"War on Terror" Numbers

[KeatonKitsune]

You say we have  the right to interfere in the course of other power's business because it's morally the equivlant of stopping a thef from stealing an old lady's purse.  I just don't think you can cubbyhole world affairs into such a limited allegory.

Why not?

The problem was it wasn't the truth.  It was far from the truth, and it's our job to make sure we have all the facts before reading the verdict and carrying out the sentence.

No. I don’t believe that it is our job to be all-knowing. We are human, despite how much you want to force us to be otherwise. And if you think this is the first time false information has been used in war, then you’re SADLY mistaken.

I don't think it's on our best interests or our governments best interests to make massive military invasions unless we're sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the government represents a clear and present danger to its own citizens.

I think I must be misunderstanding your statement here... We ARE sure that the Iraqi government presented a “clear and present” danger to its citizens.


Oh, unless you meant... Government A should not invade Government B without being sure that Government B was a threat to Government A’s citizens...

In which case I disagree with your assertions on two accounts. 1) We WERE sure “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Go look up the term, because it doesn’t mean “with certitude”. 2) I think there are other reasons for which we should consider invading a country.

we put people in MORE danger by invading the nation without any kind of...what's the word, plan.

First of all, I don’t think we put them in more danger. I think we put them in much less. Secondly... HA!

If you think we had no plan, well, I duno. That is just funny. And wrong.

What about the fact that there's genocide occuing in Darfur right now?  Why don't we invade that country and take it over?

Who says we will not?

Well I was thinking of a Gates Foundation goal of being able to cure malaria for $5 a person by 2010...but there are cost-effective ways of reducing transmission and saving a lot of lives.  500 million people are infected with malaria each year, 1 million die from it, nets cut transmission by 50%, meaning 250 million people not infected, and 500,000 still alive.  Per year.

At a rate of $10 a person, $5,000,000 does that, presuming perfect distribution.  In reality it would be higher, but I don't know what the real number is. 

That's a little over 13 minutes of the Iraq war.

Okay, so let’s say for the sake of argument you can save 500,000 a year for $5,000,000. How many people were being killed by Saddam a year, I wonder?

Theoretically, we could do the math, I guess...

[JordAnime]

Why not?

Because your analogy was terrible.  It's so limited and world affairs are so complex, and even then your analogy isn't even 100% true, some people may say trying to stop the man is the wrong thing to do because you could endanger the woman or yourself--and in some places it's illegal to try to stop a crime directly, for that very reason. 

And if you think this is the first time false information has been used in war, then you’re SADLY mistaken.

No, I never said that, I just said we acted too swiftly on entirely false information. 

Strawman.

.I think I must be misunderstanding your statement here... We ARE sure that the Iraqi government presented a “clear and present” danger to its citizens.

Sorry, I was actually mistaken there, I meant OUR citizens, which clearly it didn't.

First of all, I don’t think we put them in more danger. I think we put them in much less. Secondly... HA!

What you think and what is truth are two entirely separate things, of course your reasoning.  I'm pretty sure the death toll was significantly lower in Iraq before we invaded.

If you think we had no plan, well, I duno. That is just funny. And wrong.

We had a plan, it just wasn't a good one, and we had very little plans as to how to maintain the peace.

Who says we will not?

I think it's pretty clear that we have no plans to invade Darfur.

[Twilight Wolf]

Just to interject here-

The US is fought a preventative war in Iraq, not a preemptive war.  Preemptive war is when there is an imminent threat, and you attack another country before they attack you.  In the case of the Iraq war, there was no imminent, immediate threat.  I am willing to concede that there was a long term threat, but that only makes it a preventative war, which was fought because the US feared relative decline vis a vis, Iraq.

That is to say, the US feared a growing power in Iraq and their "WMDs" and growing ability to pose an offensive threat to others.

Why do I harp on such a distinction?  Well, in my opinion, a preemptive war is more morally defensible than a preventative war. 

[KeatonKitsune]

Because your analogy was terrible.  It's so limited and world affairs are so complex

Again, you apparently do not know what an analogy is...

No, I never said that, I just said we acted too swiftly on entirely false information. 

