Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Lew Rockwell and Islam

rated by 0 users
This post has 73 Replies | 8 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 12:26 AM

I know there is a whole seperate nuke thread - but i had to comment. I think I am as anti gov. as most on this site. but to me - cruicifying the US for using nukes to end WW2 and saving thousands of its soldiers ( of course we know there were other reasons as well) - to me is the same as using current mores to judge people 100 years ago.

I see no problem judging people 100 years ago by current mores. In fact, I think we should be judging ourselves by their mores, we have fallen way behind the curve.

The US government committed the two most concentrated acts of mass murder in human history in 1945. Those bombings should also be remembered as days of infamy. The dropping of the bomb was gratuitous, murderous and the rate of the atrocity dwarfs all others. Never have 200,000+ innocent lives been extinguished in a matter of moments. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the ultimate wake-up call to humanity: we can no longer tolerate sociopathic rulers as we have for thousands of years. We must strictly insist that no leadership of any form can be imposed by one man upon another. Leaders used to be people of such great quality that other people willingly followed them. Today's leaders are just a bunch of Al Capone's imposing their tommy-gun/atomic-bomb-backed authority onto humanity.

In 50 years we will all be considered barbarians for much of our current culture. WHich ever country had developed the bomb first would have used it. The US should not be tormented forever because they were fastest.

Every symbol of the US government should be spat upon and despised with the hatred we currently reserve for other mass-murdering regimes, such as the Nazis. The US government is the embodiment of the Machiavellian amorality of the Roman empire. It has perfected the art of government through thuggery.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985
I agree 100%, Mike, maybe 120%, because I would add that making a present judgement about any past action is deplorable. After a good 3 minutes has elapsed all should be forgotten.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 6:20 AM

The idea of China nuking the United States is so bizarre that I think even Leonard Peikoff would balk at it.

In relation to nukes China subscribes to what it calls a "minimum deterrent policy". They have only a little over 300 nuclear weapons, and no plans to expand their arsenal. Also unlike the US and Russia they have no nukes actually attached to rockets that are always ready to go at a press of a button. Not because they couldn't have such a thing, but because they don't want to.

 

I agree 100%, Mike, maybe 120%, because I would add that making a present judgement about any past action is deplorable. After a good 3 minutes has elapsed all should be forgotten.

LOL, good one.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290

I agree 100% with Clayton, and whoever thinks that dropping the bombs saved American lives is terribly misinformed.  Truman did it because he believed that the Japanese were subhuman and I'm sure Truman's burning in Hell for it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 8:35 AM

Centinel:
You bring up an interesting point.  Why develop a weapon system if you don't have the demonstrated will to use it ?

Nuclear weapons are more a deterrent and defensive weapon than anything else.  Pacifists, I mean non-aggressors like Lew Rockwell destroy the defensive and deterrent qualities of many weapon systems because they wont use them for moral reasons.

this is an insane policy.  this is one of the reason why anarchism is defective, many followers are confirmed pacifists I meannon-violent, oops non-aggressive and that don't work in the real world cuz every bully on the block is going to start moving in on your society knowing that you wont take a shot until after you get suckerpunched.

I wonder if Lew ever hung out on a play ground or opened a history book  and read it without totally rejecting everything in it as statist government propoganda ?

The part about "every bully on the block is going to start moving in on your society knowing that you won't take a show until after you get suckerpunched" is yet another argument from ignorance. You must logically prove that the above statement is necessarily true for all time (i.e. a certainty about the future) in order for it to be valid.

Oh and Centinel, are you doing things like "Pacifists, I mean non-aggressors" in order to insinuate that non-aggression is the same as pacifism? If so, can you please support this notion?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 9:31 AM

Centinel:
THe japanese pretty much accept the fact that the US was justified in dropping the bombs.

How is justification ever a fact? Didn't you agree before that "right" and "wrong" (therefore "justified" and "unjustified") are subjective?

Centinel:
they are gentle kittens now compared to pre-bomb.

This seems to be an instance of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Centinel:
and you need to check your definitions, dropping the atom bombs was definitely not murder.  btw, you just cant call something murder it has to be determined  in a court of law.    oops, i forgot your an anarchist so there is no law, so I guess anyone can call anyone else a murderer so long as you can buy a 'court of law' to support your opinion.

Please prove (that is, logically prove) that there is a correct definition for "murder" - or for any other word, for that matter.

Centinel:
I think your engaging in a bit of hyperbole biased by personal hatred of all things US government and all things violent.

