billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
A remarkably relevant post on a vital subject.
At the risk of sounding dramatic, I feel this is one of the most important issues facing the world today.
It reminds me also of a quote by Samuel P. Huntingdon; "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
But that aside, America improving its standing in the world could arguably improve the world. Now wouldn't that be a great thing?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
At the risk of sounding dramatic, I feel this is one of the most important issues facing the world today.
It reminds me also of a quote by Samuel P. Huntingdon; "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
But that aside, America improving its standing in the world could arguably improve the world. Now wouldn't that be a great thing?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
nerdgirl 0
QuoteYou keep spouting hundreds of thousands. Show me where that number comes from...that the US and coalition forces have killed that number.
While I'm clearly not BillVon
, love to introduce primary data.
In this context of this thread, more recent numbers such the study published in the British medical journal Lancet last year: “Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey” by epidemiologists from John Hopkins University School of Public Health. That study estimated that close to 650,000 Iraqis had been killed between March 2003 and 2006 due to violence associated with war (i.e., from Coalition forces, insurgents, IEDs, air strikes, etc).
The values are higher than any other count of which I am aware. For example, Iraq Body Count, which relies on cross-referenced reports of specific fatalities, indicates 78,690 - 85,711 violent Iraqi deaths since 2003.
While I'm only an 'unauthorized armchair epidemiologist,' interloping into that field -- gave a talk recently on “Full Scale National Response Exercises and the Misuse of Epidemiological Models in Constructing Bioterrorism Scenarios,” on choosing transmissibility factors (R0) to fit the scenario rather than based on the epidemiologically observed values -- the sampling and analysis method (statistics) appears robust to me; and more importantly, has not been successfully challenged by folks who do epidemiology and health statistics for a living. The most resounding criticisms relate to the sampling methodology.
It's such a *huge* number ... particularly in comparison to all other estimates (including the official Iraqi Ministry of Health, the UN, and WHO) ... that one kind of has to go 'huh'? Initial skepticism is warranted ... but the study and the values published do seem to hold up to scrutiny.
Disambiguating direct deaths caused by US and coalition forces is difficult in no small part because the USG does not officially track foreign casualties, which is a strategic decision for which I can appreciate some of the arguments. Otoh, it's difficult to refute or refine other figures when the USG's response is "we don't track." The USG also does not openly track USG contractor deaths.
One could also consider the 250,000 - 500,000 children then-UN Ambassador & former Secretary of State Albright asserted were likely to have died as a result of sanctions: "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it" 1996. (A comment which she later conceded was less than wise in her memoir.)
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
QuoteA remarkably relevant post on a vital subject.
Thank you.
QuoteIt reminds me also of a quote by Samuel P. Huntingdon; "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
Aaah ... Huntington. That quote, the underlying ideas, and historical data deserves a thread of its own.
Along with consideration of superior techology & some geographic luck - guns, germs, steel, climate, crops, and domesticable animals.
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Skyrad 0
I'd recommend that the US doesn't persue policies that are overtly hypocritcal. For example, spouting bollocks about supporting democracy and encouraging it overseas and then arse kissing the Saudis (Yes the UK is guilty of that too). Supporting the regime in Azabijan and elsewhere. Claiming the high moral ground and the approving of the use of Torture. Guantanamo's prisons and ones like them elsewhere should be closed down and captured Terrorists be dealt with as criminals within the judicial system of the US.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
>>would you forgive them?
>Are we talking Pakistan or Iraq?
Both. We're talking about America's standing in the world, and both Pakistan and Iraq are part of the world.
>Of course I'd be angry.
I would expect you to be. There are now tens of thousands of people as angry as you would be, living in Iraq. Not because they hate us, or because they hate freedom, or because they are evil horrible islamic terrorists. They hate us because we killed their families.
>But we were attacked Bill. Repeatedly.
When did Iraq attack us?
>I submit that Saddam was involved.
Zero proof. A pure neo-con fantasy. There is more proof that Bush pulled off 9/11 than Saddam Hussein did.
>WMD's? Gone before we got there.
Definitely. We've proven that Saddam Hussein was correct when he claimed he had none.
>Probably in Syria now.
Another neo-con fantasy with zero proof. They were indeed gone, because they had been destroyed the FIRST time we bombed the country back into the stone age.
>You keep spouting hundreds of thousands. SHow me where that
>number comes from...that the US and coalition forces have killed that
>number.
Here's one link. It's common knowledge; you should be able to find any number of sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
>You said it was "sad" that our history includes going in search of
>monsters to destroy.
Actually, Patrick Henry said the monsters thing originally. Take it up with him.
>You revisionist historians always try to use today's situation and apply it
>to events decades ago. Doesn't work...never will.
Yes, I do indeed think that what we decided over 200 years ago applies to today's situations. Here's a document that I am sure you despise; it's dozens of decades old:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html
Can you imagine? Idiots like me believe in that old stuff. Heck, even soldiers pledge to defend it. Make sure you tell them the document they are defending is meaningless next time you talk to them.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites