The cost of war

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

www.costofwar.com/

[BadCompany]

I would never argue against any nation pumping money into their military, if that's what they want to do. Especially democratic nations, where the people are more or less aware of how much is being spent (even if it's only "a lot"). Heck, I think Canada needs to pump a lot more money into ours, than they do, but that's a rant for another day.

I do think though, that this is a much more important web site:

www.iraqbodycount.net/

We get up to the minute accounts of every US soldier's death (942? or something like that?) but we miss out on the Iraqi casualities. According to this site (and it fits in well with other, more mainstream reports), 11,000 to 14,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the on-going conflict. A civilian death has to be reported in two different media outlets, before being considered. Other reports say up to 40,000 Iraqi civilians dead. Also, consider that 14% of US soldiers, and 28% of US marines in 2003 believe they were responsible for the death of a "non-combatant" (according to the New England Journal of Medicine: content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13/T2). If those percentages held up across the whole coalition, that would equate to about 41,000 civilians killed by coalition soldiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq_casualties). And that doesn't take into account naval or air force bombardments.

Now throw-in the 30,000 Iraqi soldiers killed during the invasion (estimated by Tommy Franks, he of the "we don't do body counts": www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040419-secdef1362.html ) and you start to get a large number of Iraqi people with very personal grudges against the Americans and their allies. Not the dead, of course, but their families. Estimate an average Iraqi family as being between 4-6 people, multiply that by the 40-70,000 killed by coalition forces, and you end up with a whole lot of people who don't have a lot of reasons to celebrate the liberation...

In my opinion, this is where the war is being lost. For every civilian you kill, for every militiaman, every insurgent, you create 3 or 4 more enemies. You can't win that way. A couple of weeks back, coalition forces pounded Al Sadr's militia, and reported that they had killed some 300 of them. This is not a victory. This is a great tragedy. These weren't soldiers off in a far away land, who retreated back to their bases at night. These were civilians, every day men. Men who had probably spent the night before sleeping next to their wives. Maybe they had breakfast with their children that day, the day they were killed. Can you imagine that? You get up one morning, have some breakfast with your dad, and then 5 or 6 hours later you find out he's been blown to bits by an Apache Attack Helicopter?? You don't win friends this way... 300 killed in this manner last week. 1200 new enemies.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

BadCompany said:

I would never argue against any nation pumping money into their military, if that's what they want to do. Especially democratic nations, where the people are more or less aware of how much is being spent (even if it's only "a lot"). Heck, I think Canada needs to pump a lot more money into ours, than they do, but that's a rant for another day.

I think meeting social needs that result in healthy, well-adjusted human beings should take precedence over putting a gun in every hand. But the state of human evolution being what it is and the ease with which murderous intent takes root in the heart guarantees that Satan has his fun.

I do think though, that this is a much more important web site:

www.iraqbodycount.net/

I wouldn't label it as more important. I call it complementary, since it owes its running tally directly to the running tally on the link that I provided.

...You don't win friends this way...

No you don't. Not in Iraq. Not among the international community. Not at home.

[franko]

As much as I don't want to see yet another thread degenerate into another quasi-theological debate, there really is only one may to "win" a war, pointed out quite clearly in the corpus of the Jewish Torah/Christian Old Testament. Using the "traditional" text of Christian Deuteronomy (King James Version):

Deuteronomy 7:1-2
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the GirgaSaperlipopettees, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them

And for those who are of a more modern mind frame: When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it--don't make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out. (Living Bible)

Deuteronomy 20:10-18
As you approach a city to fight against it, first offer it a truce. If it accepts the truce and opens its gates to you, then all its people shall become your servants. But if it refuses and won't make peace with you, you must besiege it. When the Lord your God has given it to you, kill every male in the city; but you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, cattle, and booty. These instructions apply only to distant cities, not to those in the Promised Land itself. For in the cities within the boundaries of the Promised Land you are to save no one; destroy every living thing. Utterly destroy the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. This is the commandment of the Lord your God. (Living Bible)

Ultimately, the only way to win a war is to totally annihilate those you are fighting against.

And in the name of God,

Satan has his fun

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

M. said:

I think meeting social needs that result in healthy, well-adjusted human beings should take precedence over putting a gun in every hand. But the state of human evolution being what it is and the ease with which murderous intent takes root in the heart guarantees that Satan has his fun.


I wouldn't label it as more important. I call it complementary, since it owes its running tally directly to the running tally on the link that I provided.


No you don't. Not in Iraq. Not among the international community. Not at home.

The US could solve the IRAQ virus using "Point & Click". No, not a mouse, a Smith & Wesson.
I agree that if we go to Iraq we should go to win and not to make friends or pretend that we are there to help the people of Iraq. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.

[Cranky]

franko said:

Ultimately, the only way to win a war is to totally annihilate those you are fighting against.

I agree with you, but then again, I suspect that I am of unbalanced mind and dark soul.

[Montrealer]

M. said:

But the state of human evolution being what it is and the ease with which murderous intent takes root in the heart guarantees that Satan has his fun.

I just finished reading From Armageddon to the Fall of Rome, How the Ancient Warlords Changed the World by Erik Durschmied, and it's a very compelling history of just how murderous humans were, 3500 to 1500 years ago. Excellent read.

Humanity is always evolving - and is constantly becoming more and more humane. Those events that occur, that make us question that evolution, are simply stumbling blocks on the road to a just, free and equal society.

Satan has nothing to do with it, unless you mean as a metaphor for those who place their own glory, or that of their compatriots, above human compassion. Thankfully, examples of those who do are fewer in number than at any point in our common history; this assures that those who continue to do so stand out as examples to be avoided at all costs.

[Montrealer]

franko said:

Ultimately, the only way to win a war is to totally annihilate those you are fighting against.

I would suggest the book I mentioned in the previous post. Obviously that portion of the Bible was a product of its times - in ancient wars often the only choice was annihilation of your opponents (including women and children) or forced slavery, depending on the needs and abilities of the conquering party.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

M. said:

www.costofwar.com/

War is expensive, but far less costly than the alternative.
Without war, France would be speaking German and terrorists would be visiting the US like Zero pilots with student visas.
Nobody wants war, but nobody wants to be a target either.
Fastest way to STOP THE WAR is kill the enemy.

[franko]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Without war, France would be speaking German and terrorists would be visiting the US like Zero pilots with student visas.

Nope.

Without war, France would be speaking French, Germans would be speaking German, and they'd shake hands across the borders and get along. WWII was started by an expansionistic Hitler who went to war.

Without war, mediation would might actually work in the Middle East. Your examples speak of reactions to invasion and do not deal with the root cause.

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Fastest way to STOP THE WAR is kill the enemy.

Nope again.

Fastest way to STOP THE WAR is to not start the war -- to be willing to get along. Unfortunately, the human condition often negates that possibility. The What's yours is mine syndrome takes over: You have something, I want it, I'm going to take it . . . or the bully syndrome: I don't like you/what you are doing/ and I'm going to pound you into submission.

[franko]

Montrealer said:

I would suggest the book I mentioned in the previous post. Obviously that portion of the Bible was a product of its times - in ancient wars often the only choice was annihilation of your opponents (including women and children) or forced slavery, depending on the needs and abilities of the conquering party.

Unfortunately, we still live in ancient times (see: Rwanda just a generation past or Serbia/Croatia). Not the only choice (4000 years ago and today) but the choice made.

Thanks for the book recommendation.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

BadCompany said:

...You don't win friends this way...

You do however provide a rationale to increase funding of and reliance on the military by creating a greater number of enemies. "Winning" the war or "democratizing" Iraq is not the point at all. Fighting for profit is.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Montrealer said:

I just finished reading From Armageddon to the Fall of Rome, How the Ancient Warlords Changed the World by Erik Durschmied, and it's a very compelling history of just how murderous humans were, 3500 to 1500 years ago. Excellent read.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Humanity is always evolving - and is constantly becoming more and more humane. Those events that occur, that make us question that evolution, are simply stumbling blocks on the road to a just, free and equal society.

Humanity also takes steps backward.

Human beings are defined by the choices they make.

People who seek power should not generally be trusted. The powwer-hungry seek at least to control others. The powerless often desire revenge.

Humanity is in a constant state of flux.

Satan has nothing to do with it, unless you mean as a metaphor for those who place their own glory, or that of their compatriots, above human compassion. Thankfully, examples of those who do are fewer in number than at any point in our common history; this assures that those who continue to do so stand out as examples to be avoided at all costs.

In order to be recognized, good requires the existence of evil, else there is no way to define good (or evil).

*

Bad is to this day promoted as good. Witness American popular culture, for example. Bad as they wanna be.

*

The elimination of the conflict generated by good and bad is necessary for peace and understanding. Same as it ever was. Are there more people living on this plane of exitence at the present time? Perhaps. However, the champions of both good and bad remain legion. So it goes.

*

Bush's "crusade" and al-Queada's "jihad". There is evil to be defeated and there is profit (however one defines it) to be gained from doing so.

[franko]

Montrealer said:

in ancient wars often the only choice was annihilation of your opponents (including women and children) or forced slavery, depending on the needs and abilities of the conquering party.

I was just trying to point out that unless you annihilate the opposition they may arise to fight another day. Look at the Jewish/Palestinian problem: as long as there is one (for the sake of poor example) Palestinian fighting for a homeland the battle for land will continue. No more Palestinians; no more problems.