Now that’s possible... I can at least see an argument for the “too swiftly” part. Personally, I don’t think anything can be too swift to stop torture, but that’s just me.

What you think and what is truth are two entirely separate things, of course your reasoning.  I'm pretty sure the death toll was significantly lower in Iraq before we invaded.

That is possible, but remember we should be only counting Iraqi civilian deaths. Also, I think to be fair, we will need to factor in how many more people would have died in Saddam’s power. This way, we are comparing deaths if we did not enter Iraq to deaths if we did.

We had a plan, it just wasn't a good one, and we had very little plans as to how to maintain the peace.

Eh, to the first part, I don’t agree. To the latter, I’m not sure... it’s possible, but I am not too informed on what their actual plans are.

I think it's pretty clear that we have no plans to invade Darfur.

How so? Just wondering...

[Twilight Wolf]

I think it's pretty clear that we have no plans to invade Darfur.

How so? Just wondering...

Overall, the United States does not care about Africa. 

Major wars fought in Europe: 2
Major wars fought on US soil: 2 (Revolution and 1812)
Major wars fought in the Middle East: 2 (Afghanistan and Iraq)
Major Wars fought in SE Asia: 2 (Vietnam and Korea)
Major Wars fought in Africa: 0

For my definition of a major war, I am admitting that I am cheating slightly on it, and only including part of the definition.  That part being that there is a distinct possibility that one or more combatants will cease to exist as a political entity.  Other parts of this include that the combatants fight at the highest level of intensity (and let's face it, the United States hasn't done that since WWII because we haven't used the bomb since then). 

As far as I remember, the United States never really had any interest in Africa.  When other powers were colonizing Africa, the United States did not.  If memory serves, the United States has fought one war in Africa (not counting WWII, where fighting was pretty much everywhere), and that was Somalia in the early 90s.  In that case, the United States lost 25 soldiers, and there as a public outcry to get out, which, to me, signals that even the public did not care that much about it.

Oh, and then there's the whole Rwandan genocide thing that the US allowed to happen.  By your purse snatchers analogy Keaton, the United States should have stepped in.  But we didn't. 

That answer your question, Keaton?

[Witless]

Overall, the United States does not care about Africa. 

Major wars fought in Europe: 2
Major wars fought on US soil: 2 (Revolution and 1812)
Major wars fought in the Middle East: 2 (Afghanistan and Iraq)
Major Wars fought in SE Asia: 2 (Vietnam and Korea)
Major Wars fought in Africa: 0

To be honest, having plans and actually carrying out plans are two different things. I might have plans to take over the world, but due to several factors in my life, I will not carry out that plan. But I do have them.

Just because the US isn't doing anything about Darfur or any country in Africa, doesn't mean they're not planning. There could be several factors that are in play like, no intell whatsoever on what is exactly going on there and who is exactly your enemy. Just like how they didn't know they were fighting a whole city in Somalia ( from what I know ) You never know for certain with those crazy independent warmonkies ( not a racial comment )

I remember the US underestimating a certain country during WWII where they thought to just walk in and walk out. We all know how that ended up.

[Twilight Wolf]

I remember the US underestimating a certain country during WWII where they thought to just walk in and walk out. We all know how that ended up

They do so all the time.  Read: Milosevic.  Read: Iraq.

All I am pointing out is, that as a general trend, the United States stays out of Africa.  We have no definitive evidence on this, so the best we have is empirical evidence and past actions theory, the latter of which shows that, in general, the United States is less inclined to take action involving genocides in Africa. 

[KeatonKitsune]

That answer your question, Keaton?

No, not really, TW. I mean, it shows past trends, but that means little. If we didn’t care about Africa, you wouldn’t see all those commercials with people raising tons of money to feel all the poor people there.

But really, that is sort of a moot point. IF we DID have a reason to stay out of Africa specifically, this would be the answer to Jordan’s criticism above.

[Fleamo]

Well I was thinking of a Gates Foundation goal of being able to cure malaria for $5 a person by 2010...but there are cost-effective ways of reducing transmission and saving a lot of lives.  500 million people are infected with malaria each year, 1 million die from it, nets cut transmission by 50%, meaning 250 million people not infected, and 500,000 still alive.  Per year.

