Military losses for 20 years
Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:
The annual fatalities of military members while activelyserving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>1980 .......... 2,392
>1981 ......... 2,380
>1984 .......... 1,999
>1988 .......... 1,819
>1989 .......... 1,636
>1990 ......... 1,508
>1991 ......... 1,787
>1992 .......... 1,293----------------------------------------------------
>1993 ......... 1,213
>1994 .......... 1,075
>1995 ..........2,465
>1996 ......... 2,318 Clinton years @ 13,417 deaths
>1997 .......... 817
>1998 ......... 2,252
>1999 .......... 1,984 -------------------------------------------------
>2000 .......... 1,983
>2001 .......... 890
>2002 .......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>2003 ......... 1,410
>2004 .......... 1,887
>2005 ......... 919
>2006.......... 920
----------------------------------------------------------
The Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant; that
these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly
minorities. The latest census shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
>European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
>Hispanic ................................... 12.5%
>Black......................................... 12.3%
>Asian ....................................... 3.7%
>Native American .................... . 1.0%
>Other ...................................... 2.6%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
>European descent (white) ..... 74 .31%
>Hispanic ................................. 10.74%
>Black ........................................ 9.67%
>Asian ................................ . .....1.81%
>Native American ...................... 1.09%
>Other ................................... ..... .33%
These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Do your own research and do not be swayed by what you see on TV or read in most newspapers.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Sort of makes you wonder where American troops have been fighting don't it?
-
drumbunny1
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:29 am
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Yes the media can be quite unreliable!!! Very biased....they like to just stir the S**t pot as I like to say!!!
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
No, it just makes you wince at Clint's selectivity when it comes to discussing figures. The column headings he had available to discuss were Total Deaths, Accident, Hostile Action, Homicide, Illness, Pending, Self Inflicted, Terrorist Attack and Undetermined. Oh, and the actual size of the military that year which might seem relevant as well. You want to see what it looks like if you just focus on Hostile Action? Allow me...
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 through hostile action...
>1980 ..........
>1981 .........
>1982 ..........
>1983 .......... 18
>1984 .......... 1
>1985 .........
>1986 ......... 2
>1987 ......... 37
>1988 .........
>1989 ......... 23
>1990 .........
>1991 ......... 147 (Bush-41's moment of glory before losing his re-election)
>1992 .......... ----------------------------------------------------
>1993 .........
>1994 ..........
>1995 ..........
>1996 ......... 1 Eight Clinton years @ 1 death
>1997 ..........
>1998 .........
>1999 .......... -------------------------------------------------
>2000 ..........
>2001 .......... 3
>2002 .......... 18 Seven Bush-43 years @ 2.596 deaths
>2003 ......... 344
>2004 .......... 739
>2005 ......... 739
>2006.......... 753
----------------------------------
Though even the "Hostile Action" figures are a bit weasely in that they exclude friendly fire incidents. Counting those as well you can credit Bush-43 with a dribble less than 4,000 once you add 2007 as well but that's neither here nor there.
Clint, what was your point exactly? That if you have a group of people counted in millions you'll have a steady background of deaths from natural causes? I think we knew that. That the number enlisted was higher in the Clinton years? I think we knew that too. Summarize what you think your post told us please.
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 through hostile action...
>1980 ..........
>1981 .........
>1982 ..........
>1983 .......... 18
>1984 .......... 1
>1985 .........
>1986 ......... 2
>1987 ......... 37
>1988 .........
>1989 ......... 23
>1990 .........
>1991 ......... 147 (Bush-41's moment of glory before losing his re-election)
>1992 .......... ----------------------------------------------------
>1993 .........
>1994 ..........
>1995 ..........
>1996 ......... 1 Eight Clinton years @ 1 death
>1997 ..........
>1998 .........
>1999 .......... -------------------------------------------------
>2000 ..........
>2001 .......... 3
>2002 .......... 18 Seven Bush-43 years @ 2.596 deaths
>2003 ......... 344
>2004 .......... 739
>2005 ......... 739
>2006.......... 753
----------------------------------
Though even the "Hostile Action" figures are a bit weasely in that they exclude friendly fire incidents. Counting those as well you can credit Bush-43 with a dribble less than 4,000 once you add 2007 as well but that's neither here nor there.
Clint, what was your point exactly? That if you have a group of people counted in millions you'll have a steady background of deaths from natural causes? I think we knew that. That the number enlisted was higher in the Clinton years? I think we knew that too. Summarize what you think your post told us please.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
drumbunny1
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:29 am
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
spot;772537 wrote: No, it just makes you wince at Scrat's selectivity when it comes to discussing figures. The column headings he had available to discuss were Total Deaths, Accident, Hostile Action, Homicide, Illness, Pending, Self Inflicted, Terrorist Attack and Undetermined. Oh, and the actual size of the military that year which might seem relevant as well. You want to see what it looks like if you just focus on Hostile Action? Allow me...
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 through hostile action...
>1980 ..........
>1981 .........
>1982 ..........
>1983 .......... 18
>1984 .......... 1
>1985 .........
>1986 ......... 2
>1987 ......... 37
>1988 .........
>1989 ......... 23
>1990 .........
>1991 ......... 147 (Bush-41's moment of glory before losing his re-election)
>1992 .......... ----------------------------------------------------
>1993 .........
>1994 ..........
>1995 ..........
>1996 ......... 1 Eight Clinton years @ 1 death
>1997 ..........
>1998 .........
>1999 .......... -------------------------------------------------
>2000 ..........
>2001 .......... 3
>2002 .......... 18 Seven Bush-43 years @ 2.596 deaths
>2003 ......... 344
>2004 .......... 739
>2005 ......... 739
>2006.......... 753
----------------------------------
Though even the "Hostile Action" figures are a bit weasely in that they exclude friendly fire incidents. Counting those as well you can credit Bush-43 with a dribble less than 4,000 once you add 2007 as well but that's neither here nor there.
