | 19/12/12

Pissweak Mattb? Refute one of the points I have ever made with evidence then,

Also, since when do I believe in a 2000 year old fairytale. I’m an atheist. Dumbass. You’re entire posting history on this site has been nothing more than gross generalisations about everyone who doesn’t agree with your rose-coloured view of the world. You never offer anything constructive. You even made up some crap about me being a Christian. Go figure.

Maybe you should eat your own feedback genius.

Pattem says:

04:03pm | 19/12/12

@St. Michael, you stated: “because “youth”, “poor judgment”, and “inexperience” go together like fish and chips”.

Not quite right.  You need to ensure the elements are equally quantified on both sides of the equation, so the statement should be: “because “youth”, “poor judgment”, and “inexperience” go together like fish and chips AND TOMATO SAUCE.

St. Michael says:

04:45pm | 19/12/12

@ Pattem: ...fish and chips and tomato sauce? Ugh.  The thought.  At least let me have some lemon juice or bloody tartare sauce, surely?

Josh Thomason says:

08:28am | 19/12/12

An ad hominem response is not an endearing way to open an argument.

In any case, yes, I would oppose an imperial US, and I am critical of the war in the Middle East. However, one of the greatest accomplishments of America, if one would call it that, was the assassination of Bin Laden.

It wasn’t through war or drone strikes, it was a single insurgency team. This is not a case of the ends justifying the means - if America willingly targets civillians in a bid to assassinate more terrorists, then how are they different from those terrorists, who would also freely target civillians?

It is not an either/or dichotomy between killing civilians or safeguarding national sovereignty, and to suggest so is fallacious. There are other options.

Finally, America is not the guardian of the West. American soldiers do no protect me, and apologists do not speak for me. Australia is not at all involved in this conflict, and all I have done is question the means that America is utilising for their goals.

Surely that’s not so naive?

JT says:

09:26am | 19/12/12

‘’ American soldiers do no protect me’‘

Are you really that stupid kid? The power projection of the U.S. has protected much of the western world for 60 years including Australia. Your knowledge of history is appalling.

K^2 says:

09:29am | 19/12/12

Josh - we need more critical thinkers like you.
lines like this “It’s very easy to be an armchair critic of the people who guard you while you sleep.” ring very close to the line used in “A few good men” by Jack Nicholson.  In the end, Jacks character was found guilty. 

I for one am happy to see a younger guy asking questions.  You are part of our future generations after all, I would rather see critical analysis than blind loyalty any day of the week.

andye says:

10:03am | 19/12/12

I like how everyone is calling Josh stupid. You might disagree with him, but he can clearly articulate his beliefs and the reasoning behind them… and he can manage to do so without calling anyone stupid.

St. Michael says:

12:04pm | 19/12/12

“Finally, America is not the guardian of the West.”

Um, yes it is.  Take a look at the makeup of NATO by numbers and spending over the past fifty years.  Take a look at the national makeup of the UN force sent into Korea (not a US war.  That was a UN declaration).  Take a look at the first Gulf War (again, subject to UN declaration - not a US war.)  Take a look at the size of the Russian and Chinese nuclear stockpiles, then take a look at the size of America’s versus every other nuclear nation.

“American soldiers do no protect me,”

And for this example, take a look at the size of the Chinese or Indonesian military, a look at the size of the Australian military, and then a look at the size of the US military, which is bound per the terms of the ANZUS treaty to protect us if it comes to war.  If they don’t directly protect you, then you must not be an Australian citizen.  Or alternatively, if you live here, the US by spending as much as it does on its military indirectly subsidises our military.  Because the US military is unchallengeable conventionally, we don’t have to spend the cash to raise an unchallengeable conventional force ourselves.

St. Michael says:

12:29pm | 19/12/12

“I would rather see critical analysis than blind loyalty any day of the week.”

So would I.  Especially where that blind loyalty is to the Left, as is common to the young.  This article is not critical analysis, it’s capitalising on two piles of corpses rather than one.

S says:

01:18pm | 19/12/12

@JT Patronising Josh as a “kid” and calling him stupid shows your lack of intelligence and inability to consider others’ opinions. Narrow minded and foolish. But no doubt, being called out as such will only cause you to be even more so, rather than cause you to consider an alternative view.

@Josh your intelligence is obvious to the fairminded and educated. Great article. I fully support every bit of it, and I couldn’t care less how old you are or how much life experience you have or don’t have.

This whole situation reads like something from Orwell’s 1984. There’s the official story, the boogey man enemy, and the unquestioning, brainwashed thought police who accuse others of thought crime. A public wiling to blindly give up its rights and put their trust in a tyrannical imperialist state. Everyone needs to read and study that book. You’d shake your head in disbelief at the parallels with the world today… if you can get your mind beyond the propaganda spewed by mainstream media.

Levi says:

04:31pm | 19/12/12

JT says:09:26am | 19/12/12

“The power projection of the U.S. has protected much of the western world for 60 years including Australia. Your knowledge of history is appalling.”

Well said JT. Like most Uni students in their formative years, Josh considers his opinions and positions on most subjects as unassailable once he has attended a few lectures….then they graduate and are forced to grow up.

simonfromlakemba says:

08:34am | 19/12/12

Nice bunch of personal attacks there Levi. Typical.