This is, of course, a bad example, because then others in the area (Egypt, for example) would want to retaliate. So in that case, the Jewish population would need to be annihilated (I am not advocating this!). But then the Jordanians and Egypt would want the land, so another war would ensue.

Upon reflection, though, I have the answer: make me world emporer and let me make all the decisions. I can't mess up the world any more than it already is (or as much as I've already messed up my own life )

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Montrealer said:

...in ancient wars often the only choice was annihilation of your opponents (including women and children) or forced slavery, depending on the needs and abilities of the conquering party.

Sadly, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

European settlers vs aboriginal North Americans, Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Rwanda, East Timor, Maoist China, Vietnam (American era) are easily recalled examples of the milk of human kindness overflowing.

The enslavement of indigenous populations by modern corporations greedy for more and more profit.

[Montrealer]

I should clarify that the "only choice" comment I made about ancient peoples deciding between genocide or enslavement of their enemies - it appeared to them as their only choice, not that it was the only logical or sensible choice to me or humanity today.

The fact that these events in ancient times was answered away easily by the victors (see Julius Caesar's atrocities) and are now considered abhorrent and utterly unforgivable to the vast majority of humanity is, in my mind, a great step forward.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Montrealer said:

I should clarify that the "only choice" comment I made about ancient peoples deciding between genocide or enslavement of their enemies - it appeared to them as their only choice, not that it was the only logical or sensible choice to me or humanity today.

The fact that these events in ancient times was answered away easily by the victors (see Julius Caesar's atrocities) and are now considered abhorrent and utterly unforgivable to the vast majority of humanity is, in my mind, a great step forward.

Abhorrent and unforgivable unless it's an election year!

[Montrealer]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Abhorrent and unforgivable unless it's an election year!

Well, we should try to keep things in perspective.

Even though the War in Iraq was highly questionable, the overall U.S. reaction to the events of September 11th have been scrutinized and have not crossed that threshold (questionable and nauseating, perhaps - abhorrent and unforgivable, no).

If the United States had launched nuclear missiles at Afghanistan and Iraq instead, that would have been abhorrent and unforgivable.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Rationality will not save mankind from itself.

[duster]

Agreed. One could argue that reason, like religion, presents itself as the solution for problems it has created. Was this conflict the result of actions by reasonable men?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

duster said:

Was this conflict the result of actions by reasonable men?

That seems to be the rationale.

[Skilly]

War is never a humane solution ..... in every war there will be civillian casualties. Especially a guerilla war. That is essentially now what Iraq is. The "civilian" walking down the street could be the next guy that jumps at you with a bomb wrapped around his chest. I will not speak down on the Americans for fighting in these circumstances, if it were my daughter over there I would tell her to shoot anything that moved in a way she wasn't comfortable with.

My co-workers son was in the jeep in Afghanistan that two "civilians" jumped into and detonated their bombs. The only reason his son lived was because "civilian number 2's" bomb did not go off and Cpl. Jamie Murphy's body took the force of "civilian number 1's" bomb. In that attack another Afghan civilian also died .... so they do not care about their own civilians.

When you don't now if your neighbour is a terrorist (remember the terrorists in 9-11 were trained in the US and the Americans contend that their are active Islam terrorist s in Canada), how can you find fault in soldiers trying to survive in guerilla warfare. I give Bush credit for not pulling a Hiroshima on them all ...... it brought Japan in line pretty quickly.

[Skilly]

franko said:

WWII was started by an expansionistic Hitler who went to war.

I get your point and agree with it.

But WWII was not started by an expansionistic Hitler. It was started by the Allied powers who forced Germany to pay for WWI. They even split there country into parts ... to the victor go the spoils so to speak. This "paying for the war" made Germany so poor that the people were only happy to listen to a radical who promised them "the Third Reich". Hitler was the face of the German psyche. If WWI had to of been handled better (which Hitler had nothing to do with ..... the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand in SErbia started) then maybe WWII could have been avoided.

[seventeen]

franko said:

Ultimately, the only way to win a war is to totally annihilate those you are fighting against.

Sort of. If the US annihilated Mexico, nary a Mexican would bother them again. But how do you think their dealings would go with Canada, European nations, or China? At what point do the other nations, fearing for their lives, conspire to do in the US? There has to be a better way than warring with each other.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

seventeen said:

Sort of. If the US annihilated Mexico, nary a Mexican would bother them again. But how do you think their dealings would go with Canada, European nations, or China? At what point do the other nations, fearing for their lives, conspire to do in the US? There has to be a better way than warring with each other.

Two-thousand years ago, a guy came along and said "Wouldn't it be great if we were all nice to each other?"

So we nailed him to a tree.

Pretty much been downhill from there.

- Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

[PTH]

Skilly said:

But WWII was not started by an expansionistic Hitler. It was started by the Allied powers who forced Germany to pay for WWI.

Whoa ! Disagree big time. The Allies in WWI might have done some things wrong, especially with the Versailles treaty, but they were truly trying to find a peaceful solution to the European situation.

They even split there country into parts ... to the victor go the spoils so to speak.

Huh ? The whole idea post-wwi was to set things up for "self-determination". That might have been done badly at times, but there whole idea was there. Danzig wasn't integrated into Poland because it was full of Germans, even though Poland badly needed that seaport.

This "paying for the war" made Germany so poor that the people were only happy to listen to a radical who promised them "the Third Reich".

Actually, reparations were minor compared to the industrial equipment Germany took from Northern France during the war. The real problems were elsewhere, but the reparations themselves give the people the impression that whatever went wrong was the Allies' fault.

I'd say that early 20s Germany did a lot to harm itself in the long wrong by refusing to deal with reparations properly. Keep in mind that reparations were common over the years - in 1871 Germany imposed them on France and France paid them off without too much trouble, and those were mighty large reparations. I don't have the numbers handy, but equivalent in scope to the 1918 reparations.

Hitler was the face of the German psyche. If WWI had to of been handled better (which Hitler had nothing to do with ..... the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand in SErbia started) then maybe WWII could have been avoided.

Well, for that, you'd need to have France and GB keep at it for another year with American help, accept large-scale worldwide US influence, and get Germany to unconditionnally surrender. I find it hard to blame people for not wanting to go through another year, at least, of war, just because they needed to have a total surrender rather than have the other side give up but ask to be treated decently.


Overall, we should remember that Germany won wwi in strategic terms. Rather than have large powerful empires all around it, after the war Germany had France and tons of lesser countries it could dominate, France had been devastated and wouldn't recover easily, Germany had lost very little meaningful land, and reparations can simply be paid off. To a certain extent, that's the cause of wwii - that Germany won wwi but couldn't reap the benefits without a nationalist leader who'd push the limits a bit, but they had the misfortune of getting one of the worst possible leaders of that kind - not a nationalistic German looking to take back Germany's place on the world stage (which is what most people really expected, and explains why Hitler got plenty of leg room at first) but a psychopath who wanted war.

[Skilly]

PTH said:

not a nationalistic German looking to take back Germany's place on the world stage (which is what most people really expected, and explains why Hitler got plenty of leg room at first) but a psychopath who wanted war.

The question you do not answer is why Hitler wanted war. In the end, when he saw how powerful he made Germany it was for world domination, the preservation of his "elite race". But at its grassroots, he was just a poor kid ticked off at hard times and the way Germany was treated after WWI.

The same thing could conceivably happen today in the middle east. The US has its nose now in to almost every confrontation. Israel/Palestine , Iran/Iraq, Afganistan, ..... the way they leave those countries after they leave will detemine if some fundamentalist fool tries to bring the world to the brink of war again. Reparations had a bigger influence than you would think .... you don't see them being enforced today because kicking a country when its down is not the way to keep them down.

[franko]

Skilly said:

WWII was . . . started by the Allied powers who forced Germany to pay for WWI. They even split there country into parts ... to the victor go the spoils so to speak. This "paying for the war" made Germany so poor that the people were only happy to listen to a radical who promised them "the Third Reich".

Did you read Paris 1919? Debunks many of the common erroneous thoughts. As with Michael Moore, MacMillan slants her research to suit her at times, but seems pretty close to me.

Background: father-in-law in Hitler's army, spent two years in French concentration camp; wound upin East Germany after the war, all "earthy goods" appropriated by the government of the day; escaped with family to West Germany in the 50s, father-in-law came to Canada when of age.

Heard much from the "family" on why all the problems are caused by "the west" after WWI which led to WWII and why all problems yet today stem from that. National responsibility, anyone? I do ask that carefully, for not everyone was in favour of Hitler's leadership, and many paid the price for speaking out (Bonhoeffer). Others said "we can't do anything" and followed like sheep, but following the war bleated about being forced to follow a government they disagreed with (still today the German clan gatherings of my in-laws are quite vocal as they "debate" the fault line.

I will go along with the idea that

WWII was not started by an expansionistic Hitler

. Rather it was started by a charismatic egomaniacal Hitler

[franko]

seventeen said:

Sort of. If the US annihilated Mexico, nary a Mexican would bother them again. But how do you think their dealings would go with Canada, European nations, or China? At what point do the other nations, fearing for their lives, conspire to do in the US? There has to be a better way than warring with each other.

Of course there is a better way: don't war in the first place. However, once it starts, annihilation (or the threat) will end things pretty quickly. As to Europe and China, that is another war, so same scenario. Pretty soon only you and me are left, and you'd better watch your back ( what a way to live . . . er . . . exist).

[franko]

duster said:

Was this conflict the result of actions by reasonable men?

Define reasonable. Each one thought so, as he reasoned it out.