Scrat, what was your point exactly? That if you have a group of people counted in millions you'll have a steady background of deaths from natural causes? I think we knew that. That the number enlisted was higher in the Clinton years? I think we knew that too. Summarize what you think your post told us please.
I'm confused on the Clinton @ 1 death vs. Bush....you mean one death while Clinton was in office or what?
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 through hostile action...
>1980 ..........
>1981 .........
>1982 ..........
>1983 .......... 18
>1984 .......... 1
>1985 .........
>1986 ......... 2
>1987 ......... 37
>1988 .........
>1989 ......... 23
>1990 .........
>1991 ......... 147 (Bush-41's moment of glory before losing his re-election)
>1992 .......... ----------------------------------------------------
>1993 .........
>1994 ..........
>1995 ..........
>1996 ......... 1 Eight Clinton years @ 1 death
>1997 ..........
>1998 .........
>1999 .......... -------------------------------------------------
>2000 ..........
>2001 .......... 3
>2002 .......... 18 Seven Bush-43 years @ 2.596 deaths
>2003 ......... 344
>2004 .......... 739
>2005 ......... 739
>2006.......... 753
----------------------------------
Though even the "Hostile Action" figures are a bit weasely in that they exclude friendly fire incidents. Counting those as well you can credit Bush-43 with a dribble less than 4,000 once you add 2007 as well but that's neither here nor there.
Scrat, what was your point exactly? That if you have a group of people counted in millions you'll have a steady background of deaths from natural causes? I think we knew that. That the number enlisted was higher in the Clinton years? I think we knew that too. Summarize what you think your post told us please.
I'm confused on the Clinton @ 1 death vs. Bush....you mean one death while Clinton was in office or what?
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
drumbunny1;772539 wrote: I'm confused on the Clinton @ 1 death vs. Bush....you mean one death while Clinton was in office or what?
For goodness sake open the link and read the FAS report, it's all in there. Yes I do, that's what the report's table says, I copied it very accurately. What I listed was their column for the annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 through hostile action. If you want to add the "Terrorist Attack" column it puts the Clinton figure to 60 and the Bush figure to 2,668.
For goodness sake open the link and read the FAS report, it's all in there. Yes I do, that's what the report's table says, I copied it very accurately. What I listed was their column for the annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 through hostile action. If you want to add the "Terrorist Attack" column it puts the Clinton figure to 60 and the Bush figure to 2,668.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
drumbunny1
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:29 am
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Oh for goodness sake I will then!!!! :yh_doh Jeez...just asking a question!
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
My apologies, I thought you were trying to trip me up with that Black Hawk fiasco.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
drumbunny1
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:29 am
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
I'm just curious on what Clint's perspective is.....
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Clint;772517 wrote: These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Do your own research and do not be swayed by what you see on TV or read in most newspapers.
Clint, while you're there looking at the original tables, can you explain where your annual fatalities figures come from?
From 1980 to 1994 they're an exact copy of "Table 5. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006, Part II, Cause of Death" column labelled "Total Deaths".
Then you start substituting Clinton's actual low totals with earlier higher ones:
For 1995 you use the 1983 total
For 1996 you use the 1982 total
For 1998 you use the 1985 total
For 1999 you use the 1986 total
For 2000 you use the 1987 total
giving you a total for the Clinton years of 13.417 deaths instead of the genuine published 8,035 in eight years.
Then you start inventing numbers from nowhere that I can see for the Bush-43 years, claiming the published total is 9,016 where in fact it's 9,550 in seven years in the original table.
These are overall deaths, nothing to do with casualties. I do the next calculations merely to show that your original conclusions were totally misleading, not because I offer any reason for them.
The Clinton armed forces averaged 1,519,646 members, the Bush-43 armed forces averaged 1,219,878 members.
The average death rate for all US armed forces in the Clinton years was 66 per 100,000 members annually.
The average death rate for all US armed forces in the Bush-43 years was 112 per 100,000 members annually.
Can you comment on the origin of the totals in your table?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Do your own research and do not be swayed by what you see on TV or read in most newspapers.
Clint, while you're there looking at the original tables, can you explain where your annual fatalities figures come from?
From 1980 to 1994 they're an exact copy of "Table 5. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006, Part II, Cause of Death" column labelled "Total Deaths".
Then you start substituting Clinton's actual low totals with earlier higher ones:
For 1995 you use the 1983 total
For 1996 you use the 1982 total
For 1998 you use the 1985 total
For 1999 you use the 1986 total
For 2000 you use the 1987 total
giving you a total for the Clinton years of 13.417 deaths instead of the genuine published 8,035 in eight years.
Then you start inventing numbers from nowhere that I can see for the Bush-43 years, claiming the published total is 9,016 where in fact it's 9,550 in seven years in the original table.
These are overall deaths, nothing to do with casualties. I do the next calculations merely to show that your original conclusions were totally misleading, not because I offer any reason for them.
The Clinton armed forces averaged 1,519,646 members, the Bush-43 armed forces averaged 1,219,878 members.
The average death rate for all US armed forces in the Clinton years was 66 per 100,000 members annually.
The average death rate for all US armed forces in the Bush-43 years was 112 per 100,000 members annually.
Can you comment on the origin of the totals in your table?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
If you want to see where the real losses of human life are, how about some civilian death numbers during the 20th century not including the two world wars:
Mexico Revolution 1910 – 20: 1,000,000,
Armenian Massacre 1910 – 20: 1,500,000
China 1917-28: 800,000
China 1928 – 37: 3,100,000
Korean War 1950 -33: 2,800,000
N Korea 1948–87: 1,663,000
Rwanda & Burundi 1959 – 1995: 1,350,000
Vietnam War 1965 – 63: 1,700,000
Combodia Civil War 1970 – 75: 600,000
Laos 1959- 75: 250,000
Ethiopia Civil War: 1962 – 92: 1,400,000
Nigeria 1966 – 70: 1,000,000
Bangladesh 1971: 1,250,000
Cambodia 1975 – 78 (Khmer Rouge) 1,650,000
Mozambique 1975-92: 1,000,000
Afghanistan 1979 -2001: 1,800,000
Iran Iraq War: 1980-88: 1,000,000
Sudan 1983 (still on going): 1,900,000
Congo 1998 (still on going): 3,800,000
Balkan Wars 1912-13: 140,000
Spanish Civil War 1936-39: 465,000
Russia Finland War 1939-40: 150,000
Greece Civil War 1943-49: 158,000
Yugoslavia 1944 -80: 200,000
Columbia 1946-58: 200,000
India 1947: 500,000
Algeria 1954 – 62: 537,000
Indonesia 1965-66: 400,000
Uganda 19650-66: 300,000
East Timor 1975-99: 225,000
Cambodai Civil War 1978-91: 225,000
Iraq (Suddam Husein) 1979-2003: 300,000
Iraq (due to international embargo) 1990 – 350,000
Bosnia & Herzegovina 1992-95: 175,000
Somalia Civil War 1991 (still on going): 400,000
Greco Turkis War 1919-22: 250,000
Lebanon 1975-90: 150,000
Mexico Revolution 1910 – 20: 1,000,000,
Armenian Massacre 1910 – 20: 1,500,000
China 1917-28: 800,000
China 1928 – 37: 3,100,000
Korean War 1950 -33: 2,800,000
N Korea 1948–87: 1,663,000
Rwanda & Burundi 1959 – 1995: 1,350,000
Vietnam War 1965 – 63: 1,700,000
Combodia Civil War 1970 – 75: 600,000
Laos 1959- 75: 250,000
Ethiopia Civil War: 1962 – 92: 1,400,000
Nigeria 1966 – 70: 1,000,000
Bangladesh 1971: 1,250,000
Cambodia 1975 – 78 (Khmer Rouge) 1,650,000
Mozambique 1975-92: 1,000,000
Afghanistan 1979 -2001: 1,800,000
Iran Iraq War: 1980-88: 1,000,000
Sudan 1983 (still on going): 1,900,000
Congo 1998 (still on going): 3,800,000
Balkan Wars 1912-13: 140,000
Spanish Civil War 1936-39: 465,000
Russia Finland War 1939-40: 150,000
Greece Civil War 1943-49: 158,000
Yugoslavia 1944 -80: 200,000
Columbia 1946-58: 200,000
India 1947: 500,000
Algeria 1954 – 62: 537,000
Indonesia 1965-66: 400,000
Uganda 19650-66: 300,000
East Timor 1975-99: 225,000
Cambodai Civil War 1978-91: 225,000
Iraq (Suddam Husein) 1979-2003: 300,000
Iraq (due to international embargo) 1990 – 350,000
Bosnia & Herzegovina 1992-95: 175,000
Somalia Civil War 1991 (still on going): 400,000
Greco Turkis War 1919-22: 250,000
Lebanon 1975-90: 150,000
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Spot, I'm not ignoring you. I just don't have time to spend right now.
I got the table from someone I considered reliable. I went to the source and did a spot check where I concluded it passed the smell test.
Later....
I got the table from someone I considered reliable. I went to the source and did a spot check where I concluded it passed the smell test.
Later....
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
apparently this ones been circulating since November
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... deaths.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... deaths.htm
Who are they to protest me? Who are they? Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!
:yh_glasse
rambo
:yh_glasse
rambo
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Clint;772611 wrote: Spot, I'm not ignoring you. I just don't have time to spend right now.
I got the table from someone I considered reliable. I went to the source and did a spot check where I concluded it passed the smell test.
Later....
No rush. It's just that what the post said and what the FAS said seem to be at odds.
I got the table from someone I considered reliable. I went to the source and did a spot check where I concluded it passed the smell test.
Later....
No rush. It's just that what the post said and what the FAS said seem to be at odds.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Clint;772517 wrote: Do your own research and do not be swayed by what you see on TV or read in most newspapers.
The humorous thing about bias ... is that your article is much more slanted than the media you are attacking (for being slanted).
The humorous thing about bias ... is that your article is much more slanted than the media you are attacking (for being slanted).
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
I think the point is that the casualty figures for the US military in Iraq are actually quite low considering the nature of the conflict there, however the civilian death rate is enourmous. The main problem that faces the US is the one that faced say Britain in the Crimean war in the 1850s, where you have a laissre faire democracy fighting a war without being prepared to have a society or economy that is fully geared for war, these sorts of wars are never popular at home, and hard to maintain for long periods of time. The War in Iraq is now into its 5th year and there is no real end in sight as far as I can see, its an open-ended commitment now, because building the Iraq government and its institutions up to a point where they will not collapse as soon as the US military pull out is still years away into the future, so the incoming president will either have to recommit to keeping or even increasing troop levels, and financial commitment for the rest of their term of office or disengage as soon as is physically possible, neither option is very pleasant.
In the meantime, NATO is struggling in Iraq, and the US is reduced to blaming the "reluctance" of NATO allies because its own army is too busy trying to hold Iraq together to do a lot more in Afghanistan, which is where the real problem is (though Iraq is now also a failed state and will doubtless be a haven for terrorists for decades, which is precisely the opposite of what was supposed to happen). I think before the French and Germans get blamed for Afghanistan, its important to remember that both countries strongly urged the Bush administration not to invade Iraq because it was not relevant in terms of taking on Al Queda at all, and that Afghanistan and Pakistan was where the real problems with these Jihadists (who were responsible for Sept 11 (not Saddam) were, which is what all this was supposed to be about, not regime change in Iraq which was (and is) a sideshow, and I think that events have proven they were right.
