ISIS demolish ancient city of Nimrud

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

why?  how many fcks did you give about "Nimrud" before 5 minutes ago?

It wasn't being destroyed five minutes ago.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No

to the extent we can know anything with use of counterfactuals, there is no doubt that "the World would be a better place" had a) the UN never imposed sanctions on Iraq and b) the US-UK had never invaded.  even the supposed worst case strong-getting-stronger Baathist dictatorship (and there are plenty of arguments that the sanctions strengthened the regime, that Saddam or a successor would not have been untouched by the 2011 events) would be infinitely preferable to our actual past 25 years.

What would arguably be even more preferable was if Saddam was overthrown during the first Gulf war.

As for the arguments that the sanctions strengthened the regime, perhaps. But we have no idea how the 'Arab Spring' would have gone down in Iraq without the invasion (I should here I'm NOT trying to implying this would have been a better outcome - only that it is unknown).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What would arguably be even more preferable was if Saddam was overthrown during the first Gulf war.

this is a typical liberal talking point.  there were fewer (but not zero) cartoonish villains around to fill the vacuum in 1990/1 than 2003 and on, but doing so still would have required a mass invasion, humanitarian chaos, setup of a US puppet state, etc.

1) That's a typical Obscuritan-left position which, should I be so willing, removes you from my ability to take you seriously.
2) Yes, yes it would have. So?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What would arguably be even more preferable was if Saddam was overthrown during the first Gulf war.

this is a typical liberal talking point.  there were fewer (but not zero) cartoonish villains around to fill the vacuum in 1990/1 than 2003 and on, but doing so still would have required a mass invasion, humanitarian chaos, setup of a US puppet state, etc.

1) That's a typical Obscuritan-left position which, should I be so willing, removes you from my ability to take you seriously.
2) Yes, yes it would have. So?

2)  if we can't prove beyond a clear and convincing standard that such a massive intervention, with its guaranteed massive human cost, would be 'beneficial', that the action should not be taken.  an adoption of the Hippocratic Oath.... "first, do no harm".

of course, this is not how those who control the levers of foreign policy actually make decisions.

The Hippocratic Oath can only be seen as ironic given some of the great damage Hippocrates and his followers did to Medicine and thus to human lives.

Also, it doesn't strike me as necessarily a good principle to base foreign policy. Even less than Cheney doctrine, which at least recognizes the notion of a threat.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Also, it doesn't strike me as necessarily a good principle to base foreign policy. Even less than Cheney doctrine, which at least recognizes the notion of a threat.

'threat' has to be part of the harm calculus, but there are two big problems with it.

1) it's easy to states to claim that there's a threat when there isn't, based on classified intelligence.  we both know how that works out.  2) the problem of proportionality.  how much is a US citizen 'worth' compared to an Iraqi or an Afghan?  since Sept 2001 the answer seems to be a ratio of thousands to one.  a mass invasion in pre-emptive 'response' to a threat is almost always going to be way out of proportion.

Huh? Now you are being obtuse. This thread is about the destruction of archaeological sites. At no point was the relevance of your value of life calculus mentioned. Not only that but you accuse United States authorities of hypocrisy of treating American life as more of value than other life such as Iraqi or Afghan while attacking those who want intervention in Iraq (which btw I haven't said I'm favour of)... yet logically upholding the first principle would mean US intervention against ISIS because that would be less 'hypocritical' (as if hypocrisy is always a bad thing).

Furthermore you seem to be arguing that classified intelligence is reliable and not subject to any bias. The example of the Iraq War and how evidence was ignored by the defense establishment on Saddam's WMDs seems to disprove that point (and hardly the only time the competence of US' defense establishment has been put into question).