Clinton Beats Bush in a Walk

[Dardedar]

Darrel> You agree that most people agree her group is cult like. I'm not sure why you use the past tense.

Hogeye>
Because she is no longer living - she died in 1982. Her cult-like "collective" no longer exists - it ceased operation in the late 1970s.

DAR
Nonsense. Jesus, if he lived at all, died around 30 CE, yet his cult didn't really get going until centuries later. When a cult leader dies has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the cult is alive and well. There are many Ayn Rand goose-steppers alive and well today.

Darrel> Better than that, I provided two links where very strong evidence is shown that this is the case.

Hogeye> There you go again with your poisoning the well. You provided zero evidence that we have different theories of moral culpability.

DAR
I have only a foggy idea of what you may or may not think is moral or not. I was simply agreeing with your assertion that you may have a "different theory of moral culpability than". Good grief.

Instead you attempt to disparage the arguer by shouting "cult, cult!",

DAR
I make no apologies for getting a little dig in on the Ayn Rander's who are (current day) so cultish even you admit: "Most would agree that her Objectivist group was cult-like." And note, it still is.

which of course is totally irrelevant.

DAR
Please note that not every point I make in a paragraph will necessarily be entirely relevant to every other point made. These things will happen, regularly.

Who cares about a cult that died decades ago?

DAR
What a bizarre notion, the idea that a cult dies just because the leader does. I have been studying cults for decades and that idea is just ridiculous.

the way she ran her group has no bearing on the validity of her philosophy.

DAR
Or as I would prefer to put it, the invalidity of it.

My argument:
Clinton ordered bombings in Serbia.

DAR
Insert evidence here:

Non-combatants died as a result.

DAR
I'll give you that one, perhaps.

The predictable killing of non-combatants is immoral.

DAR
You forgot to provide any evidence for your claim. Are you of the opinion that simply making assertions is enough to establish your claims? You will have to do a little better than that. Provide evidence, be specific.

Thought experiment: can you think of any exceptions to your claim?

Ergo, Clinton is a mass murderer.

DAR
Is there the potential for any level, nuance or degree of "evil" possible in your thinking of such matters? Can you think of any examples were it might be a better outcome to take the action of stopping a genocide which causes an immense amount of evil and suffering, even if that action causes some lesser yet necessary evil and suffering? Or is it just all black and white all the time with you?

Darrel>I can certainly think of instances in which groups can rightfully aggress/intervene against others (i.e. instances of rape rooms, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc.)

Hogeye >
Huh? Are you claiming that the rapists are not aggressing???

DAR
Quite the opposite. If you paid a little closer attention you would know that I was referencing the rape rooms I mentioned in the fourth post in this thread. Here it is again:

***
During the next three and a half years, Bosnian Serb forces, with the support of Milosevic in Belgrade, laid waste to large parts of Bosnia, killing more than 200,000 civilians and forcing half the population, two million people, to flee their homes. Tens of thousands of women were systematically raped. Concentration camps were set up in Prijedor, Omarska, Trnopolje, and other areas. Civilians were shot by snipers on a daily basis in Sarajevo, a city left without heat, electricity, or water.

Radovan Karadzic, a psychiatrist and poet originally from Montenegro, became president of the Bosnian Serb Republic, with Ratko Mladic as his military commander. Both have since been twice indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for their command role in genocide.

http://www.friendsofbosnia.org/edu_kos.html
***

DAR
It seems to me that the moral thing to do to stop such atrocities would be to take action to stop them, even if that action necessarily resulted in the deaths of some non-combatants. It seems to me that it would not be moral to stand by and do nothing since that in itself could cause more evil and suffering. So it's a bit of a gray thing, not a black/white thing. That often happens with moral issues.

I did a quick search and found this from a human rights watch group:

"The Pentagon has suggested that only twenty to thirty incidents resulted in civilian deaths during Operation Allied Force. The Yugoslav government has claimed that NATO was responsible for at least 1,200 and as many as 5,000 civilian deaths."

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato207.htm

Both sides are probably fudging it so it might be somewhere in between.

By the standard definition: the perpetrators of rape/genocide are aggressors; those that retaliate against these aggressors are not.