James D says:

08:40am | 19/12/12

I am sorry Levi, i know this hurts you to hear but the US has about 15 years left at the top. Then it goes bye bye. But here’s the good news. Countries all over the world have shown they screw this leadership mantle up each and everytime and the Chinese too will crumble. And always for the same militarism and messing with the market.

Debate is listening says:

08:42am | 19/12/12

Yes superior Levi, do go on….. Typical halfit post by a biased unintelectual believer who thinks the world works a certain way ( and he is an authority on it ), which really just means that Levi simplifies and dulls everything so he doesn’t need to think to hard. I wonder what your type wear other than your ignorance and arrogance on your sleave?

Josh Thomason says:

08:45am | 19/12/12

The world doesn’t need a policeman, least of all the United States, but it’s not as if China would be any better or worse (anti-communist sentiments no withstanding).

Y’know, I’m not sure that what I’m wearing in a photo is really relevant, nor is my age.

Rather than trying to discredit my argument by making me look immature or inexperienced, why don’t you consider my argument and evaluate it’s strengths and weaknesses, then post an insightful and worthwhile comment.

K^2 says:

09:46am | 19/12/12

@Josh - You should take ad hominem attacks with a grain of salt.  What it says is that you challenged their regular way of thinking so much that all they had to come back at you with was a personal attack.  This means you actually made them think.  Some people are so calcified in their world view no matter how many times or how well you tell them, they just wont change their view.

My piece of advice to you, for what its worth, ignore the ad hominem attack, take it as a compliment that you wrote a thought provoking article, and don’t feed the trolls with a response.

Borderer says:

09:49am | 19/12/12

@Josh Thomason
Y’know, I’m not sure that what I’m wearing in a photo is really relevant, nor is my age.

Rather than trying to discredit my argument by making me look immature or inexperienced, why don’t you consider my argument and evaluate it’s strengths and weaknesses, then post an insightful and worthwhile comment.

That you use a massacre of school children in the continental USA as a means to attack the US governments foriegn policy demonstrates you’re immaturity at least the gun control articles were relevant to the actual situation.

Your age is a factor unless you spent your formative years growing up under a desk in the department of foriegn affairs, you simply can not have the experience to form a functional understanding of global terrorism. Simply put you can have only have read about this in books or articles, edited, biased, sanitised and ready for consumption by the morally outraged. Do you even know why they are really fighting there?

Hoppity says:

10:10am | 19/12/12

Josh, the world does need a policeman.  It is the very reason that the UN was created essentially immediately after World War II.

England was the world’s policeman during WWII.  Without Britan fighting alone for the first 3 years of WWII, the Nazi’s would have run roughshod over Europe (as it was it was a very close run thing).

If the world doesn’t need a policeman shall we abolish the UN then?  (Although it is not particularly useful at the moment).

In terms of your age Josh, it might not be relevant, but I would suggest that some consideration of recent political history would be recommended.  Otherwise you probably would not have made a comment about the fact that the world doesn’t need a policeman, history has proven time and time again, that without a “policeman” tyranny advances unchecked?

Even if in some instances the ‘policeman’ is ineffective, (Rwanda
Bosnia) it is a very necessary role and responsibility.

Josh Thomason says:

10:24am | 19/12/12

@Borderer

My intention was never to use the victims of a massacre as a political tool, but there remains a very large hypocrisy in mourning the loss of life for of Americans while ignoring the loss of life for Pakistani. At the very least I was questioning the moral compass of the US.

You make assumptions based on nothing but conjecture, and instead of actually looking at the argument you are merely trying to discredit the author. What I have or have not read or done is irrelevant to the validly of my argument.

K^2 says:

10:26am | 19/12/12

@Borderer so your complaint is “too soon” not, you are categorically wrong?  So its ok to intorduce gun laws off the back of emotional responses, its ok to go to wars, or to drone stroke off the back of milking public outcries, but its wrong to question it off the back of those same tragedies that are used to manipulate?

Im not sure you quite see the double standard here.

Rose says:

10:32am | 19/12/12

Borderer, your attack of Josh’s post based on his age is ridiculous. I’m old enough to have lived through the War on Terror,a good chunk of the Cold War and the various wars and uprisings in between. What I have learned from what I have seen over the years is that the Governments on ‘our’ side need to be held in check as much as those on the opposing sides. ‘Our’ governments and defence forces have been involved in terrible things, have caused death and destruction on a huge scale and not all of their actions have been justifiable. In some cases our team has behaved as badly, if not worse than those that they oppose.
Maybe if you spent time looking through University library data bases you would also discover that there is a wider range of unsanitized material which gives a much clearer picture of what goes on and why than you would be able to access as easily anywhere else.
Maybe it’s just that you have become so set in your ways that instead of thinking about the arguments of others you get all superior and dismiss them out of hand based on inconsequential things such as age!

Borderer says:

11:00am | 19/12/12

@Josh Thomason
but there remains a very large hypocrisy in mourning the loss of life for of Americans while ignoring the loss of life for Pakistani.

So your plan is that they don’t mourn the loss of the children? You’re looking to damn them either way and that’s just not right. So yes that is you using the victims of a massacre as a political tool.

What I have or have not read or done is irrelevant to the validly of my argument.
I make the point that the scope of your argument is sorely limited as is your understanding. Yes the death of innocents is appalling but what are the alternatives? I asked if you understood why they are really fighting there, any answers?

K^2
Yes, too soon. Maybe you should be over there pushing the families of the victims out of the way so Obama can answer questions about drone strikes in Pakistan and ask him why he’s publically grieving when he doesn’t cry for the victims of the war on terror, be sure to trample on the children’s graves while you do it….. This is why people don’t like the Westboro Baptist Church and their chanting followers, they don’t give a crap about anything other than their own agenda and I don’t recall there being a drone strike on the school so the relevance is tenuious. The fact that you’re using a different medium of communication doesn’t validate your actions.

Economist says:

12:06pm | 19/12/12

Such BS. The article simply highlights the importance of empathy and acknowledging the impact of drones and warfare.

Hypotheticals on China are ridiculous. How would the world look if Hitler had won? Or communists had decided to invade Western Europe? The US for the most part has been a force for good, for choice, but it is not above reproach. It’s failing should be acknowledged to learn from.

The fact is the US has intervened post WW2 in democratically elected government to protect the interests of its multinationals. That throughout US history the richest Americans have supported fascism and dictators friendly to the West. That ironically they opposed French, and English colonialism yet sought to do the very same thing. The Russians did the same thing with Eastern Europe to sure up it’s supply channels to the South.

I find it ironic that in the West enjoys more freedoms, is more likely to have democratically elected governments, more likely to provide its populations support services and more choices and we have prospered significantly from this both economically and socially. Yet at the same time we react slowly in providing these freedoms to more oppressed countries.

Surely then it makes sense to provide these same choices to other countries. That the US should simply accept genuinely elected governments, even those with plans for state ownership of key resources. That it’s time to throw out dictators. The US should continue to do one thing it does very well and that is promote the idea of freedom, rather than enforce a bastardised version where they protect their multinationals.

Dr Goh might be able to provide more insight, but everyday China is opening itself up economically to the market and many of it’s citizens lives are improving. Hopefully social freedom will come with it. 

Furthermore the country that consistently finishes number 1 in most economic and social indicators is the country that has significant state ownership of it’s oil and gas reserves (65%), that at the same time has an off shore mining tax of around 76% and a standard tax rate rate of around $28%. That adjusts its tax rates for key projects with the private sector depending on how expensive it is to establish.

A country that invests significantly in education and is number 1 in the world, with generous social security payments. and a wealth fund worth around $650B where 4% of it can be used each year to smooth out economic declines. Norway is a country we can learn from.

Borderer says:

12:11pm | 19/12/12

@Rose
Age is an issue, with youth, usually comes niavity unless events propel you otherwise you will grow up believing what you read as unbiased fact and that there is always a clear and correct course to take.
With age often comes experience and with experience in positions of responsibility you know there are times where choices are terrible but there is little or no alternative and to do nothing is far worse.
Be critical of what happens, I’m not saying you shouldn’t, I mostly didn’t like Josh trying to tack on apparent hypocrasy as a charge against Obama for mourning the loss of life at Sandy Hook when he doesn’t publically mourn kids killed in drone strikes overseas. What would you have Obama do? Ignore the families? Being critical of compassion in any form is being childish and immature.

K^2 says:

12:22pm | 19/12/12

@Borderer - “be sure to trample” - I wont even repeat the whole line.
I mean, how is that sensitive? There is no combination of words will console, and no words that can make the situation of these tragic events more or less tragic.  It seems to be fine to use the events for political purpose, as long as its one of which you approve.  Gun control is a political agenda, and its being used to spark that debate.  I certainly didn’t spark it. 

The whole point is questioning the moral compass of a country that appears to have lost its way.  It applies double standard to how it acts, and what it expects of its people.  Its people expect that they belong to this imaginary protector called ‘the government’, and then collectively sit back and fold their arms and wait for their protector to come to their aid. 

Your faux outrage is just as much manipulating the tragedy to silence dissent, as was done to raise the important points here.  Why do I say faux outrage, because you can feel nothing other than sympathy, not empathy for the families involved, and neither can I.  To speak out about other terrible things and draw a parallel, or question the moral compass of the ‘saviour’ to the particular crisis (government) by no means diminishes the tragedy or insults the victims.

St. Michael says:

12:27pm | 19/12/12

“My intention was never to use the victims of a massacre as a political tool,”

Might not have been your intention, but it’s certainly worked out that way.  *shrug* But then the Left only understands good intentions, not the road to hell that’s paved with them, so I can forgive you that.

Borderer says:

01:03pm | 19/12/12

@K^2
Your faux outrage is just as much manipulating the tragedy to silence dissent, as was done to raise the important points here.  Why do I say faux outrage, because you can feel nothing other than sympathy, not empathy for the families involved, and neither can I.  To speak out about other terrible things and draw a parallel, or question the moral compass of the ‘saviour’ to the particular crisis (government) by no means diminishes the tragedy or insults the victims

By all means discuss the use of drone warfare, just don’t attack a president for showing sympathy to families. If you want to draw parallels do so with some sort of sensitivity, and actually show sympathy yourself rather than the high handed self righteousness demonstrated. Questioning the moral compass of your country, it is the responsibility of every citizen, as is questioning their own first.

As for your comment about “faux outrage”, I’ll let that slide, suffice to say that it was pretty dumb on your part.

K^2 says:

02:03pm | 19/12/12

@Borderer I didnt think I was showing outrage at either side, merely commentary.