Where does his statement imply personal hatred of anything? Also, do you or do you not distinguish between violence and aggression?

Centinel:
This is what the war department in japan wanted to do before the bombs were dropped:

We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight -- japanese imperial war journal

Can you provide an actual source for this citation? Typing "japanese imperial war journal" doesn't cut it, as far as I'm concerned.

Centinel:
Also, here are the % of japanese troops who fought to the death on previous islands:

Attu -----2350 ----29 ----98.8%

Tarawa --2571 -----8 ----99.7%
Roi-Namur 3472 ---51 ----98.5%
Kwajalein 5017 ----79 -----98.4%
Saipan 30,000 ----921 ----97%
Iwo Jima 21,000 --1,083 ---95%
Okinawa 92,000 ---7,401 ---92%

Please provide a source for these figures. Also, I suspect you're cherry-picking your data. Can you provide the total number of Japanese casualties on all islands? Furthermore, the data you do provide does not provide any distinction between those Japanese soldiers who engaged in suicide attacks and those who were simply killed in battle.

Centinel:
read this quote from the actual emperor of japan who had never spoken a single word in public until this statement after the bombs were dropped.   you know the same emperor that every japanese miliitary man was fighting for and whose wishes they followed even to death in a kamikaze attack:

the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Once again, can you please provide a source for this quotation? Otherwise, I don't quite understand your point in providing it.

Centinel:
And they surrendered to the Americans forthwith, although many jap units  kept fighting the SOviets in manchuria and the kuriles.

Apparently, the Japanese were willing to surrender to the US before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki events, but with a few conditions. I can provide source material if you so desire.

Centinel:
I am tracking with you on this one clayton,  i think you stole my quote that I used  last April 15th before sending out my IRS check, but seriously dont you think that the hyperbole and invective is a little scary ?

I mean even the folks over mises.org (who are pretty dependable on economic issues) support my view that the US and liberal democracy has been a pretty strong force for promoting civil liberties.

http://mises.org/media/4824/More-Free-or-Less-Free

Riggenbach confirms what most folks who are not blinded by ideological hate, thats usually marxists or I guess you call them left-anarchists,  know that America has generally been a force for promoting libertarian good in the world.

You're kidding me, right? How is invading, bombing, and fomenting revolutions in many countries around the world "being a force for promoting libertarian good in the world"? I mean, if we're talking about "the United States", we're really talking about the United States government, aren't we? We're not talking about businesses which happen to be headquartered in the US, and we're not talking about individual US citizens. So tell me again, how has the US government been "a force for promoting libertarian good in the world"?

Centinel:
does that mean the USA is perfect, hell no.  does that mean that there arent serious problems (socialism and economic coercion), hell no.  but the overall thrust has been positive and I think it is counterproductive to shoot the horse that got us here without a better ride and still a long way to go.  I think we can kick this horse into submission and get it back on track, but  unlike you guys I am not ready to shoot it.  And lets be honest you guys dont have the heart to shoot anything, so you may as well get back on and help out with some constructive, not destrutive, criticism and solutions.

Translation: "Nothing to see here, folks. Move along." Please. Do you really think people like Clayton can't see through your attempts at manipulation?

Also, you have no idea whether any of us has the heart to shoot anything. No idea.

Centinel:
your passion and allegiance to the substance of this forum (anarchism) is noteworthy, but sometimes it can get in the way of rational thought.  I think lew is sometimes misguided by much of the same passion for anarchism that you hold.

Care to explain what you mean by "rational thought" here?

Centinel:
just a little rumination from your friendly neighborhook war mongering neocon who is trying to offer you dudes a different perspective.

Who's to say we haven't considered - and rejected - that perspective a long time ago? wink

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 194
Points 4,315
Mike replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 1:11 PM

 I have asked myself the same question when reading this forum...

"why is it that the anarchists on this site are so approving and apologetic of statistsheart in the most brutal regimes while they hate the US angrywithout reservation ?"

 

Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.

We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 1:19 PM

Mike:
 I have asked myself the same question when reading this forum...

"why is it that the anarchists on this site are so approving and apologetic of statistsheart in the most brutal regimes while they hate the US angrywithout reservation ?"

I don't think it's actually about that. Rather, I think it's about pointing out the hypocrisy of the US government's justifications in how it deals with different foreign countries. That's not to say that other countries never engage in such hypocrisy - but Lew lives in the US, and the US is also "the world's only superpower" at this point, so it's the prime target for point out hypocrisy.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 2:47 PM

 

THe japanese pretty much accept the fact that the US was justified in dropping the bombs.  