DAR
Very good. Then according to you, Clinton, in taking action against the mass rape and genocide committed by the Serbians, was not the aggressor.

Again, initiation is critical.

DAR
Right, the Serbians initiated, the west, europe & NATO retaliated. I am quite sure they had better things to do.

If Clinton had killed only genocidal rapists rather than innocent non-combatants, then he would not have killed immorally, and would not be a murderer.

DAR
I am sure if he could have pushed a button and had it all work out that way he would have. The world is a little more messy than that.

But in fact he bombed civilian areas knowing full well he would kill innocents.

DAR
Actually, he wouldn't have made any of those decisions. He, through NATO and the UN made the decision to go forward and take actions to stop the agressive mass genocide and systematic rape of Muslims by the Christian Serbs. In doing so he would have known that there would probably be non-combatant deaths. He probably would have also guessed that there would be some US military deaths from the action (there weren't). Sometimes you pick the lesser of two evils. In retrospect, his actions and decsisions very likely saved tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives and incomprehensible suffering. So in reality (not Ozarkia), the title of mass murderer would more aptly be bestowed upon him if he had done nothing to stop the aggressor Serbs.

D.

[Hogeye]

Okay, I see we are not on the same page regarding the cult charge. Both your sources were discussing Rand's pre-1980 "collective", not any current objectivist groups. As I wrote, most people agree that long defunct group was cult-like. You are making a different and unsupported claim now - that current Rand fans are in cults and/or objectivist groups are cults. This is absurd.

Hogeye> Clinton ordered bombings in Serbia.

Darrel> Insert evidence here.

Google "Clinton bombing Serbia" and get tons of evidence. e.g.

Bill Clinton is finding this out the hard way. His ill-conceived decision to prod NATO into bombing Yugoslavia in March has wreaked havoc. The hundreds of thousands of refugees, the civilians killed by NATO bombs, the U.S. soldiers captured, the solidification of domestic support for Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, the dangerous chill in U.S.-Russian relations-all these have come to pass since Clinton made his fateful decision. - The Progressive magazine

President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair have persuaded themselves that a quick sharp bombing will be enough to persuade Serbia's President Slobodan Milosevic to accept the peace deal. But that it will be not enough to encourage the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo to seek complete independence. - Bombing Serbia is Dangerously Counterproductive

AS AMERICANS DEBATE what President Clinton’s legacy should be, too little attention is given to his remarks on Kosovo. The United States launched a war against a European nation largely at Clinton’s behest. Clinton’s war against Serbia epitomized his moralism, his arrogance, his refusal to respect law, and his fixation on proving his virtue by using deadly force, regardless of how many innocent people died in the process.

Clinton claimed on March 24, 1999, that one purpose of bombing Serbia (including Kosovo) was “to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military’s capacity to harm the people of Kosovo.” The CIA had warned the Clinton administration that if bombing was initiated, the Serbian army would greatly accelerate its efforts to expel ethnic Albanians. The White House disregarded this warning and feigned surprise when mass expulsions began. - Clinton’s Kosovo Frauds

Wow! Ignoring the CIA intelligence, jumping into a bloody offensive - sounds familiar doesn't it? Deja vu all over again.

Anyway, these are just the first few links of the search. I think you're being frivolous to doubt that Clinton ordered the bombings. You think the US military did it behind his back? Get real. Next you'll want proof Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq!

Hogeye> The predictable killing of non-combatants is immoral.

Darrel> You forgot to provide any evidence for your claim.

This is a normative claim, not an empirical claim - I'm not sure what you consider "evidence." I have appealed to the NAP - non-aggression principle, which basically says that "who started it?" is morally relevant. The innocent non-combatants did not initiate force against the US or NATO; the US and NATO soldiers and bombers initiated force against these innocent people - and killed them.

As I wrote earlier, without some agreed assumptions, there's little hope of convincing you. Are you amoral - into moral skepticism? Then nothing is immoral to you. Maybe you think indiscrimiate killing is just fine if it pleases you. Should I start with an argument against moral skepticism? But you have made moral judgements here on this forum I think. So what moral criteria do you use?

