Recalling a point raised in Onion,
In the lead off to Iraq war, Onion had a point counter point about the question of the day. The point against the war, was essentially no blood for oil. The counter point asked "how much blood for how much oil", and argued that if with a litre of blood we were going to get a milion litre of oil, then it's totally worth it.
This question can be asked for spreading freedom in the middle east as easily. How many deaths is acceptable for, say, uprooting the Hamas? For that matter, is it possible to get an estimate for how much "collateral damage" we should expect before the Israel will succeed in their current fight against Hamas? Can we get these estimates early in the war, so we can have informed opinion about these events?
This question can be asked for spreading freedom in the middle east as easily. How many deaths is acceptable for, say, uprooting the Hamas? For that matter, is it possible to get an estimate for how much "collateral damage" we should expect before the Israel will succeed in their current fight against Hamas? Can we get these estimates early in the war, so we can have informed opinion about these events?
Advertisement
Unlike in Onion-world, they will succeed only in radicalizing future Hamases and Hezbollahs. Unless they intend total genocide, in which case they have lost by becoming that which they hate most.
January 4, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
they? who are they in your comment?
and how is your response related to my question?
January 4, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is my understanding that "we" do have estimates of collateral damage, of civilian deaths, of infrastructure destruction and how that will affect the populations before we begin a military campaign.
We the citizens of the U.S. or Israel don't get to know these pre-war estimates but they exist and the governments launch invasions and bombing campaigns with all that in mind.
January 5, 2009 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink