Scream Bloody Murder

[Brant Gaede]

It is empirically clear that the more representative a government is and the more it protects individual civil liberties the less likely it is to start a war, go to war, or kill it's own citizens. We have an end to war, it is the promulgation of constitutional market based democracies.

Korea, Vietnam (ten years of war!), Iraq I, Bosnia, IraqII. All undeclared wars wherein U.S. troops were killed, each one a citizen.

They weren't all citizens, just almost all. Non-citizens serving in American armed forces has been going on since the country started.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

[arkon]

Haven't watched the vids yet. I have to agree more with Ba'al. I like the beacon of hope type image better. Because when invading another country trying to right supposed wrongs, who pays? Who gains? If it was a moral imperative troops and aid would be spread throughout the entire "third world". Most aid or freedom fighting has more to do with lining some looters pockets than with any rational reaction to a situation. A friend once put it to me, that to police the world, you would have a police state... and I don't know about you, but that seems to be the direction of the US. It's more important to combat the current scapegoat image they have generated than it is to uphold basic civil liberties.

I do think we need to investigate these events as they are horrible, but I think eliminating a few arms dealers would go alot farther than full-scale, unprovoked invasions and endless aid shipments. I mean, I don't know about you, but I'm in no rush to jump into these hostile zones myself, so how could I validate a policy to send someone else in?

Guess I'll have to check these out, yet... Does the reporter reach any conclusions or strats to help?

[BaalChatzaf]

It is empirically clear that the more representative a government is and the more it protects individual civil liberties the less likely it is to start a war, go to war, or kill it's own citizens. We have an end to war, it is the promulgation of constitutional market based democracies.

Korea, Vietnam (ten years of war!), Iraq I, Bosnia, IraqII. All undeclared wars wherein U.S. troops were killed, each one a citizen.

They weren't all citizens, just almost all. Non-citizens serving in American armed forces has been going on since the country started.

--Brant

The overwhelming majority of war casualties in the U.S. Armed forces are U.S. citizens. We were still drafting canon fodder through the end of the Vietnam War. Fortunately the draft has been discontinued but American lives are still squandered by our peace loving democracy.

We have spent billions to develop killing machines that minimize the risk to our troops. Anyone who sends a man into harm's way to do what a machine can do better is a criminal.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So,

Did anyone watch the documentary?

I think it is one of the best things CNN has ever done.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It is empirically clear that the more representative a government is and the more it protects individual civil liberties the less likely it is to start a war, go to war, or kill it's own citizens. We have an end to war, it is the promulgation of constitutional market based democracies.

Korea, Vietnam (ten years of war!), Iraq I, Bosnia, IraqII. All undeclared wars wherein U.S. troops were killed, each one a citizen.

They weren't all citizens, just almost all. Non-citizens serving in American armed forces has been going on since the country started.

--Brant

The overwhelming majority of war casualties in the U.S. Armed forces are U.S. citizens. We were still drafting canon fodder through the end of the Vietnam War. Fortunately the draft has been discontinued but American lives are still squandered by our peace loving democracy.

We have spent billions to develop killing machines that minimize the risk to our troops. Anyone who sends a man into harm's way to do what a machine can do better is a criminal.

Small stuff. Look at what LBJ and McNamara did with US soldiers by sending them to Vietnam for nothing. At least Americans were sent to Iraq for the oil, albeit with very mixed results. The best you can say about the latter is Hussein could make no more use of it after his ass was kicked around and down.

--Brant

[Matus1976]

It is empirically clear that the more representative a government is and the more it protects individual civil liberties the less likely it is to start a war, go to war, or kill it's own citizens. We have an end to war, it is the promulgation of constitutional market based democracies.

Korea, Vietnam (ten years of war!), Iraq I, Bosnia, IraqII. All undeclared wars wherein U.S. troops were killed, each one a citizen.

Some end to war.

Ba'al Chatzaf

1) The US did not start the Vietnam War, Korean War, or Iraq War (I or II)

2) The US has not gone to war with another liberal democratic constitutional republic

3) It is proper and just to assist allies with common interests in fighting common enemies (such as the South Vietnamese fighting Soviet Communism, or the South Koreans fighting the Chinese and Soviet backed communist North Koreans)

I did not say "War has ended" and your reply is ignorant hyperbole and just cynical nihilism. War has ended between the US and Great Britain, Between the US and France, between the US and Germany, between the US and (any constitutional representative republic) The US does not run gulags or stasi, it does not imprison and work to death millions of it's own citizens for the crime of disagreeing with the government, or writing publications about free speech.