Thought experiment: can you think of any exceptions to your claim?

Yes, which is why I consider the NAP applicable to the civilized ethical environment, as opposed to e.g. survival situations. But Clinton's physical survival was not at stake when he decided to bomb civilians in Serbia. His approval rating was at stake after his famous blowjob, but not his survival.

Is there the potential for any level, nuance or degree of "evil" possible in your thinking of such matters?

There is the "nuance" of different ethical modes/environments, yes. But in this case where we have the civilized environment, killing innocent people is always wrong. It is an ethical "side constraint" as Robert Nozick put it, not something to be maximized or minimized. IOW Not murdering innocent people has lexicographic precedence over, say, maximizing your personal utility.

Can you think of any examples were it might be a better outcome to take the action of stopping a genocide which causes an immense amount of evil and suffering, even if that action causes some lesser yet necessary evil and suffering?

Sure, so long as the moral side-constraints are not violated. But stopping the killing of innocent people by killing innocent people violates the side-constraint - still keeping in mind that we are in the civilized mode. If it has to do with my survival, e.g. someone trying to kill me while using an innocent hostage as a shield, then I am in the survival mode and may well blow my attacker and shield away.

Is it just all black and white all the time with you?

I could turn it around and ask you, "Do you have any moral principles whatsoever?" But to answer your question - you'd have to call me a modal absolutist. That's kind of the middle way between moral relativism and moral absolutism. So to use your color metaphor: It's not all black and white when considering all ethical decisions, but within a given moral environment, it is black and white.

Right, the Serbians initiated, the west, europe & NATO retaliated.

We agree that there was no wrong in taking action against the aggressors - those people who committed aggression. But then, Darrel, you lose sight of the aggressors and blame all Serbs, apparently making it okay to kill innocent Serbs because some other Serbs were actually guilty. I don't buy the collective guilt thing. Retaliatory force should be used only against those who initiated force, not innocent people who happen to have the same ethnicity as the aggressors. It seems to me you are falling for the same collectivism that some use to justify genocide.

Hogeye> But in fact he bombed civilian areas knowing full well he would kill innocents.

Darrel> Actually, he wouldn't have made any of those decisions. He, through NATO and the UN made the decision...

Stop. You just admitted he made a decision to participate in the mass-murders. Obviously, he didn't have to go along with it, or participate in it by sending US troops and bombers. Sorry, blessings from NATO or the UN do not absolve moral culpability one bit. You can't slough off mass-murder by saying 'my friends convinced me to go along."

Sometimes you pick the lesser of two evils.

False dicotomy. There are many ways to oppose genocide without killing innocents to "send a message" to Milosevic. Why bomb cities? Some methods of combat are more moral than others. Ground troops with aimable weapons might be permissable, but dropping bombs in civilian areas or shooting rockets into civilian neighborhoods isn't. Clinton had many options on how to fight genocide - he took the modern warfare damn the civilians route, and became a mass murderer.

(BTW, you misread that NATO207 quote. The Pentagon is talking about number of incidents (i.e. battles), whereas the YugoGov was talking about the number of civilian deaths. They could both be right. 1,200 to 5,000 civilian deaths are on Clinton's head. I'd call that mass murder!

[Dardedar]

Okay, I see we are not on the same page regarding the cult charge. Both your sources were discussing Rand's pre-1980 "collective", not any current objectivist groups.

DAR
Either you don't read, or comprehend what you read, or just don't care. The first link I provided was Shermers article which was written in 1993 and referenced current day material, not necessarily pre-1980. The idea that a cult leader must be alive for a cult to be active is ridiculous.

As I wrote, most people agree that long defunct group was cult-like.

DAR
And many people agree that the current group is cult like, including myself, Shermer, and anyone familiar with standard cultish activity as aptly described in the two articles I provided (and many others).

You are making a different and unsupported claim now - that current Rand fans are in cults and/or objectivist groups are cults. This is absurd.

DAR
No it's a mundane claim that is supported by the references I provided which you either didn't read, or didn't understand.