Versus:

read this quote from the actual emperor of japan...

"the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb... taking the toll of many innocent lives.

I think your engaging in a bit of hyperbole biased by personal hatred of all things US government and all things violent.

I am not a pacifist. The use and threat of violence is justifiable in many circumstances. Just not against 200,000 civilians. Even if they had been working in factories to produce weapons, I still reject the nihilistic logic that they are a fair target. You don't kill people who are not actually pointing a gun or throwing a grenade at you or directing them in doing so. To do so is called murder.

Also, here are the % of japanese troops who fought to the death on previous islands:

Attu -----2350 ----29 ----98.8%

Tarawa --2571 -----8 ----99.7%
Roi-Namur 3472 ---51 ----98.5%
Kwajalein 5017 ----79 -----98.4%
Saipan 30,000 ----921 ----97%
Iwo Jima 21,000 --1,083 ---95%
Okinawa 92,000 ---7,401 ---92%

OK, the message was clear... stop trying to invade Japanese territory. There was no need to impose unconditional surrender, it was just a big pissing contest.

Hey, I know you arent ever going to agree with me, but I thought I would throw that out there so you can see where I am coming from.

Yes, I know precisely where you're coming from... this is just the standard History Channel moral nihilism that is pumped into people's brains 24/7 by the very criminals and their heirs who are guilty of these crimes.

 dont you think that the hyperbole and invective is a little scary ?

What hyperbole? The US government is indisputably guilty of mass murder. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just the tip of the iceberg, the US government is drenched in blood. I despise all mass-murderers, even the ones I'm not told to despise by the media according to the political expediency of the day.

Riggenbach confirms what most folks who are not blinded by ideological hate, thats usually marxists or I guess you call them left-anarchists,  know that America has generally been a force for promoting libertarian good in the world.

 

Tell that to the Afghani wedding party obliterated by US bombs. Tell that to the surviving family members of the million Iraqis who have died since the 2003 US invasion. Bloodthirsty as he was, Saddam Hussein at his worst did not kill so many Iraqis.

does that mean the USA is perfect, hell no.

Please don't conflate the occupying government which calls itself "the United States" and the people of America. The two are almost completely unaffiliated.

the overall thrust has been positive

For Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, sure.

the same passion for anarchism that you hold.

I already explained to you I have no commitment to "anarchy". Anarchy is a description of a state of affairs. I have shed my one-time collectivism so I am not interested in bringing about a state of affairs in society. What I'm interested in is teaching people to refuse imposed leadership and to insist that any laws they obey be laws that apply equally to all people, regardless of "rank" or official title. For everything else, let the chips fall where they may.

your friendly neighborhook war mongering neocon

Your words.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 2:51 PM

I don't think it's actually about that. Rather, I think it's about pointing out the hypocrisy of the US government's justifications in how it deals with different foreign countries. That's not to say that other countries never engage in such hypocrisy - but Lew lives in the US, and the US is also "the world's only superpower" at this point, so it's the prime target for point out hypocrisy.

The US government - and its necon apologists - tout it as some kind of moral beacon of light. Combined with the fact that the US government is responsible for more evil in the world today than any other single organization on the planet and you have the height of hypocrisy. The single most evil organization on the planet touts itself as a moral beacon of light. Go figure.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 5:26 PM

Centinel:
clayton you got so many fallacies in your post i will have to deal with them one at a time to save space on the page.

You say he has "so many fallacies in [his] post", yet you only list two (alleged) fallacies. Are you really equating "two" with "so many"? Trust me, Clayton won't be intimidated by this opening line.

Centinel:
this one is ridiculous

Clayton: Tell that to the Afghani wedding party obliterated by US bombs.

Clayton: Tell that to the surviving family members of the million Iraqis who have died since the 2003 US invasion. Bloodthirsty as he was, Saddam Hussein at his worst did not kill so many Iraqis.

the first one is tragic, it is certainly not indicative of US policy.  It was a mistake, a tragic mistake.  Dont make it into something it isnt.  the USA spends hundreds of billions of dollars on smart bomb technology specifically designed to minimize civilian casaulties. we could accomplish our missions with a fraction of the costs in munitions by simply dropping dumb 2 ton bombs on targets without concern for civilian casualties, but we don't. Why?  because we are far more humane than our enemies that many anarchist give a pass to.