In the meantime, NATO is struggling in Iraq, and the US is reduced to blaming the "reluctance" of NATO allies because its own army is too busy trying to hold Iraq together to do a lot more in Afghanistan, which is where the real problem is (though Iraq is now also a failed state and will doubtless be a haven for terrorists for decades, which is precisely the opposite of what was supposed to happen). I think before the French and Germans get blamed for Afghanistan, its important to remember that both countries strongly urged the Bush administration not to invade Iraq because it was not relevant in terms of taking on Al Queda at all, and that Afghanistan and Pakistan was where the real problems with these Jihadists (who were responsible for Sept 11 (not Saddam) were, which is what all this was supposed to be about, not regime change in Iraq which was (and is) a sideshow, and I think that events have proven they were right.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
I can tell you to the day when the war in Iraq will be finished, it's the day when the Iraqi government repudiates all the trade agreements put in place by the Interim Authority offering beneficial arrangements to US firms. That's when the fat lady sings and not before.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
spot;772628 wrote: No rush. It's just that what the post said and what the FAS said seem to be at odds.
Sorry for posting then running off. I have had a very stressful five days. My mother had a serious health crisis and she is now undergoing physical rehabilitation. We are hopeful she will respond to the therapy and have many more good years.
I just need to set the record straight on this thread. I’m embarrassed. I should have spent more time making sure the numbers were right before I posted them.
You would think a guy my age would know better.
Sorry for posting then running off. I have had a very stressful five days. My mother had a serious health crisis and she is now undergoing physical rehabilitation. We are hopeful she will respond to the therapy and have many more good years.
I just need to set the record straight on this thread. I’m embarrassed. I should have spent more time making sure the numbers were right before I posted them.
You would think a guy my age would know better.Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
rjwould;772956 wrote:
An example is when American (mostly) men are willing to join the military and sacrifice their lives (potentially) but don't want to sacrifice a little income (as taxes) for the betterment of their own less fortunate people and infrastructure..
We'll give our life, but not our money.......hum!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!?? The only time a military member doesn't pay taxes is when he/she is IN a war zone!!
As a military wife who's husband is deployed AGAIN, I can assure you that we absolutely can NOT live on his paycheck alone and I most certainly DO pay taxes on my paychecks.
As an active duty military member, deployed in a war zone - my husband will make about $30,000 in the coming year. Do you honestly begrudge him the $1,000 he would pay in taxes? Would you if he was literally standing between YOU and an invading force?
An example is when American (mostly) men are willing to join the military and sacrifice their lives (potentially) but don't want to sacrifice a little income (as taxes) for the betterment of their own less fortunate people and infrastructure..
We'll give our life, but not our money.......hum!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!?? The only time a military member doesn't pay taxes is when he/she is IN a war zone!!
As a military wife who's husband is deployed AGAIN, I can assure you that we absolutely can NOT live on his paycheck alone and I most certainly DO pay taxes on my paychecks.
As an active duty military member, deployed in a war zone - my husband will make about $30,000 in the coming year. Do you honestly begrudge him the $1,000 he would pay in taxes? Would you if he was literally standing between YOU and an invading force?
Sandi
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Jester;775044 wrote: Well then please add 18 Military combat deaths to line 1993. What is the reasoning behind excluding these men?
Added:
Please add 6 more US military men to that list, I recall 2 seperate incidents in August of 93 in the same location.
Table 5. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006, Part II, the Cause of Death column labelled "Terrorist Attack" counts 29 deaths in 1993 and lists the source as the Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division at
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/C ... _Rates.pdf
Added:
Please add 6 more US military men to that list, I recall 2 seperate incidents in August of 93 in the same location.
Table 5. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006, Part II, the Cause of Death column labelled "Terrorist Attack" counts 29 deaths in 1993 and lists the source as the Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division at
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/C ... _Rates.pdf
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
How come no one mentions the wounded-some 30,000 plus so far and mounting.
What's the point of this? Bush is better than Clinton because he has killed fewer americans so far? This isn't some kind of game score you're keeping in a war video game. It's peoples lives ended or destroyed that should have you asking why are your troops fighting. If you support your troops maybe you should ask why and not be put off by those who think it unpatriotic to question what is done in your name.
What's the point of this? Bush is better than Clinton because he has killed fewer americans so far? This isn't some kind of game score you're keeping in a war video game. It's peoples lives ended or destroyed that should have you asking why are your troops fighting. If you support your troops maybe you should ask why and not be put off by those who think it unpatriotic to question what is done in your name.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
One should be most concerned about countries who don't count. Counting is the result of caring about life. Those we war with gladly hide in the midst of their women and children putting them at risk right along side the warrior. They don't war against our warriors they war and against societies and their goal is to destroy men, women and children alike.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
You don't think that has something to do with the disparity of resources available to them, vis a vis that available to the home team?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Clint;775366 wrote: One should be most concerned about countries who don't count. Counting is the result of caring about life. Those we war with gladly hide in the midst of their women and children putting them at risk right along side the warrior. They don't war against our warriors they war and against societies and their goal is to destroy men, women and children alike.
Then why don't the US keep a count of the number civilians killed in Iraq - or even official figures of enemy combatant deaths?
Then why don't the US keep a count of the number civilians killed in Iraq - or even official figures of enemy combatant deaths?
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Clint;775366 wrote: One should be most concerned about countries who don't count. Counting is the result of caring about life. Those we war with gladly hide in the midst of their women and children putting them at risk right along side the warrior. They don't war against our warriors they war and against societies and their goal is to destroy men, women and children alike.
So why don't you count your wounded-is it because 3,000 doesn't sound as bad as 30,000?
Here we go. Our enemy is less than us so what happens to those around them does not reflect on us. there are no innocents The end justifies the means.
Your enemy was a bunch of terrorist not a nation state.
No nation state has attacked you or declared war on you.
You did not go after the terrorists you invaded a country that even your own intelligence services admit had no connection to those terrorist that attacked you. The pretext you did so (and I am ashamed to say we did as well) was created deliberately to mislead and justify an invasion that had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Like us you have not as yet called your leaders to account
None of the terrorists were nationals of the country you invaded so why did you not invade the country where they came from?
You consistently back up repressive regimes (such as saudi arabia which is the main source of islamic fundamentalism) while at the same time claiming to support and encourage democracy and freedom.
All you have done is give ammunition to those very same terrorist organisation you wish to destroy.