[Matus1976]

Haven't watched the vids yet. I have to agree more with Ba'al. I like the beacon of hope type image better.

Of course you do, because it means you don't actually do anything except prance about looking good and patting yourself on the back for being a 'beacon of hope' I'm sure that if your next door neighbor was being beaten and raped, reminding her that you are a 'beacon of hope' will make her feel much better.

Because when invading another country trying to right supposed wrongs, who pays? Who gains?

First of all, a country which does not have free speech and a constitutional grantee of civil liberties and of emigration has no business being called a 'country' and is nothing more than a giant hostage camp ruled by thugs. Who gains is the free people of the world who enjoy the fruits of the labor of millions of more free people and the peace and prosperity which comes from the end of murderous dictatorial rule. Who pays is the murderous dictators.

If it was a moral imperative troops and aid would be spread throughout the entire "third world". Most aid or freedom fighting has more to do with lining some looters pockets than with any rational reaction to a situation.

The obvious question it what is the proper rational reaction to the situation? It is for all the free nations of the world, which happen to be the richest and most militarily powerful, to form an international alliance which opposes the creation and promulgation of murderous dictatorships and enact change of these nations through various steps starting with diplomatic measure but ending always with the application of physical force strategically directed against the murderous rulers and the upper echelon of command. Liberal foreign policy is suicidally altruistic, conservative foreign policy is naively realpolitik sacrificing long term rational self interest for short term returns. A rational foreign policy is principle based opposition in our long term rational self interest to the assaults on individual civil liberties and threats that aggressive totalitarian nations pose. Just as individuals within a nation pool resources to oppose murderous thieves in their common interest, individuals in nations within the same planet are acting in their rational long term self interest opposing murderous dictatorships.

A friend once put it to me, that to police the world, you would have a police state... and I don't know about you, but that seems to be the direction of the US.

You're friend should get out of that hippie coffee shop and travel to a nation which does not have rule of law nor constitutional protection of civil liberties to learn what a 'police' state is.

I do think we need to investigate these events as they are horrible, but I think eliminating a few arms dealers would go alot farther than full-scale, unprovoked invasions and endless aid shipments. I mean, I don't know about you, but I'm in no rush to jump into these hostile zones myself, so how could I validate a policy to send someone else in?

Most nations which recieve foriegn aide refuse to let the donor nations actually distribute it or monitor the distribution. North Korea probably confiscates 3/4's of donated aid and resells it on the black market. This would be a good first demand of an alliance of free nations, we distribute our own aide, or monitor distribution by international NGO's. That way you ensure it get's where it is needed. Whether you agree with foreign aide or not, if there is going to be aide, it should not be handed blindly over to murderous thugs.

[Matus1976]

Small stuff. Look at what LBJ and McNamara did with US soldiers by sending them to Vietnam for nothing. At least Americans were sent to Iraq for the oil, albeit with very mixed results. The best you can say about the latter is Hussein could make no more use of it after his ass was kicked around and down.

--Brant

The Vietnam war did a great deal to not only delay the expansion of the Soviet Empire but to also precipitate it's collapse. Today the territories making up the former soviet union constitute 6% of the worlds population and 3% of it's GDP. The US makes up 5% of the worlds population and >20% of the worlds GDP. Considering the extreme inefficiencies in command economies, to even reach that level of GDP required much more energy and effort than is obvious. Nations at similar economic levels of the Soviet Union have a GDP effeciency about 1/40th that of the United States (for every kWhr consumed X GDP per Capita is produced) While the height of spending in the Vietnam war for the US peaked at about 6% of GDP, the equated to almost 60% of the Soviet Unions GDP. Yes you read that correctly, at the height of the Vietnam War the Soviet Union was expending more than half it's entire GDP in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese did not fight with sticks in tunnels, they fought with tanks, artillery, MIG's and AK47's, and Anti-aircraft guns. The Vietnam war CRIPPLED the Soviet economy. The Afghan war and US supplied opposition disabled it, and the SDI program finally killed it. Cold War policy was to oppose and contain murderous expansionist communism anywhere possible, to always deal the best blow against our worst enemy with available resources. The Vietnam war was a strategic cold war victory, even though it was a defeat for South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Burma. It need not have been and the only reason defeat was regurgitated from the jaws of Victory was that the democratically controlled congress made military material aide to Indochina illegal.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Matus1976

[Brant Gaede]

There were "no jaws of victory" because Vietnam was a no-win war. Congress cutting off aid was only the logical consequence of Nixon's "Vietnamization" and Johnson throwing in the towel in 1968. If you give up the other guy wins. As you point out other costs were incurred by the USSR trying to keep up with the US this and that and even LBJ wasn't obscene or smart enough to fight a major proxy war with that in mind. He was in completely over his head trying to contain communism. To the extent he may have succeeded he deserves no credit at all.

