Scream Bloody Murder

[Matus1976]

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

You are unfamiliar with basic facts of history. The Vietnam war was OVER, it was WON, the nobel peace prizes where handed out (To Kissinger and a North Vietnamese General, who knowing they would turn around and invade again had the integrity to refuse it) Nixon's "Vietnamization" program was very successful, and should have been started much earlier. The last US combat troops left Vietnam in May of 1973, Saigon fell in April of 1975, that's TWO YEARS. South Vietnam could have defended itself indefinitely with US military material aide without a single combat troop. Instead, congress forbid any material aide, and South Vietnam fell, Laos fell, Burma fell, and Cambodia fell, precipitating one of the worst democides in human history. South Korea has been defended with minimal US military aide against Chinese and soviet communist aggression for over 50 years (although as the worlds 13th largest economy, it should do it on it's own now)

[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.

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

Yes, but not off the top of my head, I'll have to get back to you on that. But you can take the current economic status of the former soviet territories, now that they do not have the soviet propaganda machine lying about their productivity, and project it backward compared against our military spending in Vietnam and their estimated military spending.

[Matus1976]

Genocide is as old as the human race.

Irrelevant

Genocide is as natural to mankind as breathing.

No it's not, it requires a tremendous and near life long indoctrination and dehumanization of the perpetrators about the victims. Read about the "Rape of Nanking" and the lifelong indoctrination by the totalitarian xenophobic government of Japan that was required to make Japanese soldiers capable of such inhuman brutality.

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.

You are completely and utterly wrong here. If by genocide you confine it to it's popular connotation of purely ethnic persecution, then perhaps that is true. But DEMOCIDES, which is a much more appropriate term, includes in organized mass murder whether it is racial, religious, or national in origin. And DEMOCIDES have killed 4-6 times as many people in the 20th century as war has killed.

Democide megamurderers

Mao Ze Dong - 75 Million killed

Joseph Stalin - 60 million (Stalin killed more Soviet Jews than Hitler killed Jews, he just killed them equally with everyone else)

Hitler - 20 million

etc

These are deaths OUTSIDE of war caused intentionally by governments.

The death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

[BaalChatzaf]

Genocide is as old as the human race.

Irrelevant

Genocide is as natural to mankind as breathing.

No it's not, it requires a tremendous and near life long indoctrination and dehumanization of the perpetrators about the victims. Read about the "Rape of Nanking" and the lifelong indoctrination by the totalitarian xenophobic government of Japan that was required to make Japanese soldiers capable of such inhuman brutality.

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.

You are completely and utterly wrong here. If by genocide you confine it to it's popular connotation of purely ethnic persecution, then perhaps that is true. But DEMOCIDES, which is a much more appropriate term, includes in organized mass murder whether it is racial, religious, or national in origin. And DEMOCIDES have killed 4-6 times as many people in the 20th century as war has killed.

Democide megamurderers

Mao Ze Dong - 75 Million killed

Joseph Stalin - 60 million (Stalin killed more Soviet Jews than Hitler killed Jews, he just killed them equally with everyone else)

Hitler - 20 million

etc

These are deaths OUTSIDE of war caused intentionally by governments.

The death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

Thank you for the numbers. You have clearly demonstrated that genocide is as natural as breathing for the human race.

Aside from war and physics, it is what humans do best.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Dr Suess got it right with the Sneeches.

When half of them put a star on their belly, they held their heads high and denounced the others. When the others got stars, the original group removed them and again took pride in their newly cleansed bellies and again denounced the now star-bellied Sneeches.

Dead on correct. Much wisdom here.

I think we have done a reasonably good job in the western world of combating the overt negative side of racism - the "criticism" or discrimination of others based on race/tribe/religion. This is now largely unacceptable - a good thing. But the flip side of this is hardly ever even discussed. The seemingly innocuous mindset of "I'm a proud (fill in race/tribe/religion here)" is just the pretty side of a very fundamentally ugly sentiment that my group is superior to yours. It is just as vile to say I'm a proud White/Jew/Black than it is to say I hate Crackers/Jews/Niggers. Until we wake the hell up and realize this, genocide will continue to have fertile ground.

