Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I thought that might be where you were coming from, Mike. And you are bringing up the barbaric idea of reprisals against terrorists' families, tongue-in-cheek, as an antidote to irresponsible sugar-coating, correct?

Not necessarily. War is barbaric, and if when fighting barbarians, a barbarian approach will end the war sooner, I say it should be considered. Is it less barbaric to kill a random many innocents as "collateral" damage then to kill a targeted few? I would say both are barbaric. By threatening first one hopes the enemy will withdraw their relatives from danger, bogging themselves down with noncombatants.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Also, I don't know if it's being "pissed off" so much as being afraid that really brings on the bad behavior. The more threatened we feel, the less willing we are to restrain ourselves. Nowadays we're fairly careful about "collateral damage," but in World War II we deliberately vaporized whole cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose.

Fear and mass terror are very effective tools, just ask Joseph Stalin. If the US military had conducted a mass bombing campaign of Iraq, the country right now would be a lot quieter.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Also, I don't know if it's being "pissed off" so much as being afraid that really brings on the bad behavior. The more threatened we feel, the less willing we are to restrain ourselves. Nowadays we're fairly careful about "collateral damage," but in World War II we deliberately vaporized whole cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose.

Fear and mass terror are very effective tools, just ask Joseph Stalin. If the US military had conducted a mass bombing campaign of Iraq, the country right now would be a lot quieter.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Is it less barbaric to kill a random many innocents as "collateral" damage then to kill a targeted few?

Both are equally barbaric. Neither is a reasonable choice. But we've been over this before...

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Is it less barbaric to kill a random many innocents as "collateral" damage then to kill a targeted few?

Both are equally barbaric. Neither is a reasonable choice. But we've been over this before...

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This brings up something interesting. Doesn't war always force us, if not actually to the level of our enemies, at best to a level lower than we'd like to be? War always involves slaughtering large numbers of people, which is morally questionable. .... Nowadays we're fairly careful about "collateral damage," but in World War II we deliberately vaporized whole cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose.

Yes, the tendency to make palatable (instead of hard and painful) what is an evil thing, is problematic. If we are to fight a war, we should so with singular purpose, to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible and then to return to peace. This idea of starting another "not war", as Mr. Saari calls it, with the expectation that it will last decades and claim countless lives (but not otherwise inconvenience us) is reprehensible.

This means if there is to be a war on terrorism that will involve an invasion of a sizable country (which was planned from the start), we should then raise taxes (not cut them), expand our military, and for heavens sake, not tell people to just go shopping.

Another view is that the "War on Terror" is not a war as such, but a recognition that the weapons systems, enemies and tactics have changed. The enemy of the established democratic industrial powers is no longer major autocratic industrial powers fighting conventional wars with rifles, artillery, ships and aircraft. The "enemy" is underdeveloped autocratic and poor. The enemy is 'failed states.' While there are many serious religious and ethnic complications, the simple way of putting it is economic. So long as most of the world's wealth is held by one some, denied to others, the others are apt to hate the some.

While the wealthy nations can create value systems which justify their wealth and renders them unworthy of hate, the poor will create alternate value systems which justify the hate. We are not going to win the conflict by developing stronger value systems to better justify the division of wealth. So long as the division of wealth continues, there will be hatred.

The wealthy nations can still trivially defeat any impoverished nation in conventional war. Well, perhaps not trivially. The United States spends a lot of money to be able to project power to any point in the globe. Most other nations do not have the airlift and sea lift capability to fight a conventional war wherever they please. Even the United States can only fight one war at a time, and not against large opponents.

The first problem is not winning the war, but winning the peace. The lessons of Iraq include that we can only occupy one country at a time, that occupation is more manpower intensive than war, occupation causes more casualties than war, and occupation has far less chance of success than war.

The second problem is defending against terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction. This may be an unsolvable problem. We have tried to seal our borders against alcohol, against drugs, against illegal aliens, and have failed miserably on all counts. I do not anticipate sealing borders against WMD. Thus, we are vulnerable.

The wars of the 20th Century saw the democratic industrial powers outwit, outfight and outlast the autocratic royalist remnant states, the fascists, and the Communists. There are no more militaristic cultures threatening to expand by brute military force. The old familiar enemies are gone. We've got new enemies who will use new tactics. They haven't a hope in the world of winning using Hitler's methods. They will use whatever means they can to hurt without being hurt.