--Brant

[Judith]

Did anyone watch the documentary?

I did.

I commonly refer people to Nazi Germany when they tend to start assuming that Bad Things "can't happen here, in this day and age". Looks like I don't have to go back that far.

The indifference does shock me. Surely volunteer forces could be used to step in in these situations. Surely money could be raised.

Judith

[kiaer.ts]

Small stuff. Look at what LBJ and McNamara did with US soldiers by sending them to Vietnam for nothing. At least Americans were sent to Iraq for the oil, albeit with very mixed results. The best you can say about the latter is Hussein could make no more use of it after his ass was kicked around and down.

--Brant

The Vietnam war did a great deal to not only delay the expansion of the Soviet Empire but to also precipitate it's collapse. Today the territories making up the former soviet union constitute 6% of the worlds population and 3% of it's GDP. The US makes up 5% of the worlds population and >20% of the worlds GDP. Considering the extreme inefficiencies in command economies, to even reach that level of GDP required much more energy and effort than is obvious. Nations at similar economic levels of the Soviet Union have a GDP effeciency about 1/40th that of the United States (for every kWhr consumed X GDP per Capita is produced) While the height of spending in the Vietnam war for the US peaked at about 6% of GDP, the equated to almost 60% of the Soviet Unions GDP. Yes you read that correctly, at the height of the Vietnam War the Soviet Union was expending more than half it's entire GDP in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese did not fight with sticks in tunnels, they fought with tanks, artillery, MIG's and AK47's, and Anti-aircraft guns. The Vietnam war CRIPPLED the Soviet economy. The Afghan war and US supplied opposition disabled it, and the SDI program finally killed it. Cold War policy was to oppose and contain murderous expansionist communism anywhere possible, to always deal the best blow against our worst enemy with available resources. The Vietnam war was a strategic cold war victory, even though it was a defeat for South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Burma. It need not have been and the only reason defeat was regurgitated from the jaws of Victory was that the democratically controlled congress made military material aide to Indochina illegal.

That's interesting. Do you have a source for that 60% figure?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

Hopefully indifference to genocide will be turned around with the Internet. I am convinced that allowing genocide to take root, wherever that happens, is one of mankind's greatest problems of this century. The "Scream Bloody Murder" documentary was like a breath of fresh air.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Judith,

Hopefully indifference to genocide will be turned around with the Internet. I am convinced that allowing genocide to take root, wherever that happens, is one of mankind's greatest problems of this century. The "Scream Bloody Murder" documentary was like a breath of fresh air.

Michael

Genocide is as old as the human race.

Early stories of genocide: Egyptians slaying the male children of the Israelites (from the bible, book of Exodus). G-D ordering the Israelites to wipe out the Amalekites (Bible:Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). In historical times Julius Caesar claims to have slain 500,000 in Gaul. The near extermination of the people of Tasmania. The slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks and Syrians. The elimination of the Cathars in France in the 12-th century. And the 20-th century genocides only too well known.

Genocide is as natural to mankind as breathing.

The wars of the 20-th century killed many more people than the genocides of the 20-th century. So total war has been the biggest problem of the 20-th century if you go by body count.

War is as natural to mankind as breathing. Since land became valuable for agriculture about 8000 years ago, war has been constant and endemic. There is no end in sight.

Then there are the religious wars. Jihad and Crusade. Need I say more?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Martin Radwin]

Haven't watched the vids yet. I have to agree more with Ba'al. I like the beacon of hope type image better.

Of course you do, because it means you don't actually do anything except prance about looking good and patting yourself on the back for being a 'beacon of hope' I'm sure that if your next door neighbor was being beaten and raped, reminding her that you are a 'beacon of hope' will make her feel much better.

So what exactly are you doing about all of the innocent citizens of countries around the world ruled by dictators? Are you now fighting in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else? Or do you leave the fighting and the dieing to others, because you have "other priorities", just like chickenhawk war criminal Dick Cheney? Do you feel proud of yourself for being an internet warrior, while making snide remarks about another poster prancing about looking good?

Because when invading another country trying to right supposed wrongs, who pays? Who gains?