[Matus1976]

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?

What exactly are you doing to translate your opposition of US sponsored military conflicts into action? Are you funding enemies? Are you sabotaging military supply lines? Are you attacking domestic military installations? This is the military that is confiscating your tax dollars and using it to kill thousands of innocent people! And you sit idly by patting yourself on the back for your internet warrior hyperbole! What, oh, you have 'other' priorities? Let me know when you launch an attack against a US domestic base and I'll join the US Military (actually, could you let me know a few days in advance, I might want to let some 'friends' know)

Your argument is based on the absurd premise that anything we believe or support we must devote our entire life to. I am pro-choice, does that mean I must march in parades, donate to organizations, volunteer with groups, harass congressman, etc? I like law enforcement and justice systems, does that mean I must become a police officer or a judge? I support firefighters, does that mean I must be a firefighter?

As for what I do, not that I am morally obligated to do anything to justify my existence of my opinions, but most of my free time and extra money is dedicated to the Lifeboat Foundation whose explicit goal is to ensure the continuation of humanity and intelligent life on earth, a 'bigger' issue than war and democide. I spoke on their behalf to the Navy War College's Strategic Studies group, for over an hour, on this exact issue - A principled base foreign policy on the long term eradication of dictatorships because of the existential threats that dictatorships pose to all life on earth.

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.

Hundreds of thousands is a gross exaggeration and completely untrue. A more accurate estimate is probably 60,000, and the overwhelming majority of these (in excess of 98%) were killed by other wannabe tyrants trying to prevent a stable democracy in Iraq or to prop up their own murderous tyrant. Saddam Hussain killed 2 million people during his 30 year reign, which is about 5,000 people per month, his son's would have likely carried on an equally brutal reign, the average per month deaths in Iraq at the worst of the violence was around 2,000 per month, thus the US led invasion was saving over 3,000 lives per month, or >30,000 per year. Never mind the wars and genocidal campaigns Saddam would have launched in the future, and his state sponsoring of terrorism. Still, many fewer people would have been killed if all the free western nations were involved in the stabilization, instead they sit on their morally relativistic laurels like yourself conveniently excusing themselves for doing nothing.

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

Oh, are you talking about the Kurds? Oh way, and this was different to Iraq before how?

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

Yes, that's true.

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

Yes, mostly by communists. More Vietnamese were killed in the six months following the fall of Saigon then were killed in the entire war. Over 200,000 Vietnamese soldiers died defending the right of South Vietnam to exist and to not have their property confiscated by an expansionist murderous government. The subsequent collapse of neighboring nations to communism led to the murders of 4.5 million more people. You, like most expediency of the moment pacifists, see two people fighting and whine 'why can't we just get along!' and never bother to find out that one is trying to kill the other to take his property and kill his family. All that matters to you is peace, i.e. that lack of conflict, not justice, not integrity, not freedom, just non-fighting. A prison state can be a pretty peaceful place, peace without justice is just a well run slave camp.

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

Bull shit postmodernistic crap, get your history from somewhere other than movies. This narrative is that the bombing of Cambodia by American pissed off Cambodians enough that they killed 2.5 million other Cambodians. Yes it's as idiotic as it sounds. This originated with liberal dumbasses who tried to justify their opposition to the Vietnam War by blaming the horrific atrocities that befell the region after the abandonment on the US involvement in the first place, and not the murderous expansionist global empire of the Soviet Union bent on taking over every nation on earth and that scumbags who catapulted themselves to murderous tyrant status through aligning with this power, and the horrific utopian visions they held. The Khmere Rouge came to power because the US abandoned Lon Nol, because the democratically controlled congress demanded that they have 'peace, not guns'

Sisowath Sirik Matak was a high ranking official in the Khmer (Cambodian) Republic, 1970-75. Two weeks before the fall of Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, to the communist Khmer Rouge, US Ambassador to Cambodia John Gunther Dean offered the Premier safe passage to the United States. The letter below is Sisowath's reply:

Dear Excellency and Friend

I thank you sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me toward freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it.

