[extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies

[J. Andrew Rogers]

Acy James Stapp wrote:
> 
> I'd have to respectfully disagree. The current U.S. administration
> has already caused more than ten thousand direct civilian deaths 
> in Iraq [1], not to mention any future deaths from loss of 
> infrastructure, depleted uranium poisoning, and other war-related
> causes, and the casualties of almost one thousand American and 
> coalition soldiers.


This is an argument from a complete lack of perspective.  To address
each point individually:


1.)  Compare the average death rate caused by Saddam's regime over his
career to the rate of civilian and US deaths caused by military
operations since the start of the war.  People would call that an
improvement anywhere else.

2.)  As far as I can tell, infrastructure currently meets and often
exceeds pre-war levels and capabilities in spite of jihadis working
against this.  Iraq's infrastructure was not particularly good prior to
the war and hasn't been for decades, so this wasn't that hard.

3.)  Depleted uranium is a red herring, junk science propaganda for the
most part.  Explain how dumping 40 tons of depleted uranium in the
Middle Eastern desert is worse than the *thousands* of metric tons of
UNdepleted uranium and thorium dumped near US population centers
*annually*.  Look at the long-term medical studies of the US population
centers in question.  I'll sum up for you: 1-2% increase in cancer rates
above normal, attributed almost entirely to the thorium component of the
waste.  A tiny one-time expenditure of depleted uranium in the desert
doesn't even rise above the noise floor, particularly in a country that
has serious problems with nasty organic chemical contamination.


There may be an argument as to whether US foreign policy hurts or helps,
but your arguments are very poorly conceived and appear to be talking
points taken from political propaganda.  They only sound convincing when
taken way out of context.


j. andrew rogers