First of all, a country which does not have free speech and a constitutional grantee of civil liberties and of emigration has no business being called a 'country' and is nothing more than a giant hostage camp ruled by thugs. Who gains is the free people of the world who enjoy the fruits of the labor of millions of more free people and the peace and prosperity which comes from the end of murderous dictatorial rule. Who pays is the murderous dictators.

What you leave out is much more significant than what you include in this calculation. So I'll include the part that you didn't see fit to mention. Here's a list of some other people who have paid for the wars that you glorify:

1) Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died or were wounded by the US invasion.

2) Millions of Iraqis who were ethnically cleansed from their homes and forced to flee and become refugees.

3) Over four thousand US soldiers who have been killed, along with tens of thousands of medical and psychological casualties.

4) Over a million Vietnamese killed during the Vietnam war.

5) Over a million Cambodians killed by the Khmer Rouge, as a direct result of the bombing of Cambodia that accompanied the Vietnam war.

6) Over 50,000 US soliders killed, along with several hundred thousand medical and psychological casualties.

7) Hundreds of thousands of young men drafted into servitude to fight the Vietnam war.

8) Trillions of dollars paid by US citizens, either directly through taxes or indirectly through inflation and debt used to pay for the wars.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Haven't watched the vids yet. I have to agree more with Ba'al. I like the beacon of hope type image better.

Of course you do, because it means you don't actually do anything except prance about looking good and patting yourself on the back for being a 'beacon of hope' I'm sure that if your next door neighbor was being beaten and raped, reminding her that you are a 'beacon of hope' will make her feel much better.

So what exactly are you doing about all of the innocent citizens of countries around the world ruled by dictators? Are you now fighting in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else? Or do you leave the fighting and the dieing to others, because you have "other priorities", just like chickenhawk war criminal Dick Cheney? Do you feel proud of yourself for being an internet warrior, while making snide remarks about another poster prancing about looking good?

Because when invading another country trying to right supposed wrongs, who pays? Who gains?

First of all, a country which does not have free speech and a constitutional grantee of civil liberties and of emigration has no business being called a 'country' and is nothing more than a giant hostage camp ruled by thugs. Who gains is the free people of the world who enjoy the fruits of the labor of millions of more free people and the peace and prosperity which comes from the end of murderous dictatorial rule. Who pays is the murderous dictators.

What you leave out is much more significant than what you include in this calculation. So I'll include the part that you didn't see fit to mention. Here's a list of some other people who have paid for the wars that you glorify:

1) Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died or were wounded by the US invasion.

2) Millions of Iraqis who were ethnically cleansed from their homes and forced to flee and become refugees.

3) Over four thousand US soldiers who have been killed, along with tens of thousands of medical and psychological casualties.

4) Over a million Vietnamese killed during the Vietnam war.

5) Over a million Cambodians killed by the Khmer Rouge, as a direct result of the bombing of Cambodia that accompanied the Vietnam war.

6) Over 50,000 US soliders killed, along with several hundred thousand medical and psychological casualties.

7) Hundreds of thousands of young men drafted into servitude to fight the Vietnam war.

8) Trillions of dollars paid by US citizens, either directly through taxes or indirectly through inflation and debt used to pay for the wars.

Martin

1) Maybe true IF you include the first Gulf War.

2) I don't know about "millions" but a lot moved.

5) 2-3 million, Vietnam for sure. Bombing? I dunno. The shitty French/Marxist intellectual milieu had a lot to do with this.

6) I think about 45,000 killed by combat with another 10,000 from all other causes.

7) Probably higher, for many enlisted to avoid the draft. I did.

8) Billions, not trillions, is my estimation. Trillions just seems much too high for Vietnam.

--Brant

Edited December 10, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[kiaer.ts]

War is as natural to mankind as breathing. Since land became valuable for agriculture about 8000 years ago, war has been constant and endemic. There is no end in sight.

Agriculture has nothing especial to do with war. 30% of males in both chimp troops and in hunter gatherer societies (Yanomamo, Asmat) die due to inter tribal violence. "War" arrowheads (which have barbs, and are only used to kill men, never for hunting) are found in Siberia and the Americas far predating agriculture. Testicles, brains and liver are delicacies.

[Brant Gaede]

War is as natural to mankind as breathing. Since land became valuable for agriculture about 8000 years ago, war has been constant and endemic. There is no end in sight.

Agriculture has nothing especial to do with war. 30% of males in both chimp troops and in hunter gatherer societies (Yanomamo, Asmat) die due to inter tribal violence. "War" arrowheads (which have barbs, and are only used to kill men, never for hunting) are found in Siberia and the Americas far predating agriculture. Testicles, brains and liver are delicacies.