Perhaps you'd like to, you know, cite one or more sources that demonstrate (or at least provide evidence) that it was a tragic mistake.

Since you're apparently "in the business", I'm sure you're familiar with the term "bugsplat"?

Centinel:
The second fallacy is not worth commenting on, but I will indulge you because it is obvious you got this nonsense from extremely unscientific and biased research like the soros funded lancet study that has been lambasted many times over for numerous mistakes and biases.

the definitive study is the world health organization research that is far more comprehensive, balanced, and extensive that determined 155,000 deaths and most of these were from insurgent attacks, not Americans.

here it is:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr02/en/index.html

let me put this into perspective.   during saddam's dictatorship over 25 years over 2 million violent deaths were directly attributed to saddam's actions (250,000 kurds, 250,000 shia, 1,000,000 iran-iraq and kuwaiti war deaths, and 500,000 from diversion of humanitarian aid during sanctions regime)

over 25 years that equals over 80,000 dead per year

contrast that with operation iraqi freedom in which approximately 175,000 dead (probably less than that, but I added 20,000 since the surge although violent deaths are back to pre-war latent levels).

that equals 175,000 over 8 1/2 years or 20,600 a year.

which means that empirically speaking OIF saved over 500,000 iraqi lives!!!!

At the very least, I think you need to provide an actual source for the death-toll figures under Saddam's reign. But also, the study you link to only counts Iraqis who were directly killed by violence. If you're "in the business", you should know that casualty-of-war figures also include those who died indirectly from war, such as from disease and starvation as a result of it.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 5:36 PM

the first one is tragic, it is certainly not indicative of US policy.  

Bullshit.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/11/drone_killing_civilians

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/02/us-killed-700-civilians-in-pakistan-drone-strikes-in-2009/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-soldiers-crimes-idUSTRE76K65L20110721

http://original.antiwar.com/deen/2010/06/29/unmanned-drones/

These are just the tip of the iceberg. I don't have the time to refute your FOX-parroting bullshit all day long so if you honestly want more information regarding civilian casualities in the the US war on the Middle East, I recommend you look at the archives of antiwar.com, salon.com and lewrockwell.com, al-Jazeera and RT.com.

It was a mistake, a tragic mistake.  Dont make it into something it isnt.

It's the inevitable consequence of a "war" whose only real purpose is to support demand for the output of the domestic Military Industrial Complex. The US government is targetting "bad guys" - which turn out to not fit their own definition of what is a bad guy as much as 90% of the time - but they end up murdering a lot of innocent civilians with impunity. And that's the root of the problem - there is no legal accountability. If you blow up 40 men, women and children at a wedding, all that happens is "oops, sorry, pushed the wrong button." People should be doing life sentences breaking rocks in Fort Leavenworth for this shit. And that's leaving aside the obvious moral/legal question of what business the US government has deciding who is or is not a "bad guy" in Afghanistan.

the USA spends hundreds of billions of dollars on smart bomb technology specifically designed to minimize civilian casaulties.

This actually makes things worse. The US public feels absolved of guilt by virtue of this very technology. Thus, the true purpose of these technologies is to increase the absolute amount of death that it is politically possible for the US government to inflict.

we could accomplish our missions with a fraction of the costs in munitions by simply dropping dumb 2 ton bombs on targets without concern for civilian casualties, but we don't. Why?  because we are far more humane than our enemies that many anarchist give a pass to.

I don't agree. US bombing in WWII was massively inefficient. JDAMs and other targeted weapons are much more deadly and cost-effective in terms of deaths/dollar. It's like the difference betwen sniping with a shotgun or a 30-.06.

 

The second fallacy is not worth commenting on, but I will indulge you because it is obvious you got this nonsense from extremely unscientific and biased research like the soros funded lancet study that has been lambasted many times over for numerous mistakes and biases.

the definitive study is the world health organization research that is far more comprehensive, balanced, and extensive that determined 155,000 deaths and most of these were from insurgent attacks, not Americans.

here it is:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr02/en/index.html

 

Those are the most conservative possible low-ball numbers. But given that the Pentagon is taking active steps to distort its own body count (and that's not even counting the homefront casualties) and many of the deaths of innocents in Afghanistan are being reported as "insurgents", it's a no-brainer to realize that the death toll in Iraq is certainly much, much higher than the US government is admitting to or than reporters can independently verify.

let me put this into perspective.   during saddam's dictatorship over 25 years over 2 million violent deaths were directly attributed to saddam's actions (250,000 kurds, 250,000 shia, 1,000,000 iran-iraq and kuwaiti war deaths, and 500,000 from diversion of humanitarian aid during sanctions regime)

over 25 years that equals over 80,000 dead per year

contrast that with operation iraqi freedom in which approximately 175,000 dead (probably less than that, but I added 20,000 since the surge although violent deaths are back to pre-war latent levels).

that equals 175,000 over 8 1/2 years or 20,600 a year.

which means that empirically speaking OIF saved over 500,000 iraqi lives!!!!