Rose says:

02:17pm | 19/12/12

Borderer, age is not an issue. It is possible to live to be 100 and still be thinking the same crap as you were thinking at 20, all it requires is that you only allow yourself to only take on board that which supports your ideological position. It happens all the time. Josh on the other hand comes across as some one who has spent time looking at alternate views and has come up with a coherent argument, unlike yourself, who has clearly chosen to go with the “I’m old so I know best” brand of stupidity to justify himself!

Mattb says:

02:17pm | 19/12/12

If the Americans are the “world police” and, according to the American fans here on the punch, we so desperately need them to be the “world police”, well I’m sorry, but I think it’s about time we started interviewing for a new nation to take over the role from them.

The Americans have failed miserably in the so called role of ‘world police’, they’ve caused more drama’s, started more conflicts and generally gone from one FU to the next ever since the end of WWII.

The funny thing is the ‘terrorists’ (generally anyone, any group or any organization that the Americans or the far right for that matter disagree with) have actually won, especially since the 911 ‘war on terror’ began. Their beloved Twin Towers were destroyed, the Pentagon attacked, they’ve failed to bring peace to Iraq or Afghanistan, failed to destroy the terrorist groups, failed to stop the spread of terrorism, helped create a whole new generation of people in the Muslim world with grievances toward the West, lost trillions of dollars fighting these wars and their economy is completely fu$&ed; and heading toward a fiscal cliff. Doesn’t look like they’ve successfully ‘policed’ anything from where I stand.

When Congress voted on action to be taken in the days after 911, one congresswoman voted against the use of force. She was the only representative in congress willing to speak up and ask for calm heads to prevail.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf1N-y9Mbo4

They are attempting to bring peace to the world yet they cant even enact laws to protect six year olds in schools from their own gun crazy people!

So yeah, maybe the world needs a country to “police” it, but it ain’t the Americans, they’ve indisputably proved for the last few decades they haven’t got the ability to do it and, if things keep going the way they are for America, within the next twenty years they will be a basket case. We all better start learning how to speak Mandarin!..

Rose says:

02:25pm | 19/12/12

As for Obama, I have absolutely no doubt that his grief for the children who died in the Sandy Hook massacre was genuine. However, I too wouldn’t mind it if the US and other powers spent a bit more time thinking about the damage they have caused to innocent civilians, children included, when they support the use of drones, cluster bombs, land mines and other technology which kills indiscriminately, and working out how they could reduce the ‘collateral damage’.
Sorry if we don’t all see the US as the world’s saviour. A lot of the hate that they receive from developing nations is a direct result of how they have conducted themselves in those regions. Bombing the shit out of civilians is not going to improve their popularity there or anywhere else!

Levi says:

02:51pm | 19/12/12

simonfromlakemba says:08:34am | 19/12/12

“Nice bunch of personal attacks there Levi. Typical.”

- Never stopped people like you inferring that I am jewish based solely on my given name. Like somehow me having a Hebrew sounding first name makes me less qualified to comment. Typical. Though I wouldnt expect much more than from your latent anti-semitism given your location, politcal ideology and sympathies with our Western Sydney Middle-Eastern community. How are the kneecappings and drive by’s going down there by the way?

James D - Do you have a crystal ball? The USA was in much deeper shit in the 30’s than it is now. One major structural change in the international system as it stands now may be all the USA needs. While I don’t care whether the USA is ‘at the top’, I do care who is the global hegemon. Given the state of Chinese leadership, system of government, massive population, resource requirements, and ideological aim to ‘reclaim it’s place in the sun’ I’d be much more wary of a fleet or Chinese carriers sailing past Sydney than American carriers. China is to America as Germany 1871-1914 was to Pax Britannica. Rapidly industrialising, economy set to overtake, increased militarism and muscle flexing, poor judgement in foreign affairs.

Josh and K^2 - What you wear is relevant because I know you would cast the exact same judgements. If someone were to write an article on here and their photo featured them wearing a flanno, I’m sure you would dismiss it based on the apparent ‘boganness’ of their attire. Your assertion would be that lower-class/poorly educated people wear flanno’s/budgies/ugg boots. So I can assert baselessly that a cheap instagram selfie of university student wearing a turtleneck and sporting a haircut that would make Ringo Starr proud conforms to a certain standard. That typically being misguided hatred of America, white guilt, prefers lattes to beers, listens to records instead of MP3’s, has never help a job apart from stacking shelves at Woolies, thinks that just because you’re friends with a guy called Iqbal at uni makes multiculturalism a resounding success. I could go on.

Oh sorry and by the way I have already completed my Political Science degree at that hotbed of blind socialism that they call UQ, so yeah I’d say at this stage I am more qualified to comment on such things than youmg Josh here.

I hope you are getting the point now that engaging in personal and ad homenim attacks as I have just done, makes about as much sense as trying to minimise the pain caused by failures in certain facets of US domestic policy and society by drawing attention to collateral damage caused by drones in Pakistan. They are two completely unrelated issues and you draw the stupidest of stupid long bows trying to call hypocrisy on them. Your long bow is so long even the English at Agincourt and Crecy would have been impressed.

