First off, I'm not a liberal. Unless your definition of liberal is 'Not an ultra-nationalist'. But that's a different discussion.

Furthermore, I didn't ask anyone to go and blow up Iraqis to keep me safe, and as a matter of fact it's probably making me less safe by getting people I don't know pissed off at me for living in the country that went over and blew up all the Iraqis.

If you're going to render a service to me using unethical means without getting my approval, you have no right to any gratitude from me.

So would you support the war if it had rendered peace with no civilian casualties? What if they had discovered multiple weapons of mass destruction?

But is that relevant - they didn't have WMDs, as our inspectors told us.

In fact one of the most worrying upshots of the Iraq War is that it essentially sends a message to rogue states that they better have WMDs.

Because if they don't then we'll just say they do anyway, so they might as well, because they aren't going to prevent an invasion from coalition forces with conventional arms.

Which is probably why North Korea and Iran are so fond of their nuclear program.

Your widening the debate as if it makes this particular action wrong, without scrutiny. With this attitude I could also claim every action was valid and they had every right to kill those cameramen. The rights and wrongs of the invasion are not being questioned in this thread.

First off, I'm not a liberal. Unless your definition of liberal is 'Not an ultra-nationalist'. But that's a different discussion.

Furthermore, I didn't ask anyone to go and blow up Iraqis to keep me safe, and as a matter of fact it's probably making me less safe by getting people I don't know pissed off at me for living in the country that went over and blew up all the Iraqis.

If you're going to render a service to me using unethical means without getting my approval, you have no right to any gratitude from me.

Someone might save you from drowning without your approval (and even by unethical means). But especially if he risked his life doing it, he is entitled to your gratitude.

But that is false on the face of it. Someone might save you from drowning without your approval (and even by unethical means). But especially if he risked his life doing it, he is entitled to your gratitude.

No, not if he did it unethically. If there was no possible ethical way to save me he should have just let me drown, and if he didn't then I owe no gratitude to him because of his unethical behavior.

But few would argue that being saved from drowning is being saved. Only a determinedly suicidal person would say that it didn't further their interests.

Whilst plently feel that the coalition presence in Iraq was/is counterproductive, and witnessing a camera crew and family mown down in a rather gung ho attack confirms that - to an extent.

So gratitiude shown towards soldiers as a gestalt is one thing, and gratitude shown to those who rescue drowning men another. Even if gratitude to the sacrifices of soldiers as a gestalt is justified (and I think it is) it doesn't mean a blunder shouldn't be decried (and this is a blunder).

Blunders, if they are blunders, should be decried, especially if they are egregious enough. But I don't see the relevance of that.

Particularly if you agree that we should be grateful to those who protect us at the risk, and sometimes the cost, of their own lives.

Even if they are drafted, I suppose. As I wrote, thank goodness for our hired killers. They defend us from the murderers of Islamic Fascism. Yes, they protect you too.

I would like to know if this a wider debate on the ethics of the Iraq war or the actions of individuals involved in this war?

I don't really think you can talk about one without talking about the other. When a nation goes to war, there will be some collateral damage, including the deaths of noncombatants, various atrocities, etc. It's a part of war.

Whether or not some atrocities in the Iraq war are merely the result of individuals taking a poor course of action, or a policy that extends throughout the chain of command, or perhaps accidental, might depend on which atrocity you want to focus on at the moment. There are plenty to choose from, but the case of Abu Ghraib is one of many instances that seems to indicate a policy that at least condones or even encourages prisoner abuse, which for those who don't know, is a war crime.

You have to talk about the ethics of the war itself, as well as the ethics of individual actions in war; without declaring war and placing people in a war zone, the individual problems would not exist. So talking about the ethics of having the war in the first place gets to the root of the problem.

You cant condemn the individual soldier on the grounds that war is always wrong. Would you say releasing Jewish prisoners by allied forces was basically wrong because war is wrong?

He didn't say war is wrong.

He said that the ethics of the Iraq war, in terms of initial justification(s) and an apparent tendancy to treat Iraqis poorly since the outset, was debateable.

Which it is.

This thread is beyond such petty concerns as having a topic. It transcends discourse and has no essence.

And you cant judge the actions of the individual by the actions of others or the legality of the war.

And you cant judge the actions of the individual by the actions of others or the legality of the war.

I'm not sure how much we can "judge" the individual for his actions in a war zone, when we are sitting here in the relative safety of our chairs in front of computer screens.

Here I would disagree with you. You can veiw an unprofessional soldier as being counterproductive beyond the existing apparent counterproductivity of a war effort you don't support in the first place.

Besides, it's a clear example. If you think the coalition presence is unjust, and want reasons why, here's a definite example for your case. It might seem petty compared to things like our use of DU, or the legality of the case for war - but there it is. A pilot killed innocents and the pentagon denied it for three years until forced to come clean due to a whistle-blower.

Which is wrong in pretty much anyone's book, I would have thought.

You cant judge the actions of those air crew by what you presume to be an illegal or unjust war. With your views any action by the individual is wrong, even killing another combatant.