A Simple Question

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 06:21:35 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Rocky Frisco makes crystal clear the abject evil of so-called "collateral damage". I copied the major thesis below, but DO click on the link as Rocky's presentation is nice. My answer, of course, is that one such death is one too many. And those responsible should be crucified. Literally. Nails driven through their wrists and ankles and left to hang in agony for the three days it takes to die of thirst. And that's being nice.

This is a simple question that has two parts.

First a definition of terms: we will consider children between the ages of three and seven years old, inclusive, meaning children three, four, five, six and seven years old, of both sexes, boys and girls. This group was chosen because this age group represents children old enough to have developed a personality, a sense of self and the ability to understand to some extent that they are alive, have a life of their own and have a drive toward the continuation and protection of that life. The age of seven was chosen as the upper limit because few seven year olds have a detailed understanding of politics and world events. This group was chosen because of their tendency toward innocence and an unspoiled nature.

Now, the first question:

How many children in this group were killed violently, having their bodies ripped apart and scattered by fire and explosions and shrapnel, during "Shock and Awe" in Iraq? It should be relatively easy to estimate this number. They saw their parents and siblings smashed and dismembered while their homes, their sanctuaries, were violently destroyed, suffering horrible deaths in order to humble and terrify the civilian populace to make it easier for our troops to take charge. How many died in that operation? How many continue to die these deaths every week as we continue the war?

Now the second question:

How many of these deaths are too many? ten thousand? a hundred? one?

Is there any condition or result that makes these deaths necessary, worthwhile? Is there ever anything that justifies this kind of "collateral damage?"

I propose that a person's answer to these simple questions defines that person and that person's right to continue to live and breath the same air as the rest of us.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (2):

I fully agree that one

Submitted by ed42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:54:53 GMT

I fully agree that one child's death is too many and that those 'responsible' ought to be held accountable. But whom do you crucify? The soldier that pulled the trigger? The trigger's manufacture's owner's? workers? stock holders? suppliers? How about the soldier's commander(s)? CinC? How about the soldier's family and friends (those that encourage him/her to participate)? The politicians that voted for the war? That publicly support the war? How about the people who voted for the politicians? How about those that remain silent about this outrage?

The actions of many "butterflies" resulted in the child's death. Are WE all responsible?

While it's interesting to fantasize about punishment, shouldn't we be more interested in restitution (if at all possible?). Instead of killing those responsible should we hold them accountable (in this case) to the survivors, heirs, parents, etc.? If the victim (or relative in the cause of death) wishes to use the criminal as a slave shouldn't we support that? Is it our 'job' to punish or to facilitate restitution?

Edit comment

Easy

Submitted by Kent McManigal on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:10:26 GMT

The soldier who pulled the trigger has the ultimate responsibility. The monsters who ordered him to act have no power over him that he is unable to resist. Then those who sent him to war should be held accountable, as well, in order to stop this outrage. 5GW

Edit comment

Add comment Edit post Add post