Comments on: Lancet report redux

By: Ολλανδία, Αρμενία, Ιράκ at Σπιτάκι

Ολλανδία, Αρμενία, Ιράκ at Σπιτάκι — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:29:15 +0000

[...] Ταυτόχρονα, στο Crooked Timber αναλύουν (ξανά — δείτε και 1, 2, 3) το καινούργιο Lancet report για θανάτους στο Ιράκ. Το συμπέρασμα, αν δεν το έχετε ακούσει ήδη, είναι πως έχει πεθάνει πολύς, πολύς κόσμος στο Ιράκ. Το σημερινό τους άρθρο κοιτάει λίγο τα νούμερα από Αμερικάνικους βομβαρδισμούς. Η εικόνα, όπως θα έπρεπε να μας είχε κάνει λιανά και η άλλη “precision”-bombing καμπάνια στο Λίβανο πρόσφατα, δεν είναι πολύ θετική για τους air force generals. [...]

By: 654 965 « falling upstairs

654 965 « falling upstairs — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:51:39 +0000

[...] the estimated death toll from our invasion of iraq. [...]

By: roy belmont

roy belmont — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:45:56 +0000

Soru et al.’s position would seem to be that Saddam was so terrible, so provably heinous, that the virtual destruction of Iraq entire and the subsequent decimation of the Iraqi people, while regrettable, is certainly justified, since it became a necessary consequence of the task of removing him.
This does have the unfortunate result of making them look as though they’re defending the devastation of a country and its people in the name of its liberation – which is absurd, of course.
Possibly there is another explanation.

By: soru

soru — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:39:42 +0000

You can not justify the deaths of a minority of a population by appealing to a majority decision. That is a basic liberal principle, not a nicety of 21st century legal process.

If your views were a majority, ‘liberal democracy’ and ‘legal process’ would be concepts only specialist historians would be familiar with.

By: engels

engels — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:03:44 +0000

And I hope that can be the last thing I say on this. I don’t think any reasonable person would think there has been anything of substance in either your or Brownie’s comments, for at least the last ten posts or so.

By: engels

engels — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:57:00 +0000

Soru, I came here for an argument, not an amateur psychiatric diagnosis. Your last post, like the one before it, contains nothing of substance and is also unnecessarily rude.

In so far as there is anything worth replying to in your #151 I have addressed it several times now. You can not justify the deaths of a minority of a population by appealing to a majority decision. That is a basic liberal principle, not a nicety of 21st century legal process.

By: soru

soru — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:33:43 +0000

Which of the words or concepts in post #151 are beyond you?

I hate it when people throw round the phrase ‘cognitive dissonance’, but you do seem to be having a rather large amount of trouble grasping some pretty elementary ideas and arguments, and that does seem to be causing some hostility.

I suggest you try to think about these things again when you have calmed down.

By: More Worlds » Archive » 655,000 deaths:the societal impact

More Worlds » Archive » 655,000 deaths:the societal impact — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:57:36 +0000

[...] The buzz over the Lancet’s estimated 654,965 excess deaths in Iraq between January 2002 and July 2006 has not subsided. Lila Guterman at the Chronicle of Higher Education has discussed the previous Lancet study (2004) as misrepresented by the media. Daniel Davies at the Guardian and various posters at Crooked Timber (1)(2)(3) have discussed the previous Lancet study (2004) and taken on the scoffers, among which are the New York Times, George W. Bush, and numerous right-wing blogs. Mahablog and Majikthise give more explanations of the present Lancet study and debunk the critics. [...]

By: engels

engels — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:47:25 +0000

Also, Soru, if you can not find anything better to say than to parrot Brownie’s ad homimem accusations, that I am being dishonest by repeatedly “misrepresenting” and “distorting” what you and he think, without giving any reasons, and despite that fact that neither of you have provided a halfway coherent account of what you think your argument is, then I am not interested in arguing with you any further.

By: engels

engels — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:24:30 +0000

Like most people in this world, Soru, I am unable to work out what the fuck your position is supposed to be. So it is a bit difficult for me to engage in “ludicrous” attempts to “distort” it.

By: soru

soru — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:16:47 +0000

Does a post like #160 represent a particularly good example of a sincere attempt to understand someone else’s postion?

Why do you find it so hard to make your case in a way that doesn’t depend on ludicrous distortion of the other point of view?

By: engels

engels — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:35:40 +0000

Brownie – If you want to address any of the points I have made to you, feel free. Whining about people “misrepresenting” you (#154), and then refusing to answer their questions about what your argument is (#155), is not an argument. Making completely content free posts, like your last one (#161), is not an argument. Ignoring all the points other people make, and the topic of the thread (#76 ff.), is not an argument.

Alternatively, you could just go back to posting on Harry’s Place, where you all appear to get by just fine without worrying at all about this “argument” thing, and which would probably be a better outcome for all concerned then your continuuing your efforts to lower the quality of the debate here.

By: Brownie

Brownie — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:06:30 +0000

engels, you’re not even trying now, are you?

By: engels

engels — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:58:09 +0000

Shorter Soru: The idea that it is wrong to sacrifice the lives of 600 000 people for the sake of some ‘greater good’ is a legal nicety which has no place in the real world. Forget it, Jack, it’s Chinatown!

By: soru

soru — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:17:11 +0000

People are individuals and noone has the right to violate their rights in order to achieve his own ends. This is the “liberal” part of living in a liberal democracy..

I hate to break it to you, but Saddam’s Iraq was not a liberal democracy.

This is getting to Kagan’s point from Paradise and Power – people who expect the whole world to operate by the principles and procedures appropriate to a 21C civilian legal system are not engaging with the world as it is, or as it is likely to become any time soon.