I am busy. I have to go. If you would like to support your claim with specific and detailed evidence that Clinton is:

"a mass murderer, just like Bush and Milosevic"

do post it and I'll read it. If you accept this assignment, do consider the context of the behavior of Milosevic as detailed in the paragraph I have posted for you twice now.

And be specific. Assertions are not arguments. If you are going to claim that Clinton, personally and purposely, commanded non-military, non-combatant civilians to be targeted, that is, targets that had no military value to the goal of stopping Milosevic's genocide and ethnic cleansing, then give the specific evidence for that claim.

I could turn it around and ask you, "Do you have any moral principles whatsoever?"

DAR
This is sloppy. I don't have any moral absolutes if that's what you mean.

D.

[Hogeye]

The first link I provided was Shermers article which was written in 1993 and referenced current day material, not necessarily pre-1980.

I guess you concede that Rothbard's article was about the old days. Let's see what Shermer cites:

• Barbara Brandon's retrospective book about the early (pre-1980) Rand days.
• "The inner circle surrounding and protecting Rand" back when (obviously) Rand was alive.
• Nathanial Brandon's autobiographical memoir about the old days.
• Rand's open letter about Brandon, published in 1968.

Then Shermer notes that this 1968 open letter was "the beginning of the long decline and fall of Rand's tight grip over the Collective." The cult was already declining in '68!!

If you can find a quote from Shermer's article which indicates that any current objectivist group is a cult, please quote it. And please be specific about your claim. Are you contending that the Ayn Rand Institute is a cult? The Objectivist Center? Some other group? Or is it a conspiracy among all objectivists everywhere?

Shermer's thesis in the article is the potentiality of cultishness and the susceptiblity to cultishness that results from "the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason." You are grossly misconstruing him if you contend he saying that all/most/many current objectivists are cult members.

And many people agree that the current group is cult like...

Which group? Although I wouldn't go so far as to call it "cult-like," I'd agree that Peikoff's group (ARI) is intolerant as hell. (I can proudly say that I've been banned from their capitalism.org forum for asserting Rothbardian blasphemies.) But the Objectivist Center and many/most other groups are cool.

If you are going to claim that Clinton, personally and purposely, commanded non-military, non-combatant civilians to be targeted, that is, targets that had no military value to the goal of stopping Milosevic's genocide and ethnic cleansing, then give the specific evidence for that claim.

I would never claim that. My claim is that Clinton ordered and condoned military operations which predictably killed non-combatants. I see you've adopted Bush jargon, with the old "it wasn't a target" excuse for murder. If a policeman is trying to apprehend a murderer running away, he is not entitled to spray machine-gun fire down a crowded street. When the police want to apprehend a criminal in an apartment building, they are not justified in blowing up the whole building. This "targeting" bullshit is ethical nonsense. I guess you'd let Bush slide too, regarding shooting rockets into civilian neighborhoods in Fallujah. Ethically, it's the same as Clinton's bombs in Serbia, blowing up school buses, bridges, a Chinese embassy... What is it with you? Only Republican atrocities count?

I agree with Rothbard, that "just war" is virtually impossible using modern mass-destruction weapons. The use of non-specifically-targeted weapons from WWII on (bombs dropped from planes, nuclear bombs, etc.) makes classic just war impossible, at least in a statist war, since State rulers are not willing to use only weapons with specific targets, i.e. that don't murder civilians.

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.4 But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.

This is why the old clich no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modem world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, so mass murder indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important, in truth, than the demunicipalization of garbage disposal, as worthwhile as that may be. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price control or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?

If nuclear warfare is totally illegitimate even for individuals defending themselves against criminal assault, how much more so is nuclear or even "conventional" warfare between States! - War, Peace, and the State

For those who want to read a primer on Just War, here's one:
Just War


PS: Anticipating Doug, the philosophy prof's, possible tweak: There are actually (at least) two variations on the impermissability of harming non-combatants theme in the Just (conduct of) War theory. I stated the stricter of the two, but would be nearly as happy to convince others of the weaker form. The strict formulation is that no non-combatants should be harmed, the less strict is more "practical" - that incidental harm to non-combatants is permissable, but predictable harm is not. The textbook example is the guy servicing the vending machines at a military base. In both cases, bombing a known civilian area is verboten.

