How many Iraqi civilian casualties are acceptable?

[KrazyHorse]

Weregild

[Dr Strangelove]

I'd like to know how those who answered "more than 2,000,000" justify their answer, given that there's no proof that the Iraqis participated in 9/11, retained any WMDs, or gave any support to al-Qaeda prior to the invasion?

[KrazyHorse]

I voted that because I like watching brown people die on TV.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, technically I like watching white people and black people die on TV too.

[Kuciwalker]

The answer you get is very subjective, unless you wish to give a robust way of measuring the value of human life. For example, I don't consider the most obvious method, their economic output potential, as a good measure.

Yeah, but "how do you measure the value of human life" is really a separate topic.

[OzzyKP]

You only say that because you're poor, Ozzy

I'd say it if I were rich too!

[Dauphin]

Yeah, but "how do you measure the value of human life" is really a separate topic.

If it weren't a fundamental in your calculation, I'd agree.

[Straybow]

[Q=dannubis;5709439]Well, how many American civilian casualties are allowed before they finally understand that the Arab world doesn't want to be Westernized (yet).

1 plane ? 2 planes ? ...[/Q] None. The Islamofascists didn't target the USA because we were trying to "Westernize" them. They did it because their own governments invited us in to defend them against Iraq.

The distinction is hard for Euroweenies to remember, but it's no trouble reminding you when you forget.

[Straybow]

[Q=KrazyHorse;5709636]Do you really think that blind moral relativism is anything less than completely retarded?[/Q]
[Q=Heraclitus;5709637]You do realize what this implies about most college educated people right?[/Q] Implies? No, it reveals what is there. That's how Obama got elected.

[Straybow]

[Q=Felch;5709650]I'm not saying that I'm a moral paragon, but here's something to think about.

Over the years we all accumulate wealth. We have our bank accounts, retirement accounts, homes, cars, etc. If someone came up to you and made the following offer, what would be your response?

I will save the lives of two million Iraqis, if you quit your job, liquidate all of your assets, and give the cash to me. This is guaranteed to work, but no one will know you're responsible, so they're not going to reward you.[/Q] This is actually a very good description of the great number of "useful idiots" on the left. They are always promising if you just sign the dotted line on their stimulus, their health care reform, their labor program, their expansion of entitlements, etc, that millions of people will be saved. They always say it is "guaranteed to work," and you'll get a warm, fuzzy feeling to know you were part of the solution even if you don't get any reward for yourself.

Then you wake up with a sore ass, an empty wallet, nobody was "saved," and you're left wondering who buggered you.

[SlowwHand]

Obama got there because kids thought he was a rock star.
Pay for your ticket to see the rock star now.

[dannubis]

[Q=KrazyHorse;5709636]Do you really think that blind moral relativism is anything less than completely retarded?[/Q]
[Q=Heraclitus;5709637]You do realize what this implies about most college educated people right?[/Q] Implies? No, it reveals what is there. That's how Obama got elected.

Yeah, redneck stupidity is so way much better! Only other people pay the price for proving you have the longest dick.

[Wezil]

I love listening to a Limbaugh fan talk about "useful idiots".

It's priceless.

[Jon Miller]

Dauphin, what the EPA et al use for their measure of the value of a human life is market-based; namely, it looks at the excess income earned by people in dangerous occupations relative to similar, safe occupations. The figure they currently use is in the 5-7 million dollar range, IIRC.

Is this the case?

Because average lifetime incomes for PhD holders is much higher than the rest of the population but is still <4 m.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I don't see why you think that's relevant.