Never heard of "war arrowheads" before. They were never mentioned when I studied anthropology. There has to be only a relatively contemporary attribution because ancient arrowheads by themselves tell little.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Need I say more?

Bob,

Sure.

"It's time to stop the genocidal crap in this world."

Man used to hunt with bow and arrow for his food. That is so natural that some people use a bow and arrow even today, but mostly for sport. Now people farm for the bulk of mankind's food.

Likewise, there used to be good tribal reasons for genocide (at least they made sense on a primitive level). They are now breaking down and more effective ways of settling differences without impeding progress are growing. However, I expect some primitive tribal feelings to survive as the sport of isolated individuals like the bow and arrow did.

Isolation and obstruction of genocide is growing in mankind's development and it cannot be halted. Abundance and the information revolution are seeing to that. I am proud to lend my own voice to it.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Need I say more?

Bob,

Sure.

"It's time to stop the genocidal crap in this world."

Fine. Tell us how to stop it. While you are at it, tell us how to stop murder, theft, fraud and just plain bad manners. One thing that would stop it is the extinction of the human race. I am not in favor of that. As a species we are both smart and nasty. It is our nature. Some of us learn to overcome our excesses. Most of us do not. It is the Nature of the Beast. We are the baddest smartest apes in The Monkey House.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Fine. Tell us how to stop it.

Bob,

That's easy.

1. You start with public disclosure so evident it cannot be ignored. This creates public outrage.

2. Then you send in a military and take out the bad guys.

3. Then you send in some relief to get the starving and sick people back on their feet and organized.

4. Once they are productive, you stop the relief and start trading with them.

5. The good guys win.

Getting this ball rolling is where the Internet is taking the bad guys out in closed off regions. There is no sovereign right to commit genocide. Preventing it is one of the few legitimate reasons for a UN to exist.

If you are really interested in observing this process, you can start by watching the documentary. CNN and Amanpour did a powerful push in this direction.

If not, you can keep on preaching that there is no light as you keep your eyes closed.

Good exists and is freely chosen by the good guys. All you have to do is want it and choose it to start making it so.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Fine. Tell us how to stop it.

Bob,

That's easy.

1. You start with public disclosure so evident it cannot be ignored. This creates public outrage.

2. Then you send in a military and take out the bad guys.

3. Then you send in some relief to get the starving and sick people back on their feet and organized.

4. Once they are productive, you stop the relief and start trading with them.

5. The good guys win.

Getting this ball rolling is where the Internet is taking the bad guys out in closed off regions. There is no sovereign right to commit genocide. Preventing it is one of the few legitimate reasons for a UN to exist.

If you are really interested in observing this process, you can start by watching the documentary. CNN and Amanpour did a powerful push in this direction.

If not, you can keep on preaching that there is no light as you keep your eyes closed.

Good exists and is freely chosen by the good guys. All you have to do is want it and choose it to start making it so.

Michael

The evil that men do is agonizingly exposed in the newspapers and the broadcast media. The daily news is a dirge of violence and nastiness.

Our military might is not what it once was. It is an army capable of fighting 1.5 wars and that for a limited time. Occupation, was we have learned to our sorrow is very expensive and highly ineffectual. Our troops our killed daily and to no great effect. The only affordable means of dealing with the bad guys is air attack, with gas, chemicals or nukes. Evidence: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kill them all, and let God bury the bodies. We have neither the heart nor the stomach for this affordable means, so forget about it.

Occupation is out. It is expensive, time consuming and does not work very well. As soon as we leave, things will go back to what they were (with only a few notable exceptions - Germany and Japan). Hell man, we can't even clean up the State of Illinois.

In the case of our successes (and they are rare) it took nearly ten years to create a "safe" political culture in Germany and Japan. For the first few years of these occupations, corruption and racketeering was rampant (see -The Third Man-). Even some of our own people were "wetting their beaks". In Japan the Yakuza were back in business as soon as the U.S. got rid of the imperial crowd. The thugs were back, busy and getting filthy rich because the U.S. made it possible.

In Iraq our record of "nation building" is pathetic. The rebuilding (what there is of it) is expensive and riddled with corruption. And he have barely seen a drop of oil, the real economic reason for being there.

Your suggestions are well intended and impractical.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You're wrong, Bob.

The world is heading in that direction and it will happen irrespective of any one person.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The tribal impulse is hard-wired into humankind. I think a tendency to envy is to. These types of things can be sublimated both by individuals and societies generally. Someday, while the world sleeps, and humanity has become MSK-human and has forgotten these things, monsters from the ID will go out and kill everybody.

--Brant