Re: And how did you celebrate 1 May?

In article <g00k5e$f0s$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (William December Starr) wrote:

> In article <ddfr-FFF1FF.22171107052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> David Friedman <ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
> 
> > But you appeared to be trying to make two claims, both in my view
> > false:
> >
> > 1. All deaths in the Iraq war were properly blamed on the U.S.
> >
> > 2. Deaths properly blamed on a government are correctly described
> > as people killed by that government.
> >
> > 1 is clearly false by your own stated standards.
> 
> True -- hardly "all," but still a big shitload of them.

The claim I was arguing against (By David Goldfarb) was:

> If you believe that the invasion of Iraq was not a necessary reaction
> to 9/11 but a choice made by the US government (and I have seen it 
> seriously asserted that people in the current administration were
> plotting to stir up such a war even before the 2000 elections) then
> you will lay all deaths (from any side's actions) that resulted from 
> that war at the US government's doorstep.

It now appears that you agree with me that that claim was false.

> As for 2, I can't see how it fails to be a tautology.

Because causation isn't simple. If you say "John killed Bill" you are 
making a different statement than "John took a wrongful act without 
which Bill wouldn't have died." In ordinary language, we don't say "The 
Imperial Japanese government killed lots of Japanese civilians in 
Hiroshima and Nagasake." Would you make such a statement?

> > I also note that the U.S. attack on Iraq was intended to achieve
> > military goals, and did achieve some. If that's all that is
> > required to justify killing people,
> 
> It isn't.  If the overarching aggression wasn't justified, then it
> doesn't matter for these purposes whether a military action in
> supoport of that aggression was justified in terms of achieving a
> military goal.

The just previous exchange was:

(Me)
> > Do you think that having people blow themselves up in the middle
> > of crowds of civilians is militarily necessary?

(You)
> In general, probably not.  In the particular cases in Iraq, I don't
> know -- does it achieve military goals (including the acquisition
> of additional political power or support)?

Which seems to imply that achieving military goals, in the case of the 
people deliberately attacking civilians in Iraq, meets your requirement 
for releasing the person who does it from responsibility and 
transferring it to his opponent, provided the opponent's role leading to 
the situation was unjustified. 

Also, it's unclear to me that the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein 
from power was less justified than the purposes of the people who are 
blowing up Iraqi civilians. That seems to be what your argument 
requires.

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now