At a rate of $10 a person, $5,000,000 does that, presuming perfect distribution.  In reality it would be higher, but I don't know what the real number is. 

That's a little over 13 minutes of the Iraq war.

Okay, so let’s say for the sake of argument you can save 500,000 a year for $5,000,000. How many people were being killed by Saddam a year, I wonder?

Theoretically, we could do the math, I guess...

I don't know what you're trying to argue.  My point is: there are many more cost-effective ways to save lives, without sacrificing any.  If all lives are equal, and saving lives is how you want to spend X dollars, war is not how you want to do it.

[JordAnime]

Again, you apparently do not know what an analogy is...

First off, how can you say "again" before you've even said I don't know what an analogy is.  I don't deny you made an analogy, I just happen to think yours is a terrible one, and I described my reasoning in my last post. 

Now that’s possible... I can at least see an argument for the “too swiftly” part. Personally, I don’t think anything can be too swift to stop torture, but that’s just me.

Well, then how about our own government's use of torture?  Ultimately, I think you're drifting away from the point.  It was never our intention to stop torture in Iraq.

That is possible, but remember we should be only counting Iraqi civilian deaths. Also, I think to be fair, we will need to factor in how many more people would have died in Saddam’s power. This way, we are comparing deaths if we did not enter Iraq to deaths if we did.

Saddam was a dictator, and mass murderer, but he was also leading a country under a secular iron-fist.  He killed 5,000 Kurds to quell an uprising he's probably killed tens of thousands of people and indirectly probably hundreds of thousands(as a result of wars and sanctions) but lookie here:

Study Claims 655,000 Iraqi's Have Died Since the Invasion as of October 11, 2006

That was at the end of 06, and when we put sanctions on Iraq, many more people died due to a lack of medicine:

500,000 Child Deaths Attributed to UN Sanctions Against Iraq]

No matter what, hundreds of thousands of people have died in this war that wouldn't have died otherwise.

. IF we DID have a reason to stay out of Africa specifically, this would be the answer to Jordan’s criticism above.

First off, Africa is a gigantic mess.  Second of all, Darfur is a country that the government would have no interest in outside of a humanitarian effort.  There were major underlying political and economic reasons to invade Iraq from the Bush Administration's point of view, to invade Darfur to simply stop a genocide may only garner political capital, but at this point but on the list of things to do, it's very low.

[Twilight Wolf]

That answer your question, Keaton?

No, not really, TW. I mean, it shows past trends, but that means little. If we didn’t care about Africa, you wouldn’t see all those commercials with people raising tons of money to feel all the poor people there.

There is a difference between raising money in donations to help feed a starving kid, and going to invade.  Wouldn't you agree, Keaton?

But you want a reason for the United States to stay out of Africa aside from past trends?  (BTW, past trends are largely what we have to look at.  Finding a piece of paper that says "Don't invade such and such" is, needless to say, quite rare.  I am merely explaining a point using past trends, because that is largely what is done in international relations).

Okay Keaton, here is a reason why the United States may want to stay out of Africa.  I do not fully support this, but merely offer it up, since past trends aren't good for you, Monsieur Renard. 

If we went into Sudan, Nigeria could get the wrong idea of what the US is doing, much like Iran has with the US in Iraq.  Nigeria could then build up defensive weapons, which could be interpreted by the United States the wrong way.  An analogy that works here is if I put a tank outside of my house.  I want it to defend against a threat, but my neighbor might not see it that way.  Anyway, the United States would then be likely to take action against Nigeria, much like it did against Iraq when Saddam allegedly had WMDs.  Further more, China gets a certain percentage of its oil imports from Nigeria.  Therefore, China would be likely to protect its own oil interests in the region.  The United States probably could crush the PRC if push came to shove; however, the last thing the United States wants right now is to fight China and be perceived as an aggressor by other countries, which could lead to a coalition balancing against the United States.

In Africa, which already supplied 28.7 percent of China's total crude oil imports in 2004, Beijing has recently expanded its traditional relationships; in some countries, it has even begun to challenge the influence of the United States. In 2000, Beijing established the China-Africa Cooperation Forum (CACF) to promote trade and investment with 44 African countries. In 2003, Prime Minister Wen visited several oil-producing African states accompanied by Chinese oil executives, and President Hu toured Algeria, Egypt, and Gabon. China has been working closely with governments in the Gulf of Guinea, from Angola to Nigeria, as well as with the Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Libya, Niger, and Sudan.