Pakistan is now a dead cert to become a fundamentalist state yet you say nothing when the dictator leading the country locks up all the liberal opposition-the very people who want to restore democracy.
Iran is now firmly in the grip of fundamentalist who took over after your puppet the shah was overthrown and geting more entrenched each day-the best thing an oppressive regime can have is an external enemy to distract attention from domestic matters.
The best way to stop terrorists is cut off the money supply. Going after the saudi bankers would at least make things harder for them.
You have allowed your government to suspend habeus corpus and arrest people and hold them without trial-not on american territory where your law might apply but away from your courts jurisdiction. 200 odd tears of checks and balances to control the power of the executive and no one bats an eye as laws are changed to give it more power and no one can stop it. It's not terrorists that take away freedom, that always happens from within.
The idea that a nation of 350 million is going to be taken over by fundamentalist Muslims is so laughable it would be funny were not so many taken in by it. Do you seriously think they are going to invade? It's not the terrorists that have removed fundamental human rights in the US it's your own government.
terrorism is nothing new in world politics. At least the US has finally learned that a terrorist is a terrorist and not some heroic freedom fighter. Maybe if they had learned that before helping the mujahadeen in afghanistan overthrow their government in the eighties things might be different now. You even made films about that-remember rambo three?
So why don't you count your wounded-is it because 3,000 doesn't sound as bad as 30,000?
Here we go. Our enemy is less than us so what happens to those around them does not reflect on us. there are no innocents The end justifies the means.
Your enemy was a bunch of terrorist not a nation state.
No nation state has attacked you or declared war on you.
You did not go after the terrorists you invaded a country that even your own intelligence services admit had no connection to those terrorist that attacked you. The pretext you did so (and I am ashamed to say we did as well) was created deliberately to mislead and justify an invasion that had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Like us you have not as yet called your leaders to account
None of the terrorists were nationals of the country you invaded so why did you not invade the country where they came from?
You consistently back up repressive regimes (such as saudi arabia which is the main source of islamic fundamentalism) while at the same time claiming to support and encourage democracy and freedom.
All you have done is give ammunition to those very same terrorist organisation you wish to destroy.
Pakistan is now a dead cert to become a fundamentalist state yet you say nothing when the dictator leading the country locks up all the liberal opposition-the very people who want to restore democracy.
Iran is now firmly in the grip of fundamentalist who took over after your puppet the shah was overthrown and geting more entrenched each day-the best thing an oppressive regime can have is an external enemy to distract attention from domestic matters.
The best way to stop terrorists is cut off the money supply. Going after the saudi bankers would at least make things harder for them.
You have allowed your government to suspend habeus corpus and arrest people and hold them without trial-not on american territory where your law might apply but away from your courts jurisdiction. 200 odd tears of checks and balances to control the power of the executive and no one bats an eye as laws are changed to give it more power and no one can stop it. It's not terrorists that take away freedom, that always happens from within.
The idea that a nation of 350 million is going to be taken over by fundamentalist Muslims is so laughable it would be funny were not so many taken in by it. Do you seriously think they are going to invade? It's not the terrorists that have removed fundamental human rights in the US it's your own government.
terrorism is nothing new in world politics. At least the US has finally learned that a terrorist is a terrorist and not some heroic freedom fighter. Maybe if they had learned that before helping the mujahadeen in afghanistan overthrow their government in the eighties things might be different now. You even made films about that-remember rambo three?
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Bryn Mawr;775391 wrote: Then why don't the US keep a count of the number civilians killed in Iraq - or even official figures of enemy combatant deaths?
1. Counting would be near impossible...an estimate at best.
2. Announcing your estimate is foolish. If low the enemy would use it to say you aren't succeeding...if high the enemy says you are a criminal.
3. Most of the civilians killed in Iraq are killed by Iraqis.
1. Counting would be near impossible...an estimate at best.
2. Announcing your estimate is foolish. If low the enemy would use it to say you aren't succeeding...if high the enemy says you are a criminal.
3. Most of the civilians killed in Iraq are killed by Iraqis.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Clint;775624 wrote: 1. Counting would be near impossible...an estimate at best.
2. Announcing your estimate is foolish. If low the enemy would use it to say you aren't succeeding...if high the enemy says you are a criminal.
3. Most of the civilians killed in Iraq are killed by Iraqis.
If you create a state of anarchy in a country then you are responsible for the deaths caused by that anarchy whether you've pulled the trigger or not. If you start a war then you are responsible for all of the deaths that result from that war.
Just a Israel and Syria were responsible for the deaths of large numbers of Lebanese, so the US and the UK are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
2. Announcing your estimate is foolish. If low the enemy would use it to say you aren't succeeding...if high the enemy says you are a criminal.
3. Most of the civilians killed in Iraq are killed by Iraqis.
If you create a state of anarchy in a country then you are responsible for the deaths caused by that anarchy whether you've pulled the trigger or not. If you start a war then you are responsible for all of the deaths that result from that war.
Just a Israel and Syria were responsible for the deaths of large numbers of Lebanese, so the US and the UK are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Clint;775624 wrote: 1. Counting would be near impossible...an estimate at best.
This is true. But if the estimate is made using a random sample, a range can be estimated, within which the true count will fall to any chosen confidence.
Clint;775624 wrote: 2. Announcing your estimate is foolish. If low the enemy would use it to say you aren't succeeding...if high the enemy says you are a criminal.
Well, if high in terms of civilians, the Geneva conventions say that you are a criminal. So someone should be counting so that the world can see that international law is being adequately upheld.
Clint;775624 wrote: 3. Most of the civilians killed in Iraq are killed by Iraqis.
Not according to the mortality studies that have been done. There are many death that have not been attributed to anyone, but more of the violent deaths that have been attributed to someone have been attributed to coalition forces than to Iraqis.
(see: The Human Cost of War, table 2, pp8)
This is true. But if the estimate is made using a random sample, a range can be estimated, within which the true count will fall to any chosen confidence.
