[Krruqgwt]

No.

[Stainditnew]

When the nazis marched into Holland and a sniper was active in a town, they killed ten or a hundred or whatever for every one of theirs killed. The sniping stopped.

This works, but after that you're just a bunch of nazis.

[Piemonedmow]

You didn't answer the question, instead you argued the tactic doesn't work. Assume it does for the sake of my question...

[enlinnyGoob]

Beyond that, I also bring up again, you can't tell who is the innocent.

Who's to blame? The enemy or the innocent? At that point, are there any innocent.?
When you can't tell, the questions are profound.

[Emalodoulouts]

I've said near the same in any thread. To tell the players, you need a program.

[nasdfrdg]

Oh, well if you're going to be that way...no. Because...?

First of all, if the means of supressing the insurgency is killing women and children, then its hard to argue that surpessing the insurgency is in fact the greater good. You're still arguing the tactic doesn't work. I'm asking if it does work, what does the greater good require?

[angeldimmon]

First of all I can't endorse this tactic as it's beyond morally reprehensible. Though I know you don't endore it either Berz you just want to discuss it.

The tactic works well in the short term but the problems it creates in the long term well overwhelms those short term gains at least by a factor of ten.

Once news get out about what you did, people are going to hate you on a scale that no gun will ever be able to fear into not fighting.

People who were moderates and on the sidelines are going to join the forces arrayed against you.

You may be able to quiet them now but someday they are going to get their revenge.

[anfuckinggs]

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.

[freediscountplanrrxip]

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.

[IdomeoreTew]

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.

[SergZHy67]

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?

[Voliscietle]

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

[asypecresty]

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...

[Thomas12400]

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

[Ambrakam]

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.

[Poowssnople]

If we go by "the greater good" and define that as fewer dead people, "Nazi" tactics can be justified if the result of using the tactics is fewer dead people.

The Nazi example isn't valid though, the Nazis were immoral regardless of what tactics they employed to suppress insurgents. But one could make a moral argument for invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam, especially if "the greater good" is the basis of that moral argument. Just speculate about a mushroom cloud over NYC and you've got your greater good.

[Ruiceara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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. So, if some Jew who was never born because his parents died in Auschwitz could have turned into a super-villain worse than Hitler himself, then the Holocaust was actually justified because it served "the greater good" and therefore we have no right to judge anyone who took part in it?

I say that's stretching it pretty far...


In moral terms, it doesn't matter what the long term effects of an action may or may not be - an atrocity still is and will always be an atrocity. If - in serving "the greater good" - people turn themselves into nazis, then they will have destroyed the very things that they claimed to be fighting for in the first place and those who have died will have died in vain.

I personally feel that it's better to have 50 people die for a good cause than to have 25 people die for a lie.

[sleepergun]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If we go by "the greater good" and define that as fewer dead people, "Nazi" tactics can be justified if the result of using the tactics is fewer dead people.

The Nazi example isn't valid though, the Nazis were immoral regardless of what tactics they employed to suppress insurgents. But one could make a moral argument for invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam, especially if "the greater good" is the basis of that moral argument. Just speculate about a mushroom cloud over NYC and you've got your greater good. There are those who would argue that this is MORE likely to happen now, not less as you seem to assume. Once again, only time will show...

But what if a mushroom cloud over NYC could actually prevent something even worse some time in the future?

Then wouldn't your "greater good" require a mushroom cloud over NYC ?

[Cricequorie]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Then dont stretch it, just deal with my question. If Haditha, or more specifically, the tactic of targeting towns supporting insurgents, suppressed the insurgency ending the war sooner, wouldn't the greater good require the brutality? No, because the outcome of the war matters, not just how soon it ends.


Ah, only time will tell... So how does a person who believes in the greater good condemn an action on its face without waiting for time to tell? Because that's what ethics and moral codes are all about. There are things that can be fairly done and there are things that can not be done. If you can't judge any action without waiting to see the long term effects of it, then we can't have laws, we can't have judicial systems, we can't have organizations of any kind... we can't have a society.


Then the greater good requires the mushroom cloud if it prevents something worse, true? I didn't suggest that. You did.


I dont share this reverence some people have for the greater good. Me neither, it seems.
That is, I do believe in a greater good, but my definition of it is a bit more complex than yours.

[zuhraliyana]

Originally posted by Lancer
When the nazis marched into Holland and a sniper was active in a town, they killed ten or a hundred or whatever for every one of theirs killed. The sniping stopped.

This works, but after that you're just a bunch of nazis. QFT.