A single American? Our people have attributed over 600 American deaths in Iraq to this guy's militias over the years.... and many multiples of that had been maimed.... he was the king of the IED.
A single American? Our people have attributed over 600 American deaths in Iraq to this guy's militias over the years.... and many multiples of that had been maimed.... he was the king of the IED.
It's a hypothetical. Btw, do you feel as outraged about the Iraqi civilians killed by coalition forces? or are you only angry/upset when Americans are killed?
And Mel Gibson thought it was appropriate to target officers in that shitty movie about the Revolutionary War. I get it.
I don't even necessarily disagree. Just saying I'm not comfortable with it. It's icky.
Oh, FFS, toasted, Americans always care more about other Americans. That's why when a natural disaster happens in Whereverthehellistan, the news is always "At least 400 people have died, including six Americans."
Is it your opinion that the lives of Americans are worth more than the lives of others?
Of course not. But over 1,000 people are murdered each day in this world. Those people all have value. But there's no doubt I'd care a helluva lot more if one of them was my sister.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Possibly/probably. But that’s different. That’s murder or conspiracy to commit murder. That has different avenues. I’m talking about acts of terror and open engagement against Americans.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
toasted voice: Are you saying your sister’s life is more valuable than one in Kansas?
You're right, but you're also changing the terms of the discussion on the fly here. First, it was the threat to Americans. Now it's the context/style of the threat. This is why this kind of thing is so complicated. When you condemn someone to death without due process - which is what you do with every single assassination (or "targeted killing" if you prefer) - you are opening this bag of rotten apples.
I know what you're doing, but just to make this absolutely clear: No, of course not, but I'd still care more. So would anyone who isn't a shitty brother.
That's clear as day.
But in the case of places like Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we mustn't ignore the tough questions that focus squarely on our role. There are ex-military who question the wisdom of our decisions and the responsibility of those officials who dictated these decisions. We have brought great carnage with nothing to show. I imagine that's rather painful for many on this forum. Further, one might want to compare the death tolls between locals and US service members. It's not pretty.
Ah, but now you're bleeding back into the more pragmatic argument. It's less about the value of particular lives, and more about whether or not we can show anything for it, i.e., how it advances our own interests.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I think you’re assuming there were boundaries for my discussion and I’ve moved them. I’m not the smartest man but I know I’m right on this one. QS was a valid military target due to his actions against American troops in which we had a SOFA with the host nation. That he continued attacks against Americans in Iraq and orchestrated embassy hubbub made his ticket even more punchable than it already was.
MBS and Khashoggi is different. Yes, I recognize that assassinations are a slippery slope. QS isn’t an assassination, it’s a killing of a terrorist.
Everything except your last sentence is, I think, a very valid take. Your last sentence is an attempt to play semantics. This was a killing of a terrorist. But it was also an assassination. As I said to courtsensethirtyseven, things can be more than one thing at once.
It's separate points.
1. Those enraged by the acts of QS should direct equal anger toward those who needlessly put them in harms way. Those individuals are American.
2. It's extremely painful for those who have served to admit that the mission was fruitless.
3. The proportional body counts speak for themselves. We ignore others perspectives at our own peril.
Those are indeed separate points. Beyond that, they are also entirely different points than the ones we were actually discussing.
As I have said repeatedly, this is complicated, which is why I don't blame anyone for not immediately having a hot, firm take on it.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
No, they are not entirely different. The point is that the same anger directed at QS is not directed at certain officials who needlessly put our soldiers at risk because those officials are American. Which begs the questions, what were we even doing there? Why are we still there?
We ignore the perspectives of other states/societies/groups at our own peril. Perhaps not all indigenous folk welcomed our presence. What gave us the right to enter their lands? And never leave those lands?
Not trying to give you a virtual handy here, Ranger, but I appreciate your thoughts. You're probably the only poster here who has pulled me both right and left on various issues the past couple of years, and always because of your intelligible and logical takes that don't require an intravenous shot of emotion and partisanship in order to understand.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Your number one is essentially nonsense talking points that everybody can argue until the cows come home.