Question for Doug: Can you point me to any academic literature on the notion of modal ethics? I.e. The idea that there are various ethical environments, each with its own "principles" of conduct? I'd appreciate it.

[Doug]

The predictable killing of non-combatants is immoral.

DOUG
If you hold that it is immoral to engage in activities in which non-combatants will likely be killed, then you are arguing that war is always immoral, since in war there are always at least some noncombatants killed.

The same is true of bombing raids. No one thinks that in bombing raids only soldiers are killed. So you are not really arguing that in this particular case what Clinton did was particularly immoral, you are arguing that bombing is immoral. In which case Clinton should not be singled out.

[Hogeye]

Right, Doug. I've been arguing that Bush and Clinton (and, come to think of it, every US president in my lifetime) and Milosevic and Saddam are all murderers.

[Dardedar]

Darrel wrote:
If you are going to claim that Clinton, personally and purposely, commanded non-military, non-combatant civilians to be targeted, that is, targets that had no military value to the goal of stopping Milosevic's genocide and ethnic cleansing, then give the specific evidence for that claim.

Hogeye >
I would never claim that.

DAR
Good, then we may be done.

My claim is that Clinton ordered and condoned military operations which predictably killed non-combatants.

DAR
Actually, your claim was: "(Clinton is) a mass murderer, just like Bush and Milosevic."

D.

[Dardedar]

The first link I provided was Shermers article which was written in 1993 and referenced current day material, not necessarily pre-1980.

Hogeye >
I guess you concede that Rothbard's article was about the old days.

DAR
No but it may have been written in the old days when the cult was thriving. No doubt it is withering since the heyday, but this changes nothing really other than the over all numbers.

If you can find a quote from Shermer's article which indicates that any current objectivist group is a cult, please quote it.

DAR
I hadn't read this article in years, so I gave it a skim. I stopped at this part:

"But if you leave the "religious" component out of the definition, thus broadening the word's usage, it becomes clear that Objectivism was (and is) a cult, as are many other, non-religious groups."

And please be specific about your claim.

DAR
Hope that is specific enough for you.

Are you contending that the Ayn Rand Institute is a cult?

DAR
Very cultish, as Shermer and your Rothbard point out in great detail and depth.

You are grossly misconstruing him if you contend he saying that all/most/many current objectivists are cult members.

DAR
We can let readers decide who has the better reading comprehension skills.

"...it becomes clear that Objectivism was (and is) a cult, as are many other, non-religious groups." --Shermer, Ibid

If I had to guess, I would say that he is trying to convey the notion that objectivism was (and is) a cult. I am pretty sure that means he thinks "current objectivists" are "cult members."

This comports with my experiences with objectivists.

D.

[Hogeye]

"But if you leave the "religious" component out of the definition, thus broadening the word's usage, it becomes clear that Objectivism was (and is) a cult, as are many other, non-religious groups."

Okay, I concede that Shermer thinks that big-O Objectivism is a cult. I disagree. Sorry, I didn't catch Shermer's parenthetical afterthought - all his evidence is about the pre-80s Rand "Collective", and the modern groups don't satisfy 7 of his 9 listed criteria for cults.


Back to the topic: Do you agree that Clinton ordered and condoned military operations which predictably killed non-combatants? Do you agree that the targeting excuse is bogus - that what matters is whether you predictably kill non-combatants, not whether you were targeting a bad guy when you spray machine-gun fire down a busy street?

Going back to one of Doug's comments...

If you hold that it is immoral to engage in activities in which non-combatants will likely be killed, then you are arguing that war is always immoral, since in war there are always at least some noncombatants killed.

Two points: Probably "war" should be replaced with "modern war" here, since it is only in the last century that mass destruction weapons became standard. E.g. In medieval times in Europe, wars were basically property disputes between lords, with mercenaries fighting while leaving the non-combatants pretty much alone. There are accounts of people watching the professionals battle, perhaps a predecessor to our football games. Just War theory developed at a time when war was basically restricted to soldiers and non-combatants were generally not part of it. E.g. People would travel to and trade with countries their rulers were at war with - the early passports were basically papers certifying that someone was a non-combatant so could pass.