So, the US puppet in Iraq was a blood-thirsty, sadistic bastard. No surprise there, they all are.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 5:36 PM

double-post... argh...

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 5:37 PM

Why can't I post without moderation?? Grrr.....

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 5:39 PM

 

the first one is tragic, it is certainly not indicative of US policy.  

BS.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/11/drone_killing_civilians

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/02/us-killed-700-civilians-in-pakistan-drone-strikes-in-2009/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-soldiers-crimes-idUSTRE76K65L20110721

http://original.antiwar.com/deen/2010/06/29/unmanned-drones/

These are just the tip of the iceberg. I don't have the time to refute your FOX-parroting BS all day long so if you honestly want more information regarding civilian casualities in the the US war on the Middle East, I recommend you look at the archives of antiwar.com, salon.com and lewrockwell.com, al-Jazeera and RT.com.

It was a mistake, a tragic mistake.  Dont make it into something it isnt.

It's the inevitable consequence of a "war" whose only real purpose is to support demand for the output of the domestic Military Industrial Complex. The US government is targetting "bad guys" - which turn out to not fit their own definition of what is a bad guy as much as 90% of the time - but they end up murdering a lot of innocent civilians with impunity. And that's the root of the problem - there is no legal accountability. If you blow up 40 men, women and children at a wedding, all that happens is "oops, sorry, pushed the wrong button." People should be doing life sentences breaking rocks in Fort Leavenworth for this. And that's leaving aside the obvious moral/legal question of what business the US government has deciding who is or is not a "bad guy" in Afghanistan.

the USA spends hundreds of billions of dollars on smart bomb technology specifically designed to minimize civilian casaulties.

This actually makes things worse. The US public feels absolved of guilt by virtue of this very technology. Thus, the true purpose of these technologies is to increase the absolute amount of death that it is politically possible for the US government to inflict.

we could accomplish our missions with a fraction of the costs in munitions by simply dropping dumb 2 ton bombs on targets without concern for civilian casualties, but we don't. Why?  because we are far more humane than our enemies that many anarchist give a pass to.

I don't agree. US bombing in WWII was massively inefficient. JDAMs and other targeted weapons are much more deadly and cost-effective in terms of deaths/dollar. It's like the difference betwen sniping with a shotgun or a 30-.06.

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 5:39 PM

 

 

The second fallacy is not worth commenting on, but I will indulge you because it is obvious you got this nonsense from extremely unscientific and biased research like the soros funded lancet study that has been lambasted many times over for numerous mistakes and biases.

the definitive study is the world health organization research that is far more comprehensive, balanced, and extensive that determined 155,000 deaths and most of these were from insurgent attacks, not Americans.

here it is:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr02/en/index.html

Those are the most conservative possible low-ball numbers. But given that the Pentagon is taking active steps to distort its own body count (and that's not even counting the homefront casualties) and many of the deaths of innocents in Afghanistan are being reported as "insurgents", it's a no-brainer to realize that the death toll in Iraq is certainly much, much higher than the US government is admitting to or than reporters can independently verify.

let me put this into perspective.   during saddam's dictatorship over 25 years over 2 million violent deaths were directly attributed to saddam's actions (250,000 kurds, 250,000 shia, 1,000,000 iran-iraq and kuwaiti war deaths, and 500,000 from diversion of humanitarian aid during sanctions regime)

over 25 years that equals over 80,000 dead per year

contrast that with operation iraqi freedom in which approximately 175,000 dead (probably less than that, but I added 20,000 since the surge although violent deaths are back to pre-war latent levels).

that equals 175,000 over 8 1/2 years or 20,600 a year.

which means that empirically speaking OIF saved over 500,000 iraqi lives!!!!

So, the US puppet in Iraq was a blood-thirsty, sadistic bastard. No surprise there, they all are.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 5:47 PM

Centinel:
You believe the numbers are wrong, cite your  own source.

