US deaths in Iraq pass 3000, 22,000 seriously wounded

[Cort Haus]

How does 'mass genocide' differ from genocide, other than in terms of hyperbolic rhetoric?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
How does 'mass genocide' differ from genocide, other than in terms of hyperbolic rhetoric?

Maybe it means genocide of more than one group of people? Say Nation A invades Country X. Country X is inhabited by ethnic groups L, M, N, O, and P. If Nation A wipes out group L, then they have committed genocide. If Nation A wipes out groups L, M, N, and O, then they have commited mass genocide.

[Zevico]

Oerdin--the thing is you can't stop at just the one country. Even if you're willing to be brutal, the entire region is one big powder keg ready to blow up. And even worse, the problem of terrorism would still exist in all the other Arab countries. You'd have to invade a lot more countries, deal with many more insurrections and take a lot more hurt in order to deal with the problem in an extremely uncertain way that could more than likely fail.
One suggestion I've heard is the "**** them over and leave" scenario. Basically the US or whatever picks a few Arab countries out of a hat--(does it really matter which one gets hit? They're practically all in on it anyway) and bombs the hell out of their armies. Make it clear that you're willing to destabilise or destroy the Syrian government's hold on power, then watch as they magically clamp down on terror (all the while screaming OPPRESSION! IMPERIALISM! RESISTANCE!).

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Maybe it means genocide of more than one group of people? Say Nation A invades Country X. Country X is inhabited by ethnic groups L, M, N, O, and P. If Nation A wipes out group L, then they have committed genocide. If Nation A wipes out groups L, M, N, and O, then they have commited mass genocide.

Maybe you're just making that up.

What Oerdin's comment really boils down to is that intervention on 'moral grounds' is basically a pipe dream, and the sooner people wake up to that fact the better. Nothing wrong with going to a war with an ally under genuine attack, but destroying a country to save it doesn't work.

[Elok]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I actually thought about posting a betting thread on whether we would reach the 3000 mark before the year was out - but I thought that would be bad taste...

Bad taste never stopped you before.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Cort Haus Maybe you're just making that up.

So?

...intervention on 'moral grounds' is basically a pipe dream, and the sooner people wake up to that fact the better. Nothing wrong with going to a war with an ally under genuine attack, but destroying a country to save it doesn't work.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, a numerically significant group of Americans has a Wilsonian crusader streak in them. What's even more unfortunate is that there is ever larger group that can be easily manipulated to believe that it's their patriotic duty to support any war in which the U.S. participates, regardless of how wasteful and contrary to U.S. interests that war is.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why's Oerdin getting all the accolades in this thread? I know it's rare for him to say something intelligent and you certainly want to reward him when he does, but that doesn't change the fact that he was just agreeing with me (always a smart course of action)...

[Dis]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why's Oerdin getting all the accolades in this thread? I know it's rare for him to say something intelligent and you certainly want to reward him when he does, but that doesn't change the fact that he was just agreeing with me (always a smart course of action)...

for the record, I agree with Drake as well.

[Drake Tungsten]

You just earned yourself another vote for troll of the year...

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That's the basics of it in a nut shell. Either be willing to do what ever it takes or don't go around invading countries. Since western countries won't commit mass genocide to put down popular rebellions we should just accept that we're unwilling to do what it takes to win these types of wars and thus avoid them.

I agree with that too, I put in a lot of energy trying to convince the local warmongers that we weren't willing to do what's neccarsary. By the time we invaded, Saddam had created enough fear to limit the bloodbath. Not a pretty way of dealing with things, I'll be the first to admit he was a tyrant, but the death toll would be lower if he were still in power. Also responcible are the British, around 1918, because they ammalgamated Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish territories into Iraq, so they fight each other instead of the British.

[Pekka]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
traffic acccidents etc..

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...8/24/71690.htm

I have to point out false logics here, sorry but I do it when I see it .

This is not deaths that occur normally, war deaths. This are ADDITIONAL deaths. If you say to me that 3000 cab drivers got killed in New York and few other cities in the last few years, about ten times the injuries, it would not be the safe as 'well, it's still almost safer to be in the traffic than do that taxi driving job..'..

And of course you'd have to count the number of people who also died in the traffic who don't count, that is, the Iraqis. Because their deaths are also an indicator of the threat level the army is in.

It doesn't even compare if you have statistic where it shows that there are more murders in the US. These are additionals, so that adds the risk level, and it can be divided into its own pool, if comparing risk level.

Come on, it's only pretty obvious

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why's Oerdin getting all the accolades in this thread? I know it's rare for him to say something intelligent and you certainly want to reward him when he does, but that doesn't change the fact that he was just agreeing with me (always a smart course of action)...

It's because you stated the U.S. doesn't have the "stones" to use mass murder and other oppressive methods and because Oerdin recognized that such methods are not in accord with Western values. He just has a better grip on reality than you do.

[Pekka]

So what if they aren't included in the Western values? What, are you going to say, that we seriously have big groups, comparable to the West, that accepts these 'stones' as their values? I don't think so.

Yet it happens all over. The difference is, if you can set those values aside, for example because you need to accomplish something else. IF you accept that, then you can have those stones.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Pekka
So what if they aren't included in the Western values? What, are you going to say, that we seriously have big groups, comparable to the West, that accepts these 'stones' as their values? I don't think so.

Yet it happens all over. The difference is, if you can set those values aside, for example because you need to accomplish something else. IF you accept that, then you can have those stones.

Could you translate this rant into English? WTF are you saying??

[Pekka]

Well, first off it isn't a rant. Second of all, why don't you come and get a big hug, you are too wound up