You leave and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in the country I love, it is too bad, because we are all born and must die one day. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you.

Sisowath Sirik Matak

Sisowath Sirik Matak was executed less than a week after the fall of Phnom Penh.

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

Yes, and many of those psychological casualties have come from post-modernistic morons who insisted that it was not right to assist a nation in defending itself against murderous communist expansionism.

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

I oppose the draft.

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

Yup, working to achieve your value of creating a safe free world without murderous communist expansionism actually costs money. A proper function of the military is self defense, and self defense is not waiting until bullets are flying at your head or enemy soldiers stomp on your land, self defense is not waiting until the soviet union invades and conquers every nation EXCEPT the US, until it poses absolutely no threat, and then upon being invaded respond with force, self defense IS the rational long term self interested action of all ways dealing the best blow you can against your worst enemy given finite resources and includes assisting allies with a harmony of interests in defending and defeating common threats.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Matus1976

[Matus1976]

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

Arrows meant for people have tips arranged horizontally with respect to the notch, because an upright human's rib cage is roughly horizontal. Arrows meant for quadraped animals have vertical tips because their rib cages are roughly vertical. Possibly what Ted was referring to?

[kiaer.ts]

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

Arrows meant for people have tips arranged horizontally with respect to the notch, because an upright human's rib cage is roughly horizontal. Arrows meant for quadraped animals have vertical tips because their rib cages are roughly vertical. Possibly what Ted was referring to?

No, the arrows were described as barbed. Hunting arrows are unbarbed since they are meant to be easily removed. The arrow types were identifiable from the heads alone. I do not have the source, it would have been in a book on Siberian archaeology or perhaps about Amerinds or Eskimos and I saw them mentioned at least twice. Those books are in storage, but I will try to look for the info over Christmas. The 30% causalty rate among tribal human males and chimps comes from Wade's Before the Dawn. Michael, do please try to find the source at some point for the Soviet Economy/Vietnam War figures.

[Matus1976]

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.

Exactly. I would add

1) form an international coalition of free nations, which happen to be the richest and most militarily powerful ones.

2) organize and identify a '12 step' program which forces nations to move from shitty murderous dictatorships to representative market based constitutional democracies

2a) demand international monitoring groups have unrestricted access

2b) all foreign aide will be distributed by the international coalition or sponsored NGO organizations.

3) Start with an equally applicable rule of law, then constitutionally defined civil liberties, then market reforms / representative democracy. Nations much abide by strict timelines or suffer military consequences.

4) military actions will be strategic and directed against the ruling elite.

5) occupying force will be international and focused establishing the above (rule of law, etc)

Co-operative dictators should be rewarded with amnesty (sad to suggest this, but ultimately it may make things much better much quicker)

etc.

Bob's matra seems to be Homer Simpsons - "The First step of failure is trying!"

[kiaer.ts]

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

Arrows meant for people have tips arranged horizontally with respect to the notch, because an upright human's rib cage is roughly horizontal. Arrows meant for quadraped animals have vertical tips because their rib cages are roughly vertical. Possibly what Ted was referring to?

No, the arrows were described as barbed. Hunting arrows are unbarbed since they are meant to be easily removed. The arrow types were identifiable from the heads alone. I do not have the source, it would have been in a book on Siberian archaeology or perhaps about Amerinds or Eskimos and I saw them mentioned at least twice. Those books are in storage, but I will try to look for the info over Christmas. The 30% causalty rate among tribal human males and chimps comes from Wade's Before the Dawn. Michael, do please try to find the source at some point for the Soviet Economy/Vietnam War figures.

Otis Tuftn Mason refers to war arrows of the plains indians that were horizontal for human ribs, but again, this is not what I am referring to.

[BaalChatzaf]

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.

With agriculture came a value for land in fixed possession (as opposed to seasonal grazing places). This created a need for government and armies. Along with which came tyranny and war.

Agriculture is the mother of war.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Judith]

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.

You're seeing the evil of which humans are capable. You're ignoring the good of which we are also capable.

Life is a lot better now than it was in the stone age. Most societies on earth do NOT tolerate random murder, theft, rape, etc. Why?

Civilization is a fragile thing, for the reasons you mention. And yet most of us enjoy the benefits of civilized societies. It's possible. It's real, right here and now. Why?

It can be done.

When the United States was founded, nothing like that had ever been done before. If the founders had had your attitude, they would never have tried. I'm very glad they tried.

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Primitive nomadic tribes have waged war against each other ever since the dawn of man.

The vanity of tribal leaders has been one of the main causes of war.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think the Neanderthals were genocidally killed off by agricultural Cro-Magnons, but by Cro-Magnons--that's us folks!--who were also mostly hunters and gatherers. Agricultural societies simply made large standing armies possible and necessary.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't think the Neanderthals were genocidally killed off by agricultural Cro-Magnons, but by Cro-Magnons--that's us folks!--who were also mostly hunters and gatherers. Agricultural societies simply made large standing armies possible and necessary.

--Brant

And that is why agriculture is the Mother of War. Hunter Gatherers did not have the surplus to create armies. They were too busy getting their next meal.

Agriculture not only produced a surplus (making governments and armies possible) but put a high value on human labor which was the genesis of slavery.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

That's interesting.

So you believe there was no war before agriculture?

Hmmmmmm...

Michael

[galtgulch]

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.

You're seeing the evil of which humans are capable. You're ignoring the good of which we are also capable.

Life is a lot better now than it was in the stone age. Most societies on earth do NOT tolerate random murder, theft, rape, etc. Why?

Civilization is a fragile thing, for the reasons you mention. And yet most of us enjoy the benefits of civilized societies. It's possible. It's real, right here and now. Why?

It can be done.

When the United States was founded, nothing like that had ever been done before. If the founders had had your attitude, they would never have tried. I'm very glad they tried.

Judith

Judith,

I like your attitude. Perhaps you would agree that if it were worth creating in the first place that it is also worth fighting to recreate it now.

Objectivism plus Austrian economics plus www.campaignforliberty.com (membership 95664) equals The Second American rEVOLution

Wm

[BaalChatzaf]

It can be done.

When the United States was founded, nothing like that had ever been done before. If the founders had had your attitude, they would never have tried. I'm very glad they tried.

Judith

When the United States was founded chattel slavery was legal and the economy of half the United States depended on it. Slavery was a direct contradiction of the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. The failure to come to grips with this contradiction lead to a Civil War in which 620,000 Americans died and a million and half were maimed. This during a time when the population of the country was about thirty million.

The Federalist Constitution of 1787 was a failed political experiment. In the aftermath of the Civil War Federalism (i.e. State Sovereignty ) was swiftly nullified and finally done in with the passage of the 17-th amendment.

Great Britain which had no written constitution and certainly had nothing like the U.S. constitution managed to eliminate slavery in the 1830's (without a Civil War). Canada managed not to have slavery at all and also expended from ocean to ocean without a genocidal war on the aboriginal tribes and nations. This was quite different from the experience of the United States. The United States expanded from ocean to ocean and became a great nation in part by a genocidal attack on aboriginal people who dwelt here.

Maybe you are glad they tried, but many black slaves and aboriginals weren't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

It can be done.

When the United States was founded, nothing like that had ever been done before. If the founders had had your attitude, they would never have tried. I'm very glad they tried.

Judith

When the United States was founded chattel slavery was legal and the economy of half the United States depended on it. Slavery was a direct contradiction of the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. The failure to come to grips with this contradiction lead to a Civil War in which 620,000 Americans died and a million and half were maimed. This during a time when the population of the country was about thirty million.

The Federalist Constitution of 1787 was a failed political experiment. In the aftermath of the Civil War Federalism (i.e. State Sovereignty ) was swiftly nullified and finally done in with the passage of the 17-th amendment.

My grandfather, Irving Brant, biographer of James Madison, would disagree with you, but then again he was a New Dealer. One of the reasons he did the biography was because he was criticized for Congressional testimony citing Madison in support of Roosevellt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anybody else like the documentary?

Anybody else see it?