There is absolutely no hypocrisy in mourning the deaths of kids and teachers shot by some nutcase at a school. To say so simply vindicates my criticism of both your age and your article. The fact that you actually believe there is some sort of crusade going on really limits the degree to which anyone will take you seriously. Drop the rhetorical and ideological crap and you might get a real job one day.

Borderer says:

03:21pm | 19/12/12

@Rose
Borderer, age is not an issue. It is possible to live to be 100 and still be thinking the same crap as you were thinking at 20,

That is true, some people never grow up.

“I’m old so I know best” brand of stupidity to justify himself!

Not really at all. I just don’t believe in the “I’m young so I know best”. My principle problem was that Josh linked in the Sandy Hook massacre with the drone strikes and accused Obama of hypocracy. Error of youth, in the rush to achieve as much impact as possible he is reckless in his application. Older people do that too (see Alan Jones) they just have had more opportunity to learn when not to say something dumb.
I also believe in the youth asking questions and testing their ideas. So I called Josh on his insensitive behaviour and then asked him if he understood why they were fighting in Pakistan in the first place, an answer has not been forthcoming. He presented himself as an expert and I challenged it, I got waffle and idealogy. His youth is indicative of his inexperience, its hard to have experience in something when you’re just out of your teens unless you’ve been involved in it at an early age, Josh again dodged and didn’t qualify what made him an expert. Do you undertand why they are fighting in Pakistan, why they are using drone strikes?

St. Michael says:

03:22pm | 19/12/12

“Borderer, age is not an issue. It is possible to live to be 100 and still be thinking the same crap as you were thinking at 20…”

Leave Germaine Greer out of this.

Borderer says:

04:34pm | 19/12/12

To answer my own question as to why they are fighting in Pakistan, it’s so they can limit the civilian casualties, American civilian casualties. Fighting on someone else’s ground means you aren’t fighting amongst your own populace. Terrorist organisations wouldn’t care if they killed a civilian or a soldier, their bombing of funerals and markets have demonstrated that as well as 9/11 and the London bombings. It’s cold, hard and practical, the alternative is conflict on American soil and who wants to bring a war home if they can avoid it?
The drone strikes are actually intended to reduce civilian casualties. A drone is guided in by a spotter who convienienty melts into the background after the payload is delivered. Actually attacking with armed soldiers means you have to fight your way into the area (locals aren’t keen on government troops, hence why terrorists are hiding there) then fight your way back out. Needless to say they body count would be extensive (Blackhawk down scenario for the movie buffs), it’s not just terrorists and soldiers but any hapless individual caught in the cross fire as well as well meaning people defending their families.

So in a no win situation you choose the lesser of the two evils, if you have better strategies on counter terrorist operations I’m sure there’s government agencies waiting for your call. If you also think there is a peaceful solution, by all means contact the UN, I’m sure Ban Ki Moon will be all ears.
So this is why I’m not overly critical of drone strikes and the collateral damage caused, I don’t think it’s a good choice but there are worse ones, ones that kill even more people.

Rose says:

09:53am | 19/12/12

The Taliban and other such groups are horrendous, their acts unforgivable. The problem is that when the US (or any other foreign force) go into a country all guns blazing the people of that country will often support hard-line groups from their own country to stand against the outsiders. So in effect, one of the key factors in increasing the power of the Taliban has been American involvement.
You cannot force change on a country and expect it to work. The will for change must come from the people of that country and then be backed by international support. 
On the upside of course is the massive benefits flowing to the US war and weaponry industries!!

Josh Thomason says:

10:35am | 19/12/12

The article is about America’s use of drone warfare, specifically in Pakistan. I never even mentioned the Taliban, as they weren’t relevant. Again, there isn’t a dichotomy between sacrificing children and civilians and making progress.

marley says:

11:05am | 19/12/12

@Josh Thomasen - you didn’t mention the Taliban because they’re not relevant?  Who the hell do you think the Americans are targeting?

TheRealDave says:

12:13pm | 19/12/12

They’re ‘not relevant’ as they kinda crap all over his ‘evil americans’ point he’s trying to push.

gnome says:

01:35pm | 19/12/12

“I never even mentioned the Taliban, as they weren’t relevant. “

Josh, Josh, Josh- Osama sat in his house watching TV, never venturing out in case someone saw him-  that’s OK though, because he was relevant!  He was al Quaeda!  Don’t mention the Taliban though.

Who do you think is causing the trouble in Afghanistan and Pakistan?  Who do you think the US is targetting?  Who do you think operate among the people, leading to civilian casualties?  Who do you think has the Afghan gumment terrified and keeps coalition forces in Afghanistan even though they would much rather leave?

It’s that irrelevant crowd, that’s who.

Rose says:

09:40am | 19/12/12

I don’t recall Josh writing anything about the Taliban being above criticism, it was about the US drone strikes.
Can we clear up one more thing, the drone strikes are not aimed toward a better society, they are aimed at furthering US interests. One does not necessarily equal the other!

gnome says:

01:24pm | 19/12/12

You’re on a loser there Rose- the US has no particular interest in Pakistan other than trying to reduce it’s usefulness as a base for terrorism.  Unless you know something no-one else does??  Clear it up for us? 

If the US had any interests or any sense they would have supported the Musharaf government, because it was the closest thing Pakistan has ever had to respectable government.  But it wouldn’t have been politically correct, and now they are enjoying another hostile failed state which allows terrorists to parade around with impunity.  If it wasn’t for the drone activity, they’d be holding whatever the muslim equivalent of mayday parades is.