The burden of proof rests with you.

Centinel:
You don't like the numbers, cite your own source.

See above.

Centinel:
I think the World Health organization has a link for the study methodology and the raw data which includes stats on pre-war and post-war infant mortality and stuff like that,

enjoy.  maybe you can find a 'fallacy' hidden in there somewhere to refute their data.

I'm not disputing their numbers, I'm saying comparing their study with whichever study Clayton has cited may be comparing apples and oranges.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 5:55 PM

Centinel:
Clayton,

Wow surprise

Oh go cry us a river.

Centinel:
I cite respected research from the WOrld Health organization (hardly a neocon source) and you cite anti-war.com, salon, elliot lake, and other unabashed highly suspect Left wing sources engaged in heavily biased commentary with selective data .

Methinks you need to support the assertion of "[engaging] in heavily biased commentary with selective data". Then again, I'm not surprised that you haven't (and that you probably won't).

Centinel:
I think any objective and independent thinking arbiter who views this would confirm that no matter how reputible source I present you are going to match it with shrill leftwing or otherwise anti-American bias without a shred of objectivity.

See above.

Centinel:
case closed !

In your own mind, perhaps.

Centinel:
I think we can agree that it is futile to debate further when the ground rules prevent reasonable use of citations.

You must be referring to your efforts to avoid being cornered in debate.

Centinel:
good luck to you, autolykos, daniel muffinberg, and other anarchist adherents, but I will no longer waste my time debating you.

This is the second time you've said you're leaving. Somehow I don't think you'll keep your word this time either. Don't worry, I think we'll be around when you come back. wink

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 5:59 PM

Good riddance.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 6:10 PM

any objective and independent thinking arbiter

I don't give a damn what an arbiter would say, life isn't a high-school debate club. The truth is what it is. You're either seeking the truth for truth's sake or you're carrying water for somebody else. Please substantiate your accusations that antiwar.com or salon.com or even lewrockwell.com are biased sources. What is their hidden agenda? What is the power interest they are beholden to? Whose water are they carrying? The single largest funder of the UN - of which the WHO is an agency - is the very government whose stats the WHO is supposedly "objectively" analyzing. That's worse than bias, that's called conflict-of-interest. The folks over at Iraq Body Count have a similar number but they are clear that this is the most conservative possible number, in other words, no one can credibly claim that less than 111,504 Iraqis are dead as a result of the Iraq war.

Your glib math regarding the number of Iraqi lives the US has supposedly saved is downright sickening. You seem to forget that the US government actually backed Saddam Hussein when it served their interests. I wonder how many of those weapons we provide Hussein for use against the Iranian people were instead turned on the very Iraqis you want to count in the "killed by Hussein" column. Disgusting.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 6:10 PM

Argh, what is wrong with the forum!! Sorry, another double-post folks. (Mods feel free to delete).

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 194
Points 4,315
Mike replied on Tue, Jul 26 2011 6:58 PM

personally I like to see different points of view. that is the only way a nube like me can learn.

Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.

We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 90
Points 1,480

Why are we comparing something like Anti-war.com to LRC?  LRC has gone downhill, takes cheap shots at fellow libertarian (non-Austrian) economists, and they believe any deviations from strict Rothbardianism is anti-libertarian and un-Austrian.

 

Anti-war.com is much, much better than LRC.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

LRC has a wider scope than AntiWar. AntiWar focuses and goes into depth on the topic of war, while LRC doesn't.

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Jul 27 2011 2:25 AM

I'm sad to say I stopped reading LRC a while back, primarily because Lew insists on featuring Gary North and other writers of very dubious credentials in terms of their principled opposition to statism. Gary North, for example, is verifiably statist in the fullest sense of the term, he just wants a theocratic state. I can't understand how someone with an avowed goal of "ushering in" the divine, millenial theocracy of Christ on Earth can be a prominent figure in the fight for liberty. Nowadays, I just drop in on LRC sporadically whenever I can't seem to find any decent news anywhere else. He really does diligently crawl the news.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Jul 27 2011 8:48 AM

Mike:
personally I like to see different points of view. that is the only way a nube like me can learn.

Just remember - not all points of view are created equal. Some are inherently flawed. smiley

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

War is good!

NUKE! THE! WORLD! NUKE! THE! WORLD!

If it worked out so well for Japan as you seem to suggest, why not? Then we can all be happy little kittens.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (74 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS