[John Whitworth]

Why is your position strange, James? I speak only true wisdom. Is it because it is conservative wisdom that it makes you queasy?

The first bombers were the Germans in the Great War, using Zeppelins. I'm not saying that they were to blame for what came after but just noting it.

Before bombing Armies used starvation as a weapon. As in the Franco-Prussian War. Aircraft (and balloons) put a stop to that. And the threat of widespread rape and pillage. That is still going strong. Not a nice business, war. We must find some way of abolishing it. On the other hand the Isil Caliphate is not nice at all. How do we combat it?

[James Brancheau]

Not at all, John. I generally like political discussions with people who don't agree with me (though I tend to have less patience when it comes to social issues). I have conservative friends and I have plenty of disagreements with other liberals, as you can see.

Have you seen The Fog of War? You might enjoy that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War

[Brian Allgar]

Originally Posted by ross hamilton hill

Putin has a KGB traitor murdered, Obama has thousands of innocent adults and children murdered by drone strikes, I'm not about to label one bad and the other good.

Ross, Litvinenko wasn't "a KGB traitor", he was someone who had the temerity to criticize Putin. His murder by polonium poisoning was a particularly disgusting act even by Putin's (lack of) standards. And let's be quite clear: Litvinenko was specifically targeted by Putin's hit-men. Yes, American drones sometimes kill innocent civilians, but they are not the intended targets. If you can't see a moral difference ...

[John Whitworth]

What is the difference between a political and a social issue, James? I don't see it myself. Surely they are in general the same.

[James Brancheau]

A social issue as a type of political issue, I guess. I did pause before I wrote that as so many things are connected.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Brian Allgar

Litvinenko was specifically targeted by Putin's hit-men. Yes, American drones sometimes kill innocent civilians, but they are not the intended targets. If you can't see a moral difference ...

There are several differences. One, as you point out, Brian, is intent. The sheer number of innocent people killed is surely another.

A United Nations report suggests we are breaking international law by (as I understand it, in my admitted ignorance) not taking enough care to avoid killing civilians. Doctors without Borders believes at least one of its hospitals was intentionally targeted by a U.S. strike.

Among the differences: what Putin's hit men do reflects on few beyond Putin himself. What the U.S. armed forces do reflects on the U.S. as a whole.

[Roger Slater]

But the fellow Putin killed was not posing any danger to Putin or Russia. It was purely a revenge killing. When a drone kills innocent civilians, it is presumably collateral to the killing of someone who is posing an active threat to other innocent people, someone who spends his time planning attacks such as we saw in Paris. I'm not necessarily saying that this is the right thing to do. It may very well be judged horrible and wrong. But I am saying that there's an important distinction to be made between killing for revenge and killing to prevent further killing.

[Nigel Mace]

This heading towards angels and pin-heads, but........ perhaps the most interesting points in relation to both these 'categories' is that the first is empty and pointless and the second never works. In short, the perpetration of violent deaths solves nothing - ever.

[John Whitworth]

Nigel, that is a rather anodyne remark, if I may say so though said sincerely I am sure. The perpetration of violent deaths built Empires. The Roman one lasted quite a long time, the British too. I don't know if 'solved' is quite the verb, but it certainly changed things about. Al Capone built quite an empire of his own through violent deaths. Violence achieves quite a lot unfortunately.

[Janice D. Soderling]

The perpetration of violent deaths built Empires. The Roman one lasted quite a long time, the British too. I don't know if 'solved' is quite the verb, but it certainly changed things about. Al Capone built quite an empire of his own through violent deaths. Violence achieves quite a lot unfortunately.

Violence achieves nothing of worth. It achieves wide-spread famine, the death of innocents, the growth of hatred, temporary consolidations of power that ultimately implode or are conquered by some other violent power.

The fall of the Roman Empire resulted in mass migration of displaced peoples not unlike what the world is experiencing today.

For a great many of the the world's present woes, I am sorry to say, are tremors from the violence of the British Empire and its subsequent collapse after the second world war.

We have the lingering effects of the prejudices of an empire that thought itself superior to those in the countries it colonized. That opinion still lives in the minds of many who would rather not live cheek by jowl with immigrants who exercised their rights to immigrate to post-colonial Britain.

As we know, the Third Reich lasted twelve years rather than the promised one thousand, but what havoc it wrought. It achieved nothing of value until it ended, when Europe sought to end war through unity and peace.

Angela Merkel, whom you so often disparage, and who is the only European leader still offering a haven for the Syrian refugees said in 2014, "Anyone who hits someone wearing a skullcap is hitting us all. Anyone who damages a Jewish gravestone is disgracing our culture. Anyone who attacks a synagogue is attacking the foundation of our free society."

If every leader of every country had her wisdom and steadfastness we could be living in a golden age of peace.

If Germany had had such a leader in 1933, how different history might have been. Peaceful lives accomplish more than violent deaths.