Michael

[Judith]

When the United States was founded chattel slavery was legal and the economy of half the United States depended on it.

And many, many people were opposed to it even then. During the revolution, at one point Abigail Adams wrote in a letter to her husband wondering if a plague were God's punishment to the people for slavery.

Slavery was a direct contradiction of the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Exactly. That's why it was doomed to eventual death.

The failure to come to grips with this contradiction lead to a Civil War in which 620,000 Americans died and a million and half were maimed. This during a time when the population of the country was about thirty million.

The Civil War was about secession, not about slavery. Had the north allowed the south to go peacefully, slavery would have died a natural death in the south. I firmly believe that secession is a natural right, and that the war was wrongfully fought. Slavery was just an excuse. Lincoln himself admitted that if allowing slavery to continue would preserve the Union, he would allow slavery to continue -- which is why my admiration for Lincoln is severely limited. I loathe slavery. I also loathe coercion.

Great Britain which had no written constitution and certainly had nothing like the U.S. constitution managed to eliminate slavery in the 1830's (without a Civil War). Canada managed not to have slavery at all and also expended from ocean to ocean without a genocidal war on the aboriginal tribes and nations. This was quite different from the experience of the United States. The United States expanded from ocean to ocean and became a great nation in part by a genocidal attack on aboriginal people who dwelt here.

And today neither Great Britain nor Canada have any real protection against gun-grabbers, or those who would make "hate-speech" a crime, or other such freedoms that we have as a result of our founding fathers having put such things into writing. Who cares about ocean to ocean? Racism, against both blacks and American Indians, existed and had dreadful consequences, but it, too, was a contradiction to the original founding concepts, and eventually died a natural death, thanks to those on both sides of the ocean who were The Enlightenment.

Judith

[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

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

1) Noone knows the exact number of Iraqis killed either directly or indirectly from Gulf War 2. The lowest estimate is from Iraq Body Count, which estimates between 90000 and 98000 deaths. But these are only deaths confirmed from multiple sources. Also, this figure only includes noncombatant deaths. Undoubtedly, the actual number of deaths, including people who have died from diseases caused by destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, is much higher; most of these deaths could not be confirmed as caused by the war and would not be included in the IBC estimate.

"Just Foreign Policy",

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

estimates Iraqi deaths due to the US invasion at 1.3 million, based on extrapolations from the Lancet study. The Opinion Research Business used similar survey methods to the Lancet study to arrive at an estimate of about 1.2 million Iraqi deaths.

Even if the above figures from JFP and ORB are too high, an estimate of at least several hundred thousand deaths from the US invasion seems very reasonable to me.

2) According to the International Rescue Committee,

http://ga3.org/campaign/Iraqi_refugees?gcl...CFQRkswod7WFBSQ

"More than two million refugees from Iraq have fled to neighboring countries, mostly in Jordan and Syria. Another two million Iraqis are displaced within Iraq due to violence and persecution." This is a total of 4 million refugees, about 1/6 of the entire population of Iraq. If an equivalent percentage of the US population were turned into refugees, this would amount to about 50,000,000 American refugees.

7) I was being conservative in my estimate of the number of men drafted. I'm sure you're right that many people enlisted in order to avoid the draft. In my case, I was ready to start college the year that the college deferment was eliminated and replaced with a lottery system based on date of birth. I ended up with a low draft number and might have ended up being drafted, except that I was able to get a medical deferment.

8) The estimate of trillions that I gave was for both the Vietnam and Iraq wars. For the Vietnam war, the costs must be adjusted for inflation to the present value of dollars. The total costs of the wars include not only the direct cost of fighting the wars but also the interest paid on the billions of dollars borrowed to pay for the war, as well as the costs of medical care for war veterans over their entire lifetime. I've heard estimates that, based on all of these included costs, the Iraq war alone may end up costing up to 3 trillion dollars.

Anyway, the point of my list was to document the many victims of war, none of whom Michael saw fit to mention. His flippant remark that "Who pays is the murderous dictators" is reflective of just how invisible the true victims of war are to so many people.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Well, you and I are quibbling, but I suspect Lancet = political shit.

--Brant