Secondly, since we are talking about ethics, we need to distinguish between conduct and a general ongoing phenomena. While a long war is bound to have civilian casualties as you note, the same can't be said for any particular battle or event. Ordering a commando unit to assassinate a rival ruler, or to free hostages, does not necessarily involve predictable killing of innocents. OTOH shooting a rocket into a civilian neighborhood because a suspected insurgent may be there does. Some types of actions satisfy just war (jus in bello) criteria, other types don't. A useful heuristic is: if weapons used have pinpoint targeting capabilities (bows and arrows, firearms), then it may be just, but if not (bombs dropped from planes, chemical/nuclear warfare) it almost certainly violates just war criteria.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Since there isn't any such thing as a real, honest to goodness, defensive weapon in modern use (in fact, defensive weapon is an oxymoron), anyone who participates in war at all, by Hogeye's definition, is a mass murderer, since they have initiated aggression. As Doug pointed out, there is no way to utilize modern weapons and not kill civilians. There is especially no way to bomb without killing civilians. Unfortunately, when dealing with a situation like Kosovo, you go through the steps - official disapproval, sanctions, force - and try to balance numbers of civilian deaths caused by acting against estimated numbers of civilian deaths by not acting. It is, of course, not possible to know for sure if the guess was right.

Clinton's intension was to save as many lives as possible, under the circumstances - his actions may or may not have done that, but that was his intent. Milosevic's intention was to kill as many civilians of the "other" ethnicity as possible. Clinton was following the moral path, Milosevic was not. If you use the term "mass murder" to cover both men, you have a problem with definitions.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Oh, and there was never a time or kind of warfare that didn't kill civilians - those armies tromped over farm land, battlefields were mostly farm land - they kill farm families either directly or by virtue of taking their farm animals (to eat - QuarterMaster corp was usually a week or so behind the troops before trucks truly mobilized the army) and stomping their fields to mud, so they starved. Looting - and rape - was half or better of the pay of the pre-modern military. Cities under seige have always included mostly noncombatants in the death toll. War has always been Hell. Modern technology just means you can kill more people in a shorter amount of time.

[Hogeye]

Since there isn't any such thing as a real, honest to goodness, defensive weapon in modern use...

If you mean that weapons can be used both defensively and offensively, then this is correct but trivial.

... anyone who participates in war at all, by Hogeye's definition, is a mass murderer, since they have initiated aggression.

Hmmm. You won't admit the possibility of a defensive war, or the difference between aggression and self-defense?

As Doug pointed out, there is no way to utilize modern weapons and not kill civilians.

I already refuted this in my previous post. In short: Some modern weapons (e.g. a Kalashnikov) can be aimed at an aggressor without also aiming at innocents. Other modern weapons (bombs dropped from planes, nukes) cannot. So I agree with you 100% when it comes to nukes, but not AK-47s.

Clinton's intension was to save as many lives as possible, under the circumstances...

No, you've already admitted that there is "no way to bomb without killing civilians." Clinton bombed civilian areas. Ergo, he is a mass murderer. Clinton could have sent assassination squads to kill actual perpetrators, or bombed only military bases. He chose not to. Even better, he could have ignored the conflict, since all the factions were committing genocide on each other. There is no indication that he saved lives. Are you aware that there was a counter-genocide of Serbs by Albanians after Clinton had "pacified" Kosevo?

Oh, and there was never a time or kind of warfare that didn't kill civilians...

Right, but there were times when warfare was mainly restricted to the fighters, when murdering civilians was considered a war-crime rather than routine "collateral damage." The Dresden and London bombings (and later Hiroshima) were a drastic departure from the Just War theory that more-or-less held sway before.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Killing civilians as a war crime is pretty 20th century. What is now referred to as collateral damage was just part of war prior to that. Shields are defensive, armor is defensive, weapons are offensive. About the only ones that can be used both offensively and defensively are sword and staff - can block blows as well as give them. A "defensive" weapon is an offensive weapon used either retalatorily or preemptively (and as far as I'm concerned, preemptively is only valid in old western style shootouts, where they both went for their guns at the same time and the guy who started the fight drew slower). A defensive war is when you are attacked and you fight back - but the weapons you fight with are offensive.