Clint;775624 wrote: 2. Announcing your estimate is foolish. If low the enemy would use it to say you aren't succeeding...if high the enemy says you are a criminal.
Well, if high in terms of civilians, the Geneva conventions say that you are a criminal. So someone should be counting so that the world can see that international law is being adequately upheld.
Clint;775624 wrote: 3. Most of the civilians killed in Iraq are killed by Iraqis.
Not according to the mortality studies that have been done. There are many death that have not been attributed to anyone, but more of the violent deaths that have been attributed to someone have been attributed to coalition forces than to Iraqis.
(see: The Human Cost of War, table 2, pp8)
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Bryn Mawr;775641 wrote: If you create a state of anarchy in a country then you are responsible for the deaths caused by that anarchy whether you've pulled the trigger or not. If you start a war then you are responsible for all of the deaths that result from that war.
Just a Israel and Syria were responsible for the deaths of large numbers of Lebanese, so the US and the UK are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
"The British are coming, the British are coming, start killing each other":rolleyes:
Just a Israel and Syria were responsible for the deaths of large numbers of Lebanese, so the US and the UK are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
"The British are coming, the British are coming, start killing each other":rolleyes:
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Clint;775736 wrote: "The British are coming, the British are coming, start killing each other":rolleyes:
Do you think you could maybe persuade one of your senior politicians to make derogatory comments about the British contribution in iraq or afghanistan? That way it won't be long before it's just the germans, french, spanish and italians that tell you to get stuffed.
Do you think you could maybe persuade one of your senior politicians to make derogatory comments about the British contribution in iraq or afghanistan? That way it won't be long before it's just the germans, french, spanish and italians that tell you to get stuffed.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Jester;775770 wrote: That is pure terrorism, and they have a choice to not perticipate in that activity.
And we'd agree that taking that alternative not to participate is for them to lie back and let the occupation of their land by foreigners succeed?
I take exception to this notion Clint held of the high-tech foreign invader being a "warrior" as though there were something noble or heroic about being trained in the art of killing, or tooled up with the better equipment, or protected by air cover, or surrounded by battalions of equally well equipped brothers in arms. The US has an entirely topsy-turvy false language forced on it by circumstance. The word freedom has to apply to obedience, the word democracy has to apply only to the aligned, the word heroic has to apply only to Westerners, the word terrorism can't possibly ever be applied to blitzkrieg.
And we'd agree that taking that alternative not to participate is for them to lie back and let the occupation of their land by foreigners succeed?
I take exception to this notion Clint held of the high-tech foreign invader being a "warrior" as though there were something noble or heroic about being trained in the art of killing, or tooled up with the better equipment, or protected by air cover, or surrounded by battalions of equally well equipped brothers in arms. The US has an entirely topsy-turvy false language forced on it by circumstance. The word freedom has to apply to obedience, the word democracy has to apply only to the aligned, the word heroic has to apply only to Westerners, the word terrorism can't possibly ever be applied to blitzkrieg.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Jester;775816 wrote: Spot, if they would sit back long enough to see the intentions of the 'invader' then they'd see us more as true 'liberators'. Cooperation, and understanding makes the world go around. The very presence of US armed forces in the Middle East is an affront to every Arab, no more and no less than the armed forces of any Arab country invading the US would be. They have as little right to do that as the US does in return. If you left your partisan nature to one side you'd see that's inevitable.
What's worse, it's unarguable that more innocent suffering has been caused by this "liberation" than could possibly have resulted from the previous regime being left to govern unconstrained. It's been a disaster. The only worse disaster I could imagine is if the US had achieved its goals and been emboldened to go on and do the same thing elsewhere, at least we've been spared that.
What's worse, it's unarguable that more innocent suffering has been caused by this "liberation" than could possibly have resulted from the previous regime being left to govern unconstrained. It's been a disaster. The only worse disaster I could imagine is if the US had achieved its goals and been emboldened to go on and do the same thing elsewhere, at least we've been spared that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Even were it true it wouldn't provide the slightest moral excuse for the invasion. Your administration made its mind up to go in and do this thing and lied to its back teeth to get there. It's an outrage that people refuse to allocate the blame where the blame's due, with that parody of a Commander in Chief of yours and his wretched get-rich-quick criminal cronies.
Even this thread started out with a lie - one that Clint didn't notice and I've no blame for him at all for not noticing it - but that's the level at which public opinion in set among your electorate. You can bet there's more Americans who believe the contents of that first post than have realized it's a fraud. The same goes for "we believed there were weapons of mass destruction". Hell no they didn't, what they believed was that they could win a Crusade.
Even this thread started out with a lie - one that Clint didn't notice and I've no blame for him at all for not noticing it - but that's the level at which public opinion in set among your electorate. You can bet there's more Americans who believe the contents of that first post than have realized it's a fraud. The same goes for "we believed there were weapons of mass destruction". Hell no they didn't, what they believed was that they could win a Crusade.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Jester;775771 wrote: Yeah the 'cluster method of interview' and ask how many deaths? Thats accurate
I'm not gonna get drawn into another argument over this document thats for sure.
Screw international law, why should we follow it now? My law is my trigger, violate MY law and you die. Its that simple....
I no longer care what any international group says unless they are firing back at me, then good luck to you and godspeed.
.... and you have no idea how much I wish I could actually follow through with my thoughts.
Take this to a personal level, after all, nations are the "people" of the world.
If, in your town, one family is bigger, tougher and far better armed than any other, would you suggest that they say screw the law, why should we follow it?
Would you suggest that one of the large corporations says the same?
Who is above the law? Who should be allowed to act outside it?
If that is what you are suggesting then anarchy follows. If it is not then what applies to people and corporations also applies to countries.
In answer to your question, you should follow it because the law embodies the ethical code of the community - put yourself outside the community and you become pariah.
I'm not gonna get drawn into another argument over this document thats for sure.
Screw international law, why should we follow it now? My law is my trigger, violate MY law and you die. Its that simple....
I no longer care what any international group says unless they are firing back at me, then good luck to you and godspeed.
.... and you have no idea how much I wish I could actually follow through with my thoughts.
Take this to a personal level, after all, nations are the "people" of the world.
If, in your town, one family is bigger, tougher and far better armed than any other, would you suggest that they say screw the law, why should we follow it?
Would you suggest that one of the large corporations says the same?
Who is above the law? Who should be allowed to act outside it?
If that is what you are suggesting then anarchy follows. If it is not then what applies to people and corporations also applies to countries.
In answer to your question, you should follow it because the law embodies the ethical code of the community - put yourself outside the community and you become pariah.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Jester;775958 wrote: You sound exactly like my father¦
I will tell you what I tell him every time we have this argument.
A single family against many, plus the police? Let them try, it’s a free country. If they succeed and operate outside the law then the following scenario applies:
If God rises up a force larger/stronger than me, and I am forced to submit to an act outside of Gods law, I will fight and would rather die than be forced to submit to it. If I am forced by a larger/stronger group to submit to an act inside of Gods law, I will submit. For reference sake my fathers view is that he will willingly and passively refuse to submit unto death. (Which is far braver than I am, I have concluded)
The scenario begs the question, whose law? There are times when I will act outside the law of government. At that point it’s my personal belief that God will sustain me or destroy me, I’m fine either way. It’s my choice to fight it, I would fight.
Anarchy doesn’t necessarily follow, it is a possibility, but not certain.
Without the police - you wouldn't let me have my world police
The law of the people - and I assume that if you choose to break the law then you are prepared to accept the consequences of that decision and face your punishment?
A breakdown of law and order is, by definition, anarchy. You have suggested that the law should not be followed (and what's good for you is good for everybody else) so you are, explicitly, advocating anarchy.
I will tell you what I tell him every time we have this argument.
A single family against many, plus the police? Let them try, it’s a free country. If they succeed and operate outside the law then the following scenario applies:
If God rises up a force larger/stronger than me, and I am forced to submit to an act outside of Gods law, I will fight and would rather die than be forced to submit to it. If I am forced by a larger/stronger group to submit to an act inside of Gods law, I will submit. For reference sake my fathers view is that he will willingly and passively refuse to submit unto death. (Which is far braver than I am, I have concluded)
The scenario begs the question, whose law? There are times when I will act outside the law of government. At that point it’s my personal belief that God will sustain me or destroy me, I’m fine either way. It’s my choice to fight it, I would fight.
Anarchy doesn’t necessarily follow, it is a possibility, but not certain.
Without the police - you wouldn't let me have my world police
The law of the people - and I assume that if you choose to break the law then you are prepared to accept the consequences of that decision and face your punishment?
A breakdown of law and order is, by definition, anarchy. You have suggested that the law should not be followed (and what's good for you is good for everybody else) so you are, explicitly, advocating anarchy.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Jester;775949 wrote: However there is a far cry difference between that and a crusade. There is no religious entity behind the US liberation of Iraq.
It's not a Crusade, huh?
Here, this is from Ha'aretz:In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The 'clean break' was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of 'Hashemite control in Iraq.' The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task. Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush.That doesn't sound very Crusade-like, you'll tell me?
There's an illustrative November 10, 2001 article 'Compassionate Conservatism' Goes To War by Ira Chernus:Bush and his speechwriters have constructed the war as an apocalyptic battle, pitting all the world’s religions against the “evildoers.” “The evil ones” are sin incarnate: irrational, inscrutable, implacable, Nazi-like beasts. So questions of motive, and certainly of U.S. policy, are irrelevant. It is simply a war of virtue against sin. No one can be neutral, because “God is not neutral.”
Bush’s rhetoric is built around a biblical drama of God guiding His chosen people from adversity to triumph over the forces of evil: “God's signs are not always the ones we look for,” he told a national prayer service. “We learn in tragedy that his purposes are not always our own.” But he allows no doubt that God is leading the U.S. to create a better future out of the ashes: “I believe my faith teaches that out of evil can come good.” American strength and resolve will create “an age of liberty here and across the world” -- after the war is won.
[...] He paints the war as a grand chance to wage the same moral crusade at the heart of "compassionate conservatism." By portraying the attacks and the attackers as absolute evil, Bush makes it clear that the U.S. now represents absolute good. The moral relativism and pursuit of “options,” so widely attributed to “the ‘60s generation,” is no longer an option. (New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, made this point explicitly.) Americans are now “less innocent,” the president says, meaning (in conservative jargon) that we now believe in the reality of uncaused and absolute evil. The “evildoers” must take the full, lethal consequences of their acts. No appeal to circumstances or external factors is permitted.
If there is now a war between absolute good and absolute evil, there is an inescapable duty to fight against evil. Accepting this difference and duty becomes the test of a patriotic American. And patriotism itself becomes a test in presidential rhetoric. Americans are all challenged to show resolve and discipline. It is a test of our willingness to sacrifice immediate pleasures for a longer term good. When the president urges Americans to boost the economy by spending money, he frames this, too, as a form of test and sacrifice. Of course it's a Crusade, how blinkered do you have to be not to admit it?
This Commander in Chief uses phrases like "bring'em on" and gets flown out to an aircraft carrier in a pilot's suit just for the photo-op of "mission accomplished". He's a shallow creature, goodness knows why anyone tolerates him, but he's in Iraq because God and a host of fundamentalist preachers told him to go there. Commander in Chiefs have no business thinking good and evil exist, far less that they personally represent one of the poles.
It's not a Crusade, huh?
Here, this is from Ha'aretz:In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The 'clean break' was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of 'Hashemite control in Iraq.' The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task. Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush.That doesn't sound very Crusade-like, you'll tell me?
There's an illustrative November 10, 2001 article 'Compassionate Conservatism' Goes To War by Ira Chernus:Bush and his speechwriters have constructed the war as an apocalyptic battle, pitting all the world’s religions against the “evildoers.” “The evil ones” are sin incarnate: irrational, inscrutable, implacable, Nazi-like beasts. So questions of motive, and certainly of U.S. policy, are irrelevant. It is simply a war of virtue against sin. No one can be neutral, because “God is not neutral.”