The US gets a lot wrong, but they’ve got this about right.

(Anyway, did I accuse him of being a Taliban lover??  Did I wish him polio, like the Taliban wishes it upon the people of Pakistan??  Perhaps I should have so your little rave could be justified??)

Rose says:

02:35pm | 19/12/12

I still don’t believe that the US has any desire to improve ‘society’, it’s only concern is furthering its own interests, that’s why it picks and chooses which terrorists it gives a damn about.
The fact that there are terrorists that want to defeat the US is a good reason the US should look at itself, and make changes to the way it treats other countries. America has provided significant support to many of the regimes that it ends up opposing, Why? Because at the time they never cared that much whether the regime was good or not, their only real concern as whether or not the regime was going to be good to them.
As much as the US needs to protect themselves from terrorism, they also need to accept that they played a major role in creating the ;problem in the first place!

acotrel says:

03:05pm | 19/12/12

Sandy Hook equates with Afghanistan, a war zone ? What were the rules of engagement ?

gnome says:

03:41pm | 19/12/12

Another page- another query ignored.  We are fascinated to know what those US interests are in Pakistan so you can ” clear up one more thing”.

Waiting…

fml says:

11:16am | 19/12/12

Sorta like how you degraded people for thinking that the french had no intention to “ever” colonise australia.

You were “right” on that one too champ. Nothing better than an uninformed arm chair expert trying to lecture someone with an education. Why is dismissing his view point merely because his is a uni student acceptble? and say, well i don’t know, why some non-IT person lecturing you on why the NBN is a waste of money unacceptable?

TheRealDave says:

12:01pm | 19/12/12

If you could show us any actual plans of french colonisation of Australia you might have a leg to stand on - but you don’t as there never were any…so it makes the rest of your drivel…well…your usual drivel.

fml says:

01:48pm | 19/12/12

And yours arrogant drivel…

The fact that they colonised the pacific shows intent.

http://history-nz.org/colonisation4.html

France colonised the south of france and were looking to create a food hold in the south pacific.

http://www.australianaustralia.com/page/History/238

“France’s interest in Australia was less sustained than that of Great Britain. Marion Dufresne, on his 1772 voyage, concentrated upon charting and describing the less hospitable western coast of Tasmania, and later French explorers investigated Australia’s southern coast. By then, however, the British had planted their first settlement and had claimed the eastern half of the continent. “

France had an interest, albeit left it too late as it was less inclined to settle, hence the british settled first.

For someone who isn’t a uni student, you don’t really no much do you? I think your knowledge of the NBN is also suspect, which is disappointing as I support the NBN.

You should look up the french committee colonization plans of australia. You don’t even have to be a uni student to understand it. Don’t let your arrogance blind side you though.. good luck.

fml says:

11:23am | 19/12/12

“what choice does America have?”

They could just stay out of it?

You talk about moral relativism, why is resentment towards American antagonism unjustified? Why would Iran be upset for operation Ajax? same thing is happening to Iraq right now…

Moral relativism is expecting middle eastern countries to forget past discretions just so they can accept the current ones.

I found it astounding that people cannot correlate middle east resentment towards the US and they try to rationalise it by simplifying it to the equation. “they hate our freedom”.  Of course it is…

Want to stop the resentment? The U.S. should leave. Will it ever happen? no. I wonder how the U.S. reacts to countries meddling in their internal affairs? Or do the U.S have some form of manifest destiny which allows them free moral reign to do so?

AdamC says:

12:43pm | 19/12/12

Fml says:

“They could just stay out of it?”

Yeah, except that these Pakistani frontier terrorists are attacking coalition soldiers in Afghanistan and sheltering Taliban fighters. They are imposing Sharia law in areas under their control and, if given the chance, would also seek to attack western-linked targets in Pakistan, India and further afield.

But that’s OK, I take it, in fml-land?

(BTW, I am glad I don’t live there!)

fml says:

01:41pm | 19/12/12

“But that’s OK, I take it, in fml-land?”

Not really, It is something pakistan has to deal with, like you mentioned in your original paragraph. What I disagree with is the use of moral relativism criticising and its application when talking about civilian casualties, but then applying an almost undying and unconditional support of instances of force used by the U.S.

U.S. kills people = good. Anyone else bad.
Terrorist organisations working with impunity in the region? Yes, of course that is bad. Justifying the killing of civilian populations as casualties of war, and not doing the same for an invading force? Well, its a form of manifest destiny. I mean how dare they attack an invading force. They should just let others enforce their imperialist will.

But thats ok in AdamC land, right? The good guys can do no wrong, and what wrong they do is justified. I

St. Michael says:

02:00pm | 19/12/12

“Justifying the killing of civilian populations as casualties of war, and not doing the same for an invading force?”

Pakistan hasn’t been invaded by the US, fml.  Just a small note there.

Levi says:

11:47am | 19/12/12

Laos: So you are cool with communists recruiting kids to conduct raids then retreat to the safety of another countries border?

Vietnam: So you are cool with the Soviet Union providing arms and training to a communist puppet regime to invade another sovereign nation and to repress individual freedoms and execute “capitalists”

North Korea: As above, and you are OK with leaders who have developed personality cults and repression to such epic proportions that said leaders drink imported whisky and eat imported caviar while their own population starves.

Iraq: So Saddam Hussein, the man who gassed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, invaded another soveriegn nation, and launched SCUDS at yet another nation, should have been left as is?

Guatemala, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti: So Tin pot dictators who execute their own citizens in the thousands for the slightest infringement are OK in your books, just so long as they don’e use drones or aircraft carriers like the USA?

Yugoslavia: So Srebrenica was fine, we should have just let Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians fight it out amongst themselves. Screw the international communisty says FINK.

Like it or not, we live in a globalised world. You have a warped view of what is right and wrong my friend.

St. Michael says:

11:53am | 19/12/12

Well, would you like to nominate a different policeman?
China? As in, they of the blocked Amnesty International sites and who rolled over unarmed protesters with tanks in Tiannenmen Square?
Russia? Are they an actual country?
The UN? As in, the body whose “peacekeepers” stood back and watched genocide happen in Rwanda? In Bosnia?
India? As in, the only nation on earth that still believes in a caste system and who literally could not organise the Olympic Games properly even if you paid them bribes?
Britain? Didn’t we try this already?

Please, go ahead and name someone other than the US as the world’s policeman.  Bear in mind that said cop has to have weapons as good as the world’s best (i.e. nuclear weapons) and a large enough military to bankroll UN operations.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

fml says:

11:38am | 19/12/12

America are at war?

I thought bush declared universal supreme victory last decade?

Or is it like one of those war on drugs deelies, which have no clear enemy, strategy or end?

marley says:

12:15pm | 19/12/12

@fml - if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it actually is a duck and not a bloody sparrow.

My point was, wars involve casualties, civilian as well as military.  By all means, argue that the war shouldn’t be fought at all, but the argument that a war can be fought without engendering any civilian casualties is simply uniformed.

St. Michael says:

12:38pm | 19/12/12

@ marley: I think you meant “uninformed”, not “uniformed”.  But if you did mean “uniformed”, well punned, good sir.

Cabin Fever says:

12:41pm | 19/12/12

What is it with Canadians and ducks?

I’ve heard of some bizarre gratification rituals performed by Canadians on defrosted ducks in the middle of winter.

fml says:

12:49pm | 19/12/12

I agree marley,

With any conflict there are going to be civilian casualties. I am not sure that was the authors point. I think he is trying to explain why the US (and Australia) show differing levels of sympathy for foreign “massacres” as opposed to domestic.

Yes, we obviously have more empathy for local massacres because we can relate to the culture of the US. The crux of the issue is how we define a massacre, we won’t define what happens overseas as a massacre, we would rather define it as “Casualties of war”.

But as you say.

“if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it actually is a duck and not a bloody sparrow.”

John says:

12:38pm | 19/12/12

That’s because the whole agenda is too disarm american population. It’s not about protecting human life. They are using the emotional reaction to this suspected false flag event to gather support to take the guns from Americans remove the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. This is why the entire controlled media networks, talk show hosts now pushing a huge marketing campaign to brainwash the entire population to disarm.

Gnome says:

02:06pm | 19/12/12

To give Josh his due- he probably does care about those people.  The whole article is about empathy after all. 

But the US isn’t responsible for every life taken everywhere, so taking the US to task for african christian school children isn’t going to add much to the discussion.  They are just unfortunate that their ancestors weren’t taken to the US 200 years ago as slaves.  They’d be alright now if they had been.  At least they’d be alive to complain.

(There- that’s the non-empathic take on it.)

Rose says:

02:58pm | 19/12/12

John, disarming the American people would be a massive step toward protecting human life!

Colin says:

01:52pm | 19/12/12

@ St.Michael

Both.

War is government-sanctioned murder.

Gotrek says:

02:06pm | 19/12/12

Moral relativism at work.

St. Michael says:

03:19pm | 19/12/12

Colin, I asked which is more evil, not which of them is.  You have not answered the question.

On the other hand, neither has Josh, which perhaps is an answer in itself.

Josh Thomason says:

03:54pm | 19/12/12

@St Michael,

I have little expertise in the area of moral philosophy. Following the tenants of utilitarianism, it would be clear that the person who brought the ‘human shield’ into harms way in the first place would be the more ‘evil’.

However it isn’t a dichotomy, ‘evil’ is subjective and morals are relative. Killing a person by shooting through them could be considered equally as ‘evil’ as the former person.

In any case, this has very little to do with gun regulation in America nor America’s unchecked and inscrutable military position.

Colin says:

04:05pm | 19/12/12

@ St. Michael

“Colin, I asked which is more evil, not which of them is.  You have not answered the question…”

They are both as evil as each other; both involve the murder of human beings, ergo, both are evil…No matter which way you slice and dice the idea of government-sanctioned murder, it is still evil.

St. Michael says:

04:19pm | 19/12/12

“I have little expertise in the area of moral philosophy”

I wasn’t asking for your views on philosophy.  I was asking which, according to *your* personal moral compass, is the more evil.  You still haven’t given me a straight answer on that, which, again, is telling.

Let’s try it again, with an analogous issue: who’s the more evil on your personal moral compass:

(1) the government that does not negotiate over terrorist hostages on the rationale that if they do it will invite more terrorist abductions, even if it risks the lives of those hostages; or
(2) the terrorist who took the hostage in the first place?

