EG6SiR

Not trying to justify anything here but it seems pretty obvious that a gov'ts international priorities basically correlate with direct proximity and economical impact.

E.g. East Timor: Not to undermine the gallant effort of the many Australians that went in to free that nation, but it was clearly in Australia's best interests to quell what was perceived as an invasion threat. Obviously East Timor isn't a major trading partner with America, nor Indonesia a real military threat. Given the perception by many ppl that America sticks its nose in other ppl's business way too much, I suppose this was one America decided it could pass on?

AusS2000

I wrote and posted a huge long well thought out () response to Bernies post but it appears to have been lost in a cyberspace black hole.

In essence it said we are one world and shouldn't try to tell others how to live. But we should help others resist the intentions of those that don't subscribe to the above philosophy. East Timor was a prime example. You can go on all you like about what we didn't do where, but it doesn't change the argument about whether or not we should be involved with current issues. And anyway, one eye out of the sand is better than our whole head stuck in it.

On the argument of colateral damage: There was an incident when an aid parcel was air dropped and landed on a young East Timorese girl and she lost her legs. Are you arguing that we should stop aid drops?

AusS2000

The other bit I left out was about the whole coward bit. Bernie, get over it. One person said it and then retracted it in the next post. That doesn't justify you saying 'most of our US visitors to this forum have decided I'm a coward'. It means one axe head flew off the handle then thought better of it (note to wdavis: there is a 'delete' function you know).

Bernie

Two, not one and that's two out of three which entitles me to count it as a majority !

Here you are asking me not to be sensitive after you got really stirred up at something I wrote weeks ago!! If you remember, I even apologised for that.

Re the previous post, so what you are saying is that justice is a selective concept then. Well, that is the point I have been trying to make for some time so we do agree on that.

Re you example of the first aid drop, I dont think that is a fair comparison which I am sure you recognise yourself. If you realistically think that is an appropriate comparison, then there is little point in us continuing with this debate.

AusS2000

Well from my reading SteveUCI debated the definition of bravery with no reference to you. At best I'm giving 1.5 out of 3 and any way you look at it that ain't all.

I wasn't asking you not to be sensitive. I was asking you to be mature. I remember what you said in our previous debate. I assessed myself, and I discounted it for what it was, a childish stab (you brought it up, not me) and have moved passed it. I recommend you do the same with wdavis's comment.

I am not saying justice is selective (here you go talking in black and whites again). I am saying that some 'justice' (your word) is better than none, and just because we have a history of injustice (ref: your list) doesn't have any bearing on our reaction to current events and certainly shouldn't be a reason not to do justice now.

Re: The comparison: I do think the comparison is fair. I understand the difference (bombs are designed to destroy resources and people, aid is designed to keep people alive). But the question stands, if you have no intention of hurting a particular person, but they end up getting hurt is your act heinous? Most of the opposition to military action on the grounds of colateral damage in previous arguments was on the basis of "death is death, regardless of intention". As such I feel my example is suitable.

And if you feel this is reason enough for you to drop out of this debate, be my guest. Don't let the door bang your behind on the way out.

naishou

The equivalent of "collateral damage" in civil society is called manslaughter. Euphemisms aside it is a crime in my view. Killing someone with aid is at worst negligence. It's not really comparable.

AusS2000

Sorry to labour the point, but what is the deciding factor between manslaughter and negligence?

As previously stated it's not 'intent', as we know that the US had no intention to bomb the wedding in Afghanistan.

Perhaps it's the broader intent. If you intend to kill someone, but end up accidently killing someone else that's manslaughter or collateral damage, but no longer just negligence? So what is it when a tank mis-targets it own side (what is referred to as friendly-fire ) negligence or manslaughter?

Does this mean that military personnel (like doctors) have a higher level of responsibility and are expected to act with a higher level of competence?

Bernie

Thank you naishou. My point exactly.

Some justice is indeed better than none. Interesting how it is nearly always selective though.

When we have gotten to the stage where people actually believe that a humanitarian aid program and a mission where the sole intention is to kill are comparable, the debate has not just become pointless, it is perverse. I'd like to think you don't really believe that.

The longer this debate goes on, the more personal and condescending you have become. Why? We're trying to debate a point but half the focus of your last post has been personal. Your last post consisted on telling me I am immature, childish and that I only see things in black and white. I don't think I am the one with that problem.

You can claim your glorious victory in this debate, Aus. I'll let the other guys on this forum judge the kind of people we are based on our comments.

I'm going back to the golf forum.

Iggy_Type_R

Some developments:

"AFP - Indonesian police have arrested a former air force officer who confessed to building the bomb which killed more than 180 people on the island of Bali, a US report said.

Quoting Indonesian security sources, the Washington Post said the suspect regretted the huge loss of life in Saturday's attack but had yet to reveal who ordered him to build the bomb."

AusS2000

So how do you propose we avoid it? I mean, if it is totally unacceptable and we accept that to some degree when weapons are used it is inevitable are you suggesting we disarm?