Your second point is awfully presumptuous as I believe it’s directed at me. One of the chief reasons I decided to leave the Army was because I didn’t believe in the mission any longer. But I’m mature enough to balance that belief while still believing that there are many facets to the discussion and that positives came out of it.
i have no clue what you’re saying with #3
Good.
So would you concede that there is a certain joy/relief in the killing of QS solely due to the numerous wrongs he committed against our guys? Would you also concede that this revenge doesn't necessarily make the act strategically wise?
My third point is that personally I find the death of civilians no less horrific because they are not American. We could bring it all the way back to the printing press. Family is different.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Is Ukraine not one of our allies?
Putin has done far worse with his money. He's funneled it into undermining our democracy.
Wtf are you blabbering about? US forces go to pretty extreme efforts to avoid civilian deaths in their operations...... but how is any of that relevant to our military taking out another quasi military/ militia leader that has spent years killing and maiming US forces?
You have spun completely off the rails. This conundrum was clearly too much for you to deal with.
So all a government has to do is give the terrorist a job description in the government, then its hands off for other governments?
That's an interesting question, and one that Ranger generally sidesteps in his discussion of killing on foreign soil.
Khashoggi was a Saudi Arabian citizen with permanent residency in the US . . . and working as a columnist for a US newspaper in addition to serving as editor of an Arab-focused news outlet. He was killed in Turkey . . .
. . . does US concern extend to US permanent residents who are on foreign soil? Does the fact that the individual worked for an American news outlet make a difference?
My answers to the above questions are generally "no", and would change to "yes" only if the US has the rare cause to use such an event as a pretext for diplomatic or military intervention with the bad actor. That said, I can't think of any good examples where pretextual interventions have turned out well . . . the Gulf of Tonkin resolution chief among them.
How about if we try to be serious? Trump's action imply a principle. What is that principle? At its narrowest, that principle is that presidents may order our military to assassinate government officials of other countries.
We could have lengthy discussions about whether such a principle is legal under U.S. or International law. I don't know about that so let's set it aside and discuss whether that is a proper formulation of the principle and whether that is a good principle or not.
On the pro side: it may be much cheaper in terms of blood and treasure to assassinate leaders of countries rather than go to war with those countries; as InRanger says, it may cause political leaders to understand that they can be held personally responsible for the actions of their government and so may deter them. On the con side: other countries as well as other political movements will engage in the same practice against our leaders; and it may become impossible for leaders of different countries to trust that they can negotiate peace with one another knowing that each may only be waiting for the opportunity to murder the other.
That's an assumption without evidence. What evidence supports that assertion? How many cases even exist?
Ummm most of those were not leaders of countries. And the argument is that the assasination of a leader serves as a deterrent and decreases the risk of war. I'm looking for those specific cases.
Already the Iraqi govt has voted to boot the entire coalition out of Iraq. Iraq will effectively become an Iranian client state.
Moreover, the claim is that this assasination will deter Iran. So I suppose Iran will not respond? That would be very suprising. Now Trump has preemptively threatened 52 sites including cultural heritage sites. If the assasination was so effective, why the need for additional counter threats?
Sure seems like we are stumbling into a bigger mess, but I'll let the paid geniuses figure this one out. Their track record is phenomenal. Why is it that those folks are never held to account?
It's a valid question, but are you prepared to engage in the deeper discussion that it demands? What are the firewalls that other countries put up to separate the unsavory activities that they promote? Where do the political assassinations stop?
Yeah, but if Ranger were willing to kick-in 900k, I’d bet you’d be willing to do it. An honorable man would stand by the meme he created. You strike me as an honorable man.
And besides, Ranger did say he’d fetch the tissues (see below)...
And that’s without even any involvement of the aforementioned 900k.
Sounds like a layup if you ask me.
We are subsidizing a state sponsor of terror by our presence and military assistance program.
I'm all for removing our troops from Iraq at the request of their parliament.
We subsidized ISIS in a roundabout way. I wish Trump would follow his instincts and bring our guys home, and let the locals deal with their mess. It's not our problem and it doesn't benefit America. These are unwinnable wars.