Bush’s rhetoric is built around a biblical drama of God guiding His chosen people from adversity to triumph over the forces of evil: “God's signs are not always the ones we look for,” he told a national prayer service. “We learn in tragedy that his purposes are not always our own.” But he allows no doubt that God is leading the U.S. to create a better future out of the ashes: “I believe my faith teaches that out of evil can come good.” American strength and resolve will create “an age of liberty here and across the world” -- after the war is won.
[...] He paints the war as a grand chance to wage the same moral crusade at the heart of "compassionate conservatism." By portraying the attacks and the attackers as absolute evil, Bush makes it clear that the U.S. now represents absolute good. The moral relativism and pursuit of “options,” so widely attributed to “the ‘60s generation,” is no longer an option. (New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, made this point explicitly.) Americans are now “less innocent,” the president says, meaning (in conservative jargon) that we now believe in the reality of uncaused and absolute evil. The “evildoers” must take the full, lethal consequences of their acts. No appeal to circumstances or external factors is permitted.
If there is now a war between absolute good and absolute evil, there is an inescapable duty to fight against evil. Accepting this difference and duty becomes the test of a patriotic American. And patriotism itself becomes a test in presidential rhetoric. Americans are all challenged to show resolve and discipline. It is a test of our willingness to sacrifice immediate pleasures for a longer term good. When the president urges Americans to boost the economy by spending money, he frames this, too, as a form of test and sacrifice. Of course it's a Crusade, how blinkered do you have to be not to admit it?
This Commander in Chief uses phrases like "bring'em on" and gets flown out to an aircraft carrier in a pilot's suit just for the photo-op of "mission accomplished". He's a shallow creature, goodness knows why anyone tolerates him, but he's in Iraq because God and a host of fundamentalist preachers told him to go there. Commander in Chiefs have no business thinking good and evil exist, far less that they personally represent one of the poles.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military Losses for the Past 20 Years
Jester;775974 wrote: No, I did not suggest anarchy, your senario suggested that in an established lawful group one entity became lawless and opposed the group, I suggested the police handle it first, but if it crosses my path and I was being forced I said I'd fight back, and not submit. That is self protection, self defense.
However at some point it is possible that a lawful society can lose or forget their lawful ways and decrease thier morality to that which is below Gods moral standard, at that point, if that entity crossed my path to force me to submit I'd fight.
What would you do?
Anarchy by definition is lawlessness, I'm suggesting that on occasion it is entirely possible that the lawful people may be in the minority and need to defend and protect themselves. I would submit thats rebellion to the authority, but not anarchy.
added: I just realized you may have invisioned my family as the family in your initial senario, I took it as someone elses family and not mine. Did I get your original senario wrong?
added: also as to your question: I suppose it would depend on the law, if I had to kill someone under the legal definition of self defense and was convicted of Murder I'd not sit for the punishment, no. But if through my own unlawfulness committed a crime I'd submit to it legally yes.
My initial scenario was totally generic - I would not personalise it without making that clear.
My scenario proposed an established group of normal people - basically lawful but with human failings, of which one entity said "sod this for a game of soldiers" and stepped outside the law. There were no police in the area, they'd gone off on holiday enjoying themselves and wouldn't be back anytime soon. You cite self protection as an acceptable reason to fight back.
In this instance, the entity who's stepped outside the law is the US (aided and abetted by the UK) so, by your reckoning, the Middle Eastern states are quite justified in fighting back.
I agree with your assessment - it's what I'd do myself.
There is a rider to this - self protection can only be cited at the time of the assault. If, after he event, you go round to the offenders house and beat the stuffing out of him then you are guilty under the law. The correct recourse is to the court.
In a situation of anarchy it is usual for the lawful people to be in the minority, however, in a situation where laws are in place and (mostly) being observed, a minority who disagrees with those laws does not have the right to elect to disregard them and to stand outside the law.
I ask you to consider the company the US is keeping in refusing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the International Court of Law - are these countries you'd want to be associated with?
However at some point it is possible that a lawful society can lose or forget their lawful ways and decrease thier morality to that which is below Gods moral standard, at that point, if that entity crossed my path to force me to submit I'd fight.
What would you do?
Anarchy by definition is lawlessness, I'm suggesting that on occasion it is entirely possible that the lawful people may be in the minority and need to defend and protect themselves. I would submit thats rebellion to the authority, but not anarchy.
added: I just realized you may have invisioned my family as the family in your initial senario, I took it as someone elses family and not mine. Did I get your original senario wrong?
added: also as to your question: I suppose it would depend on the law, if I had to kill someone under the legal definition of self defense and was convicted of Murder I'd not sit for the punishment, no. But if through my own unlawfulness committed a crime I'd submit to it legally yes.
My initial scenario was totally generic - I would not personalise it without making that clear.
My scenario proposed an established group of normal people - basically lawful but with human failings, of which one entity said "sod this for a game of soldiers" and stepped outside the law. There were no police in the area, they'd gone off on holiday enjoying themselves and wouldn't be back anytime soon. You cite self protection as an acceptable reason to fight back.
In this instance, the entity who's stepped outside the law is the US (aided and abetted by the UK) so, by your reckoning, the Middle Eastern states are quite justified in fighting back.
I agree with your assessment - it's what I'd do myself.
There is a rider to this - self protection can only be cited at the time of the assault. If, after he event, you go round to the offenders house and beat the stuffing out of him then you are guilty under the law. The correct recourse is to the court.
In a situation of anarchy it is usual for the lawful people to be in the minority, however, in a situation where laws are in place and (mostly) being observed, a minority who disagrees with those laws does not have the right to elect to disregard them and to stand outside the law.
I ask you to consider the company the US is keeping in refusing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the International Court of Law - are these countries you'd want to be associated with?