Source

[KeatonKitsune]

I don't know what you're trying to argue.  My point is: there are many more cost-effective ways to save lives, without sacrificing any.  If all lives are equal, and saving lives is how you want to spend X dollars, war is not how you want to do it.

Well think about this, Nemo. As gruesome as it is, try to imagine the last weeks/day/hours of the lives of a) someone dying of malaria, and b) someone being tortured to death by Saddam’s men.

Person A, while possibly suffering, will at least be surrounded by family, loved ones, and people trying to make his ending moments as pleasant as possible. Person B absolutely will not. He will likely receive the opposite.

Now which would you want to save first?

First off, how can you say "again" before you've even said I don't know what an analogy is.

I alluded to it.

I don't deny you made an analogy, I just happen to think yours is a terrible one, and I described my reasoning in my last post.

Okay then, what’s so “terrible” about it? How does it not make a good analogy? You’ve mentioned what you have against it, but that is no way means it was a bad analogy. It does the exact job of an analogy, so how is it terrible?

Well, then how about our own government's use of torture?

How about it? Any time anyone claims the US Government is using torture, it’s swiftly addressed.

Ultimately, I think you're drifting away from the point.  It was never our intention to stop torture in Iraq.

Um, you are the one pushing the issue, Jord. You were the instigator in this little conversation of ours, not me. Don’t blame me for derailing the topic...

No matter what, hundreds of thousands of people have died in this war that wouldn't have died otherwise.

Not a fact. Who’s to say they and hundreds of thousands more would not have been killed by Saddam or his successors?

to invade Darfur to simply stop a genocide may only garner political capital, but at this point but on the list of things to do, it's very low.

Okay. I misunderstood you earlier then. So then what is your point here? It seems pointless to mention, for example, that we are not likely going to invade, say, Canada...

There is a difference between raising money in donations to help feed a starving kid, and going to invade.  Wouldn't you agree, Keaton?

Um, yeah! That’s why I’m confused right now with you guys. Why mention invading a non-hostile place? And who the hell cares about invading Africa if we’re already WELCOME there?

[JordAnime]

Okay then, what’s so “terrible” about it? How does it not make a good analogy? You’ve mentioned what you have against it, but that is no way means it was a bad analogy. It does the exact job of an analogy, so how is it terrible?

I told you directly

How about it? Any time anyone claims the US Government is using torture, it’s swiftly addressed.

Which is why there's no torture going on at Gitmo...

Um, you are the one pushing the issue, Jord. You were the instigator in this little conversation of ours, not me. Don’t blame me for derailing the topic...

I didn't say you were derailing anything.  You suddenly suggest that the reason why we went into Iraq was to stop torture, which is not the listed reason why we went in, to find WMDs that supposedly posed a threat to us. 

Not a fact. Who’s to say they and hundreds of thousands more would not have been killed by Saddam or his successors?

It is a fact that he DIDN'T kill those people and ODDS ARE wouldn't have.  I mean it's possible that anyone could be killed by anyone, but we're dealing with real events.   If we hadn't invaded Iraq, we can say for certainty that many people wouldn't have died for that reason.

[KeatonKitsune]

I told you directly

Yeah, I said besides that. Frankly, I don’t care if you have personal issues with my analogy. It does its job. Its feelings won’t be hurt if you don’t like it.

Which is why there's no torture going on at Gitmo...

Where?

You suddenly suggest that the reason why we went into Iraq was to stop torture

No, I don’t think I did.

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, we can say for certainty that many people wouldn't have died for that reason.

True. But they may have died for much, much worse reasons. And in much, much worse ways.

[JordAnime]

Yeah, I said besides that. Frankly, I don’t care if you have personal issues with my analogy. It does its job. Its feelings won’t be hurt if you don’t like it.

I pointed out several major logical flaws in your analogy and you can't seem to say anything about it other than "my analogy works". 

Where?

I think you need to do a little research on waterboarding and it's current usage by our government at Guantánamo Bay.

True. But they may have died for much, much worse reasons. And in much, much worse ways.

Frankly, I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

[Twilight Wolf]

  Which is why there's no torture going on at Gitmo...

Where?

Gitmo refers to Guantanamo Bay, Keaton.

In the last quarter of the 20th century, the base was used to house Cuban and Haitian refugees intercepted on the high seas. In the early 1990s, it held refugees who fled Haiti after military forces overthrew democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. These refugees were held in a detainment area called Camp Bulkeley until United States district court Judge Sterling Johnson Jr. declared the camp unconstitutional on June 8, 1993. This decision was later vacated. The last Haitian migrants departed Guantánamo on November 1, 1995.

The Migrant Operations Center on Guantánamo typically keeps fewer than 30 people interdicted at sea in the Caribbean region.

Beginning in 2002, a small portion of the base was used to imprison several hundred individuals — some of whom were captured by US forces in Afghanistan, though the majority were 'bought' for a substantial bounty (generally in the region of $US 5,000) from various warlords and mercenaries both in Afghanistan and elsewhere — at Camp Delta, Camp Echo, Camp Iguana, and the now-closed Camp X-Ray. The US military has asserted that some, but not all, of these captives are linked to Al-Qaida or the Taliban. The military has withheld the evidence against captives asserted to be linked to terrorist organizations or enemy states. In litigation regarding the availability of fundamental rights to those imprisoned at the base, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the captives "have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control."[23] Therefore, the captives have the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. A district court has since held that the "Geneva Conventions applied to the Taliban captives, but not to members of al Qaeda terrorist organization."[24]

On June 10, 2006, the Department of Defense reported that three Guantánamo Bay captives committed suicide. The military reported the men hanged themselves with nooses made of sheets and clothes. One of the men was first detained when he was a juvenile.

    Main article: Guantanamo suicide attempts

The closing-down of the Guantánamo Prison has been requested by Amnesty International (May 2005), the United Nations (February 2006) and the European Union (May 2006).

On September 6, 2006, President Bush announced that enemy combatants held by the CIA will be transferred to the custody of Department of Defense, and held at Guantánamo Prison. Among approximately 500 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, only 10 have been tried by the Guantanamo military commission, but all cases have been stayed pending the adjustments being made to comply with the Hamdi decision by the U.S. Supreme Court

And just so we are perfectly clear here, Keaton.

Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is an international non-governmental organization which defines its mission as "to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights."[1]

Um, yeah! That’s why I’m confused right now with you guys. Why mention invading a non-hostile place? And who the hell cares about invading Africa if we’re already WELCOME there?

What verb would you use:

–verb (used with object)
1.   to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent:

Regardless of how noble the intention of stopping a genocide is, it still can be seen as a hostile action.  That's why we "invaded" Iraq.  We entered forcefully, with the intent of toppling a dictator and also "uncovering" WMDs.  Both of which can be noble, but still are seen as hostile because it involves going into another country.

And you may say "Sudan is not our enemy."  Well, they are.

The United States has listed Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993.

Based on that, and Bush's declaration of war on Terror, they are an enemy state, and as such, going into there with military aims would be deemed an invasion. 



And also, Keaton, wouldn't you support an invasion?  After all, isn't that a way to end human rights abuses in the Darfur?  It certainly is more swift than that dollar you put in an envelope.  The United States can only take so many actions in this case, Keaton.  We can impose economic sanctions, but that won't work, because dictators and such have ways of buck-passing so the brunt of the impact is undertaken by the people he (the dictator) cares so little about.

[KeatonKitsune]

I pointed out several major logical flaws in your analogy and you can't seem to say anything about it other than "my analogy works". 

I thought I said this before, but maybe not. You really have not pointed out ANY flaws with my analogy. It compares an aspect of two things otherwise dissimilar. It infers that two things are similar in one aspect, and suggests that they are similar in another. It follows the guidelines and definition of an analogy.

What you have against it are personal qualms, and do not demerit the analogy’s functionality.

I think you need to do a little research on waterboarding and it's current usage by our government at Guantánamo Bay.

Um, I made the topic. It’s highly debatable as to whether or not waterboarding is torture. Furthermore, it’s not been used in years.

Frankly, I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

It doesn’t bother me that you believe this falsehood. I’ve done my research on what Saddam did to his people. I know a US missile to the face is a hundred times better a way to go than being tied to a ceiling fan until your back breaks and then being subjected to days of acid torture.

Regardless of how noble the intention of stopping a genocide is, it still can be seen as a hostile action.  That's why we "invaded" Iraq.  We entered forcefully, with the intent of toppling a dictator and also "uncovering" WMDs.  Both of which can be noble, but still are seen as hostile because it involves going into another country.

Um, I think you misunderstood me...

And also, Keaton, wouldn't you support an invasion?  After all, isn't that a way to end human rights abuses in the Darfur?

I thought you two said Dafur is suffering from malaria, not human rights abuses...

[Fleamo]

I don't know what you're trying to argue.  My point is: there are many more cost-effective ways to save lives, without sacrificing any.  If all lives are equal, and saving lives is how you want to spend X dollars, war is not how you want to do it.

Well think about this, Nemo. As gruesome as it is, try to imagine the last weeks/day/hours of the lives of a) someone dying of malaria, and b) someone being tortured to death by Saddam’s men.

Person A, while possibly suffering, will at least be surrounded by family, loved ones, and people trying to make his ending moments as pleasant as possible. Person B absolutely will not. He will likely receive the opposite.

Now which would you want to save first?

Well if you want to think about it in a all-deaths-are-not-created-equal kind of way, then you have to do all sorts of weird math like how many malaria-deaths are worth one torture-death, and there is simply no way to really quantify that.  It is much easier to just try to save the most lives you can.  And it is arguably more moral as well, to save the most lives. 

[Phantom-Zelda]

I doubt America's intentions of invading Iraq were very noble.

Oh, and speaking of Cuba, the government is so controlling people aren't even allowed to plant crops in their backyards to feed themselves because *everything* belongs to the government. I have relatives who are dentists, lawyers, programmers and university lectures and they all earn less than $20 a month. Sure, there was that whole Missile crisis thing going on a few decades back, but I don't see that as justification for maintaining the blockade they have on the country now. 'Liberating' the people of Cuba wouldn't take much effort from the US government, especially since they dump their most dangerous criminals there anyways.

And as has already been pointed out, there are countries facing MUCH worse that what Iraq was going through. If America is willing to go through all the effort of relieving people of a torturous government, then how come they can't pass some paperwork and get the blockade removed from Cuba? Its not like Cuba poses much of a threat now anyways, and its definitely not as involved as dealing with genocide in Dafur.

Point being, the American government doesn't gives a rats behind about peoples welfare.

And KeatonKitsune, you keep demanding people to expand on their points and provide evidence (which they already have, statistically and otherwise) yet the only argument you continue to put forth is that 'America is trying to stop people from being tortured'.

So please, provide me with an explanation (longer than two sentences please) why stopping torture is justification for killing as many people as America has, civilian or otherwise, when they could be doing much simpler things around the world that could improve the lives of countless millions.

Well think about this, Nemo. As gruesome as it is, try to imagine the last weeks/day/hours of the lives of a) someone dying of malaria, and b) someone being tortured to death by Saddam’s men.

Person A, while possibly suffering, will at least be surrounded by family, loved ones, and people trying to make his ending moments as pleasant as possible. Person B absolutely will not. He will likely receive the opposite.

I believe a child in a third-world country such as Africa who is dying slowly of disease and starvation, forcing to scour through rubbish, wash themselves in their own poo, and have random limbs inflate due to parasites is comparable to torture. All it requires to fix is some food and medicine which you can get down the street from your local chemist/cornershop. Tell me how you'd fix that?

[Witless]

Its not like Cuba poses much of a threat now anyways

Key sentence there.

So please, provide me with an explanation (longer than two sentences please) why stopping torture is justification for killing as many people as America has, civilian or otherwise

Because it's probably worth it in the long run? Because once torture by dictators  has been successfully cleared, it's just one less thing to worry about in the world after which we can focus on other things that are fucked up in the world.

As for the collateral damage, I'm sure they didn't intend to.