Hint: look up the phrase “beggar thy neighbour”, it’ll help you out here.

Philosopher says:

04:31pm | 19/12/12

if I can try, St. Michael: if the soldier knows he is firing upon civilians, no matter the cause, then he is committing a reprehensible act. Whether this act is relative to how many civilians he saves, is a matter for a field such as casuistry to work out.

St. Michael says:

04:31pm | 19/12/12

@ Colin: so you regard a guy who drags an innocent civilian into a combat zone and hides behind that innocent civilian while he shoots at his enemy as just as evil as the guy who shoots back to defend himself.  Right.  Gotcha.  Idiot.

Pattem says:

04:54pm | 19/12/12

@Josh, you stated: “In any case, this has very little to do with gun regulation in America nor America’s unchecked and inscrutable military position”.

Then you have missed the point of the question, which is simply to determine where you moral compass lies.  If, as you claim, that “I have little expertise in the area of moral philosophy”, then you are simply highlighting that, in the context of the question, you are young, inexperienced and possibly naive.  St Michael is not asking for a philosophically sound argument, he is asking for an opinion. 

Moral philosophy is simply the argument about the content of morality, not the acquiring of morals and the implementation and/or utilisation of them in your day to day life; so what is the problem with offering an opinion?  Until you are willing to back in an opinion based on your gut, then yes, you are young and naive.  Sometimes coming in at the pragmatic end of the process of developing morals is the way to go; then refine the science behind it at a later date.  You may be surprised where your moral journey ends up.  Life is not a textbook!

Oh, and that is tenets of utilitarianism NOT tenants of utilitarianism.

Pattem says:

05:01pm | 19/12/12

@St Michael, re Colin.

Sometimes sitting on the fence hurts, especially if it’s a picket fence.  Ouch!

St. Michael says:

05:10pm | 19/12/12

@ Philosopher: to me, it’s a bit simpler.  No human shield brought along = no risk to the human shield.  The soldier having to decide whether to shoot through that shield isn’t the one who put the shield there to begin with.  If he shoots, it might be a reprehensible act - but it’s not like he’s being given any choice in the scenario.  If he doesn’t fire, he will die because the soldier using the human shield will fire instead.

That being so, I don’t quite get why we have to urge the West’s military to forebear from shooting through human shields when it’s clear it is being used as a deliberate tactic by the opposition to shroud their military assets.  It’s one thing to use your best endeavours to minimise civilian casualties - another thing to abandon your military objective because this tactic is being used against you.

Indeed if the West did start ignoring human shields, logic follows they would not be further used: a conventional bit of cover like a wall, or a cave, or a mountain, keeps out bullets a lot more effectively than a flesh and blood shield does.

This seems to be something Josh is wringing his hands over, but it’s not addressed anywhere in the article.  Pity, that.  It’s the elephant in the room, but nobody on the Left wants to acknowledge or come to grips with the issue.

St. Michael says:

05:26pm | 19/12/12

Oh, and Josh? It’s “tenets”, not “tenants.”  One refers to the underlying principles of a particular concept, the other refers to what uni students generally are when not living at home.

Colin says:

06:06pm | 19/12/12

@  St. Michael

” Right.  Gotcha.  Idiot…”

So I’m an idiot because I don’t agree with your point of view about which murderer is the less evil..? Gee, THAT’S a sensible argument.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Colin says:

03:20pm | 19/12/12

As opposed to some Right-wing scumbag who advocates the murder of people all around the world in a series of government-sanctioned murder-fests..?

Sick, sicker, sickest.

Rose says:

03:22pm | 19/12/12

Oh please, this tragedy has been used dozens of times in a few short days for a range of political agendas, both of the left and the right.
Josh is merely saying that while we mourn the loss of live in Sandy Hook, we should also acknowledge and mourn the loss of life elsewhere.
I really can’t see that that is “sick, sick, sick”, just empathic!

Jaqui says:

03:54pm | 19/12/12

@Rose: The sick part is the faux empathy while spewing forth more leftist garbage.

@Colin, who from the right are advocating the murder of people? I think you will find that throughout history, the most brutal mass murderers with the largest body count are leftists or born from the left.
I will remind you that the “murder-fests” I assume you refer to as Americas are currently being committed by the lefties current savior and idol Barrack Hussein Obama.

LJ Dots says:

04:13pm | 19/12/12

Rose, the article was not about mourning and empathy - sure, it started with empathy in his first line, it quickly cut to the chase.

*It is not merely a war, but a crusade infused with patriotism and nationalism that equal the holy zeal of the bloody crusades, centuries earlier.* and the *barbaric policy*

*Are we to understand that it is acceptable to murder children in the name of national security..*

Would you agree that sounds like a message being pushed through? Josh is not “merely” saying we should have more empathy.

Colin says:

04:15pm | 19/12/12

@ Jaqui

“I think you will find that throughout history, the most brutal mass murderers with the largest body count are leftists or born from the left…”

That sounds like a Conservative, religious, anti-Socialist/Communist, Ultra-Right-wing argument to me…

Right to bear arms, government-sanctioned murder OK, etc hey, Jacqui..?

marley says:

06:06pm | 19/12/12

@Colin - well, we’ve got righties like Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Franco, Peron, & Pinochet,  and we’ve got lefties like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Chavez.  Offhand, I’d say the ledger is pretty even when it comes to death and devastation.