Heads of state are antsy about using assassination as an official policy, since - tit for tat - it leaves them open to be "officially" assassinated. However, I agree with you about its value - unfortunately, I bet ben Ladin does, too. I prefer commando units going in and getting folks like ben Ladin and bringing them back for trial - but it isn't alway possible - secondarily trial in absentia, then send out the units to either get him for prison or nail if the death penalty was pronounced (presupposing a trial found him guilty).

As far as Clinton is concerned, I think he inherited some bad intelligence from Daddy Bush (just like Kennedy inherited bad intelligence from Eisenhower on the Bay of Pigs - it seems Repubs always set up intelligence to tell them what they want to hear, and Dems don't always dismantle it as soon as they get in office - FDR did, but then he had the example of treatment of the Bonus Army to remind him). Since I think intent is as involved here for a president, just as it is in wars for countries, I give Clinton a pass (not an "A", just a "pass") and Bush a fail. Clinton didn't lie anybody into war, and his military ventures were intended to stop an already bloody situation. Bush did lie us into war in a country that was more or less at peace (but only because UN/US forces were keeping a lid on Saddam's weapon fantasies) and his military ventures seem to be intended to create Armageddon and/or an oil hedgemony in the Middle East.

[Hogeye]

A "defensive" weapon is an offensive weapon used either retalatorily or preemptively (and as far as I'm concerned, preemptively is only valid in old western style shootouts, where they both went for their guns at the same time and the guy who started the fight drew slower). A defensive war is when you are attacked and you fight back - but the weapons you fight with are offensive.

I think we agree on this. Morally, what matters is who is the aggressor. Aggression is wrong; retaliatory violence against an aggressor is permissable. (Recall: Aggression is the initiation of violence or the threat of it.) (A duel or boxing match, where the participants agree to a violent contest, is not aggression due to the consent.)

Heads of state are antsy about using assassination as an official policy, since - tit for tat - it leaves them open to be "officially" assassinated. However, I agree with you about its value - unfortunately, I bet ben Ladin does, too.

Of course rulers don't like the idea - they'd rather be safe, score the benefits, and lets their citizen-surfs pay the cost and be the cannon-fodder. That's why assassination is such a good idea - it puts the costs on the rulers who make war. I don't understand why you would think it's unfortunate that bin Laden values assassination. Personally, I'd love to see the bin Ladens of the world assassinating the Bushes and Clintons of the world. I'd love to see warmongers reap what they have sown.

I give Clinton a pass (not an "A", just a "pass") and Bush a fail. Clinton didn't lie anybody into war, and his military ventures were intended to stop an already bloody situation.

I think we are pretty close on this point, too, at least about the lying us into war part. I grant you that Clinton was more honest about his mass-murder. (In his observation that there was genocide going on; not necessarily about his personal motivation to divert attention from blowjobgate.) If Bush had said from the gitgo that he wanted to overthrow a bloody dictator committing genocide of Kurds and murder of political opponents, he would have been as honest (or more) than Clinton.

That said, neither intervention was a Just War (jus ad bellum, i.e. just reasons to go to war). Recall, all sides (Serbs, Croats, Albanians) were murdering each other; there was no rational reason to think that US and NATO intervention would result in less death. In fact, genocide was stepped up after the intervention started - it may well have increased the number of deaths. Similarly, as bad as Saddam was to his opponents and the Kurds, the embargo and subsequent invasion probably increased the number of deaths.

Furthermore, as we've been discussing, modern statist warfare cannot be just (jus in bello), since modern weapons used by States do not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.