We can daydream about winning using conventional tactics. We can daydream about winning the 'War on Terror' by a brutal invasion of a single country. Daydreams won't get us anywhere. We can not and should not and must not plan on fighting the last war. Tis a traditional mistake.

As I see it, we have a conflict on three fronts. Nations that openly harbor and support terrorists might be invaded, but our ability to launch such invasions is very limited. We might attempt to seal our borders, but no such seal can be effective. We might attempt to lessen the divisions of wealth that produces the hatred, but this is a long slow haul.

To me, the correct answer is D, all of the above. Still, invasion and counter terrorism are defensive fronts. The way to win is to attack the division of wealth, to eliminate failed states by providing paths to hope.

But we're still in the 'On to Richmond' phase. We are not thinking in terms of radically changing society to solve the underlying problem. We are thinking in terms of the established power having enough military strength to maintain the old status quo.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This brings up something interesting. Doesn't war always force us, if not actually to the level of our enemies, at best to a level lower than we'd like to be? War always involves slaughtering large numbers of people, which is morally questionable. .... Nowadays we're fairly careful about "collateral damage," but in World War II we deliberately vaporized whole cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose.

Yes, the tendency to make palatable (instead of hard and painful) what is an evil thing, is problematic. If we are to fight a war, we should so with singular purpose, to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible and then to return to peace. This idea of starting another "not war", as Mr. Saari calls it, with the expectation that it will last decades and claim countless lives (but not otherwise inconvenience us) is reprehensible.

This means if there is to be a war on terrorism that will involve an invasion of a sizable country (which was planned from the start), we should then raise taxes (not cut them), expand our military, and for heavens sake, not tell people to just go shopping.

Another view is that the "War on Terror" is not a war as such, but a recognition that the weapons systems, enemies and tactics have changed. The enemy of the established democratic industrial powers is no longer major autocratic industrial powers fighting conventional wars with rifles, artillery, ships and aircraft. The "enemy" is underdeveloped autocratic and poor. The enemy is 'failed states.' While there are many serious religious and ethnic complications, the simple way of putting it is economic. So long as most of the world's wealth is held by one some, denied to others, the others are apt to hate the some.

While the wealthy nations can create value systems which justify their wealth and renders them unworthy of hate, the poor will create alternate value systems which justify the hate. We are not going to win the conflict by developing stronger value systems to better justify the division of wealth. So long as the division of wealth continues, there will be hatred.

The wealthy nations can still trivially defeat any impoverished nation in conventional war. Well, perhaps not trivially. The United States spends a lot of money to be able to project power to any point in the globe. Most other nations do not have the airlift and sea lift capability to fight a conventional war wherever they please. Even the United States can only fight one war at a time, and not against large opponents.

The first problem is not winning the war, but winning the peace. The lessons of Iraq include that we can only occupy one country at a time, that occupation is more manpower intensive than war, occupation causes more casualties than war, and occupation has far less chance of success than war.

The second problem is defending against terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction. This may be an unsolvable problem. We have tried to seal our borders against alcohol, against drugs, against illegal aliens, and have failed miserably on all counts. I do not anticipate sealing borders against WMD. Thus, we are vulnerable.

The wars of the 20th Century saw the democratic industrial powers outwit, outfight and outlast the autocratic royalist remnant states, the fascists, and the Communists. There are no more militaristic cultures threatening to expand by brute military force. The old familiar enemies are gone. We've got new enemies who will use new tactics. They haven't a hope in the world of winning using Hitler's methods. They will use whatever means they can to hurt without being hurt.

We can daydream about winning using conventional tactics. We can daydream about winning the 'War on Terror' by a brutal invasion of a single country. Daydreams won't get us anywhere. We can not and should not and must not plan on fighting the last war. Tis a traditional mistake.

As I see it, we have a conflict on three fronts. Nations that openly harbor and support terrorists might be invaded, but our ability to launch such invasions is very limited. We might attempt to seal our borders, but no such seal can be effective. We might attempt to lessen the divisions of wealth that produces the hatred, but this is a long slow haul.

To me, the correct answer is D, all of the above. Still, invasion and counter terrorism are defensive fronts. The way to win is to attack the division of wealth, to eliminate failed states by providing paths to hope.

But we're still in the 'On to Richmond' phase. We are not thinking in terms of radically changing society to solve the underlying problem. We are thinking in terms of the established power having enough military strength to maintain the old status quo.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Is it less barbaric to kill a random many innocents as "collateral" damage then to kill a targeted few?

Both are equally barbaric. Neither is a reasonable choice.

I'm not disagreeing.

But we've been over this before

No we haven't. The quantity is not a core part of the argument. I am not making any claim of fungibility. Consider this example.

Say a close friend was shot to death. Consider these two reasons:

[1] The murderer mistook him for someone else.

[2] He was killed by a mobster for something his brother had done.

Would you find [1] less heinous than [2], [2] less heinous than [1] or are both of them equally heinous?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Is it less barbaric to kill a random many innocents as "collateral" damage then to kill a targeted few?

Both are equally barbaric. Neither is a reasonable choice.

I'm not disagreeing.

But we've been over this before

No we haven't. The quantity is not a core part of the argument. I am not making any claim of fungibility. Consider this example.

Say a close friend was shot to death. Consider these two reasons:

[1] The murderer mistook him for someone else.

[2] He was killed by a mobster for something his brother had done.

Would you find [1] less heinous than [2], [2] less heinous than [1] or are both of them equally heinous?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Consider these two reasons:

[1] The murderer mistook him for someone else.

[2] He was killed by a mobster for something his brother had done.

Would you find [1] somehow less heinous than [2] or are both of them equally heinous?

Both are equally heinous. Indeed, even were the victim a total stranger to me, the nature of the act (murder) is unchanged. I may (almost certainly would) take more personal offense at the killing of a friend than an unknown, but morality isn't about how a thing makes uninvolved third parties feel.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Consider these two reasons:

[1] The murderer mistook him for someone else.

[2] He was killed by a mobster for something his brother had done.

Would you find [1] somehow less heinous than [2] or are both of them equally heinous?

Both are equally heinous. Indeed, even were the victim a total stranger to me, the nature of the act (murder) is unchanged. I may (almost certainly would) take more personal offense at the killing of a friend than an unknown, but morality isn't about how a thing makes uninvolved third parties feel.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Consider these two reasons:

[1] The murderer mistook him for someone else.

[2] He was killed by a mobster for something his brother had done.

Would you find [1] somehow less heinous than [2] or are both of them equally heinous?

Both are equally heinous. Indeed, even were the victim a total stranger to me, the nature of the act (murder) is unchanged. I may (almost certainly would) take more personal offense at the killing of a friend than an unknown, but morality isn't about how a thing makes uninvolved third parties feel.

Exactly, both are heinous. But the question I originally asked was is [1] (collateral damage) less heinous than [2] (deliberate murder). The answer I had in mind was no, they are both equally heinous. You apparently agree.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Consider these two reasons:

[1] The murderer mistook him for someone else.

[2] He was killed by a mobster for something his brother had done.

Would you find [1] somehow less heinous than [2] or are both of them equally heinous?

Both are equally heinous. Indeed, even were the victim a total stranger to me, the nature of the act (murder) is unchanged. I may (almost certainly would) take more personal offense at the killing of a friend than an unknown, but morality isn't about how a thing makes uninvolved third parties feel.

Exactly, both are heinous. But the question I originally asked was is [1] (collateral damage) less heinous than [2] (deliberate murder). The answer I had in mind was no, they are both equally heinous. You apparently agree.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

But the question I originally asked was is [1] (collateral damage) less heinous than [2] (deliberate murder). The answer I had in mind was no, they are both equally heinous. You apparently agree.

But the point you were getting at (excuse me if I misread and wasted all this bandwidth) was: if we are going to do [1], why not do [2] as well (or in addition). The argument is not that deliberate murder is no worse than collateral damage killing (in whatever context), but that collateral damage killing is just as bad as deliberate murder.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

But the question I originally asked was is [1] (collateral damage) less heinous than [2] (deliberate murder). The answer I had in mind was no, they are both equally heinous. You apparently agree.

