Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!
From: Coby Beck (cbeck_at_mercury.bc.ca)
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: hanson: "Re: This is depressing news...Google wants to 'host' Wikipedia..."
- Maybe in reply to: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Next in thread: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Reply: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:30:56 GMT
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108678000.071930.5790@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, it does bother me to be manipulated, but do you think that
> the public will be convinced by a solid logical reason, or an
> emotional, fear based harrangue? I recognize the need for the
> deception,
Spoken like every other dictator before you.
> If we have done a
> moral "good" by getting rid of saddam and improved our strategic and
> economic position at the same time, how bad can that really be.
Well the only way to make a reasonable value judgement like that would be to
honestly assess the bad things as well as the good things. I see no moral
value in strategic and economic goals without using Bush's "God on our side"
thinking.
It takes alot more than "Saddam is gone" to balance out over 100,000 Iraqi
dead, infant mortality and poverty way higher, dententions and torture at
the hands of the US and British, Fallujah 75% destoyed and completely
uninhabitable, use of chemical weapons on civilians, bombing and raiding
hospitals and clinics intentionally, 10's of thousands of US military
casualties.
With the exception of use of chemical weapons, there is nothing in that list
that is even controversial in the mainstream media. It is just very rarely
mentioned.
But, now that the latest false justification of "binging democracy" is about
to be tested, we will soon see if the US actually does withdraw, as the
overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population wishes (democracy, remember?).
> here's your cite sir.
> http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates1.pdf
Thanks for that. It disagrees with your statement that the total US
military deaths in Iraq is "fewer soldiers than we lose in training
accidents in the same time period."
Total deaths for the last year in that .pdf (2002) is listed as 1007 with a
figure of 34.4 accidental deaths per 100,000 people serving which would mean
538 for the 1,564,066 total military personel. Likewise, the totals are low
for the last 10 yrs shown.
The only way to give some kind of support to your minimization of the 1400
lives lost in Iraq is to compare accidental deaths in an army of over
2,000,000 in the 80's to deaths in an army of 100-150 thousand in Iraq. For
some reason (different definition?) the accidental deaths/100K rate reached
65-72 in the early 80's.
-- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: hanson: "Re: This is depressing news...Google wants to 'host' Wikipedia..."
- Maybe in reply to: Vendicar Decarian: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Next in thread: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Reply: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