Principles of the Just War
• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

(The last two are jus in bello, the others are [/i]jus ad bellum[/i].)
Here's the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Just War.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Of the 7 principles listed - Clinton is OK by the first, since he'd exhausted all non-violent options. He's also OK by the second, since it went through the UN and the UN is considered a legitimate authority by the societies in question. Clinton's good on point 3, since it was to redress wrongs suffered and attempt to prevent more of them. Also point 4, since he thought there was a reasonable chance of success (even though he was incorrect, we can can only make decisions based on knowledge of the time). He's really solid on point 5, since that's the entire reason he got into it and point 6, since he was using the least amount of force/violence in the US arsenal. The only point - and again, with modern weaponry there really is no avoiding non-combatant deaths - on which Clinton fails the "Just War" test is the last one. W in Iraq, on the other hand, fails on all points (unless you give him a pass on point 6 for not using nuclear weapons, just "depleted uranium" in our conventional ones). And you have to magnify the deaths caused by sanctions to bring Clinton anywhere near W - and he'd still fall way below Saddam unfettered by sanctions - in Middle Eastern death toll.

FYI - Clinton didn't lie about his unfortunate relationship - he answered the question as it was asked ("Is" there a sexual relationship... Since that relationship had ended some 2 years before the question was asked, the answer quite truthfully was "No" - it was misleading, but truthful. It was asked that way as a trap, so the Rs would have SOMETHING, after 8 years of witch hunt, that they could prosecute him for.)

[Hogeye]

Clinton is OK by the first, since he'd exhausted all non-violent options.

No, he obviously rejected the option of non-intervention.

He's also OK by the second, since it went through the UN and the UN is considered a legitimate authority by the societies in question.

No, the legitimate authority for the US State is congress. To be legit would require Congress to declare war. (Something ignored since Truman/Korea.)

Three - just intentions and redressing of wrong is also dubious. Clinton's intention was to divert attention from his blowjob. Taking sides in a three-way mutual genocide is hardly addressing a wrong.

Clinton's Yugoslav intervention probably satisfies #4, if "success" is defined in statist powermongering terms. Probably being mired in Korea for 50+ years is considered a success, too, in these terms. How long will the US/NATO occupy Kosevo?

Five - I suppose if you think peace through continuous occupation by your own troops and allies is better than a peaceful civil society "on their own" then Clinton's (and Bush's) intervention satisfies this. But I don't think this is what Grotius meant!

Point 6, since he was using the least amount of force/violence in the US arsenal.

Huh? He could have sent ground troops to stop genocide in Kosevo without bombing civilian Serb areas, so he clearly failed to use the least amount of force necessary.

We agree on point 7, that Clinton used weapons that don't discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.

I agree with you that, while both fail Just War criteria, mass-murderer Clinton gets a somewhat better failing grade than mass-murderer Bush. I also grant you that it is problematic how many embargo deaths to count against Clinton, since the embargo started two years before his term.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Non-intervention is the first of the choices, followed by reprimand, sanctions, and military force. That was a stage already tried and proven unsuccessful in stopping the problem. The United States Congress is required to declare war, but is not the legitimate authority for intervention in Europe, barring a full-scale war, which this wasn't. The UN was the legitimate authority for intervention in Bosnia. As to your assertion on item #3 - you've bought too much of the Republican-owned MSM. The "success" as currently achieved is not the "success" that the UN hopes to ultimately achieve - Americans have such a short attention span. If it isn't perfect in 3 weeks, it's a failure. I have know idea how long UN/US forces will be in Kosevo, nor in Korea - although the possibility of Korean unification is being whispered about. Clinton would be delighted to have peaceful civil society - aside from the fact that he cares for people, he was trying to balance the budget and pay down the debt - you don't do that will military actions! Note that Clinton didn't try to built permanent super bases in eastern Europe, as W is building in Iraq. Sending in ground forces - see Iraq - is no guarantee of fewer civilian deaths, in fact, it just tends to make them "up close and personal" - because bombs cannot be "pinpointed" no matter what the military claims, they not only can kill people, they can miss them entirely. Bombs, except for a direct hit, are survivable - artillary fire is less so, because it can be pinpointed. FYI - the worst death toll of the embargo occurred in the early years - partly because of Saddam's refusal to do "oil for food" trades - although that's a little specious, since neither food nor medical supplies were embargoed - the embargo meant there was no money to buy them. However, there are more deaths due to destruction of water and power plants during both Gulf I & II than the sanctions themselves.