But the point you were getting at (excuse me if I misread and wasted all this bandwidth) was: if we are going to do [1], why not do [2] as well (or in addition). The argument is not that deliberate murder is no worse than collateral damage killing (in whatever context), but that collateral damage killing is just as bad as deliberate murder.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

But the point you were getting at (excuse me if I misread and wasted all this bandwidth) was: if we are going to do [1], why not do [2] as well (or in addition).

Not exactly. My point was if we are going to be shocked at [2] then we should be shocked at [1]. Or if you find [1] acceptable, don't get your shorts in a bundle about [2].

Originally Posted by Justin '77

But the point you were getting at (excuse me if I misread and wasted all this bandwidth) was: if we are going to do [1], why not do [2] as well (or in addition).

Not exactly. My point was if we are going to be shocked at [2] then we should be shocked at [1]. Or if you find [1] acceptable, don't get your shorts in a bundle about [2].

Make what you will about this issue and how it highlights a divide between the public and the media.

From the Instapundit

Neal Boortz observes:

This morning in most of the newspapers I scanned during my preparation for the show the top story was still the Iraqi prison abuse scandal. Nick Berg had already disappeared from many front pages, but the prison abuse stories remain. May I suggest to you that there is a reason for this? Maybe it's just this simple: The prison abuse scandal can damage Bush, the Nick Berg story can only help him. Given the choice many editors will chose the stories that serve their cause, getting Bush out of the White House, rather than one that hurts it.

Such cynicism about the media, these days. But he's right. The Berg video wasn't shown on TV, and -- as Boortz notes -- the big media leaders seem almost desperate to keep the story on Abu Ghraib . . .

But on the Internet, where users set the agenda, not Big Media editors and producers, it's different. As Jeff Quinton notes, Nick Berg is the story that people care about:

Right now the 10 phrases most searched for are:
nick berg video
nick berg
berg beheading
beheading video
nick berg beheading video
nick berg beheading
berg video
berg beheading video
"nick berg"
video nick berg

Likewise, Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News reports that that's what his readers care about:

Our letters page today is filled with nothing but Berg-related letters, most of them demanding that the DMN show more photos of the Berg execution. Not one of the 87 letters we received on the topic yesterday called for these images not to be printed. My sense is that there's a big backlash building against the media for flogging the Abu Ghraib photos, but being so delicate with the Berg images. People sense that there's an agenda afoot here. As somebody, can't remember who, wrote yesterday, "Why is it that the media can show over and over again pictures that could make Arabs hate Americans, but refuse to show pictures that could make Americans hate Arabs?"

These guys are marginalizing themselves with their agenda-driven coverage. And they're so out of touch they don't realize it. As Andrew Sullivan notes:

My gut tells me that the Nick Berg video has had much more psychic impact in this country than the Abu Ghraib horrors. I even notice some small evidence for this. Every political blog site has just seen an exponential jump in traffic - far more than anything that occurred during the Abu Ghraib unfolding. My traffic went through the roof yesterday, and, according to Alexa, so did everyone else's. People who have tuned the war out suddenly tuned the war in. They get it. Will the mainstream media?

My prediction: Nope, and they'll continue to lose audience to the Internet.

Reader Greg Taggart emails:

I just listened to the CBS news on the local CBS radio affiliate. Amazing. Here, is an accurate but abbreviated form is CBS's report: Item one: Rumsfeld in Iraq-because of the "growing" outrage over the prison photos. Item two: Kerry called and spoke with Berg's family. Item two: Berg's family is blaming "the Bush administration" for his death. I'm not making this up. CBS managed to place everything at the feet of George Bush. They even turned Nick Berg's death into an opportunity to make Kerry look good and a reason to bash Bush. Simply amazing.

I teach writing and critical analysis. One of the first things I teach is that writing is an intentional act. Words don't just happen. Neither do news reports.

Make what you will about this issue and how it highlights a divide between the public and the media.

From the Instapundit

Neal Boortz observes:

This morning in most of the newspapers I scanned during my preparation for the show the top story was still the Iraqi prison abuse scandal. Nick Berg had already disappeared from many front pages, but the prison abuse stories remain. May I suggest to you that there is a reason for this? Maybe it's just this simple: The prison abuse scandal can damage Bush, the Nick Berg story can only help him. Given the choice many editors will chose the stories that serve their cause, getting Bush out of the White House, rather than one that hurts it.

Such cynicism about the media, these days. But he's right. The Berg video wasn't shown on TV, and -- as Boortz notes -- the big media leaders seem almost desperate to keep the story on Abu Ghraib . . .

But on the Internet, where users set the agenda, not Big Media editors and producers, it's different. As Jeff Quinton notes, Nick Berg is the story that people care about:

Right now the 10 phrases most searched for are:
nick berg video
nick berg
berg beheading
beheading video
nick berg beheading video
nick berg beheading
berg video
berg beheading video
"nick berg"
video nick berg

Likewise, Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News reports that that's what his readers care about:

Our letters page today is filled with nothing but Berg-related letters, most of them demanding that the DMN show more photos of the Berg execution. Not one of the 87 letters we received on the topic yesterday called for these images not to be printed. My sense is that there's a big backlash building against the media for flogging the Abu Ghraib photos, but being so delicate with the Berg images. People sense that there's an agenda afoot here. As somebody, can't remember who, wrote yesterday, "Why is it that the media can show over and over again pictures that could make Arabs hate Americans, but refuse to show pictures that could make Americans hate Arabs?"

These guys are marginalizing themselves with their agenda-driven coverage. And they're so out of touch they don't realize it. As Andrew Sullivan notes:

My gut tells me that the Nick Berg video has had much more psychic impact in this country than the Abu Ghraib horrors. I even notice some small evidence for this. Every political blog site has just seen an exponential jump in traffic - far more than anything that occurred during the Abu Ghraib unfolding. My traffic went through the roof yesterday, and, according to Alexa, so did everyone else's. People who have tuned the war out suddenly tuned the war in. They get it. Will the mainstream media?

My prediction: Nope, and they'll continue to lose audience to the Internet.

Reader Greg Taggart emails:

I just listened to the CBS news on the local CBS radio affiliate. Amazing. Here, is an accurate but abbreviated form is CBS's report: Item one: Rumsfeld in Iraq-because of the "growing" outrage over the prison photos. Item two: Kerry called and spoke with Berg's family. Item two: Berg's family is blaming "the Bush administration" for his death. I'm not making this up. CBS managed to place everything at the feet of George Bush. They even turned Nick Berg's death into an opportunity to make Kerry look good and a reason to bash Bush. Simply amazing.

I teach writing and critical analysis. One of the first things I teach is that writing is an intentional act. Words don't just happen. Neither do news reports.

Andy, there are certain segments of the public who believe that Bush has been given a free ride by the mainstream media for quite some time, and now that the coverage is more critical, the pro-war crowd are now screaming "bias, bias!" all over the place.

Andy, there are certain segments of the public who believe that Bush has been given a free ride by the mainstream media for quite some time, and now that the coverage is more critical, the pro-war crowd are now screaming "bias, bias!" all over the place.

One thing to point out from Boortz's column:

The prison abuse scandal can damage Bush, the Nick Berg story can only help him.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

One thing to point out from Boortz's column:

The prison abuse scandal can damage Bush, the Nick Berg story can only help him.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Andy, there are certain segments of the public who believe that Bush has been given a free ride by the mainstream media for quite some time, and now that the coverage is more critical, the pro-war crowd are now screaming "bias, bias!" all over the place.

Liberals have been desparately trying to get somebody on the "talk radio" scene for quite some time now. Conservatives left the mainstream media long ago in favor of this "new media." That the poster is "now" hearing the scream "bias, bias!" only suggests that her ears have been distracted by something else for a very long time. For so long, in fact, that it isn't even "screaming" that she's hearing these days. That tone of "bias!" has been nearly reduced to a

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Andy, there are certain segments of the public who believe that Bush has been given a free ride by the mainstream media for quite some time, and now that the coverage is more critical, the pro-war crowd are now screaming "bias, bias!" all over the place.

Liberals have been desparately trying to get somebody on the "talk radio" scene for quite some time now. Conservatives left the mainstream media long ago in favor of this "new media." That the poster is "now" hearing the scream "bias, bias!" only suggests that her ears have been distracted by something else for a very long time. For so long, in fact, that it isn't even "screaming" that she's hearing these days. That tone of "bias!" has been nearly reduced to a