[extropy-chat] The NeoCon Mind-Trick

[Herb Martin]

  _____  

From: Robert Bradbury

Herb Martin wrote:


President Bush has led the freeing of over 60,000,000
human beings.  Not bad for six years. 



While it is good that many people are now "free" who were not six years ago,
I would offer this. 

Generally the entire thread is incredibly tedious and rude to any
who did not sign up for this topic (including mine), but your post 
is so reasonably as to warrant a reply....


The Bush directly accountable death toll (to U.S. citizens) will exceed the
death toll (to U.S. and foreign citizens) due to the 911 terrorists sometime
in early 2007 [1].  In fact it is almost certain that the Bush responsible
death toll will exceed the 911 death toll by July 4, 2007 (quite a present
for the 4th of July... :-().
Now, one has to ask -- "Is the 'freedom' of 60,000,000 people worth another
~3000 U.S. lives?"
 

Generally the soldiers who fight, and those of us who have fought
previously, say "Yes".
 


I am not saying that it is not.  One could look at the civil war or perhaps
WWII where they were clearly justified on the basis of "freeing" people.
However that was *not* the case with the war in Afghanistan or the war in
Iraq.  They were largely sold on the basis of *potentially* protecting
American lives in the future.   

"Sold" is irrelevant -- outcomes are what count but contrary to popular
misconception
the war in Iraq was NOT SOLD STRICTLY on WMD or fighting terrorism, these
were
just the areas where concentration was focused.  

No one ever claimed these were the only reasons and there was no doubt (at
the
time) and little rational doubt even now that Saddam (had) had WMD and would

pursue them at the earliest opportunity -- sanctions were rapidly
disintegrating,
and Saddam would soon had been lose from them.

There was also the issue of the (claimed) deaths of Iraqi citizens DUE to
the
sanctions (and of course really due the UN mismanagement of them due to
corruption).
 
 



And IMO, if you look on balance at the amount of money spent on wars
overseas over the last six years vs. the amount of money being spent on
preparing for a "natural" disaster such as a breakout of the H5N1 virus
there is a gross imbalance of priorities. 

Take a step back and look at it from an extropic perspective -- *how* many
of those 60,000,000 now "free" lives would have been lost had the U.S. not
decided to exercise the military option?   

Saddam was killing approximately 100,000 per year so the math is quite easy
if we just take `ONE TENTH that number.  In four years Saddam would have
murdered (VERY) conservatively another 40,000 which exceeds the generally
accepts death toll.  (And at his actual rate he would have approach another
one half MILLION.)
 
Most of those deaths also are not attributable to the US as well. While it
is
popular to do so, it is wrong to hold the use accountable for deaths (to
Iraqis)
by the terrorists and insurgents who target them, or to include the
COMBATANT
deaths in such calculations of "good" verses saving the lives and freedom of
the innocent Iraqi citizens.

Finally, there is a question of just how much FREEDOM is worth.

Many (most?) Americans, some from other countries, will argue that freedom
is to be retained even at the cost of life.
 
Many will back that up with their own lives as our soldiers both current
and former have done.

 Could 60,000,000 *DEATHS* have been prevented if the same amount of money
and energy been dedicated to something like world hunger or disease
prevention? ([2] is interesting...).  As I calculate it, the war in Iraq has
cost us approximately *8* full years of NIH funding.
 

Perhaps but there were many other reasons (at least a half dozen necessary
and sufficient reasons)
for removing Saddam and no one proposed using the money for any other such
program.
 
Someone might offer such a proposal and argue specifically for it (not
hypothetically)
and that would not change the value of freeing so many people and the
possibility of
having this lead to a sea change in Middle East politics, freedom for the
region in 
general, and a development that will allow the Arab world to leave the dark
ages
politically and religiously.
 


Those kinds of questions explain why Bill & Melinda Gates are Time
Magazine's "Persons of the Year" and *not* George W. Bush.

And for the record, I was *for* going into Afghanistan, and to a lesser
extent going into Iraq -- but I have had some time (and more information)
that have led me to rethinking my former perspectives. 

And that it was a favorable decision in 2002 cannot be changed by subsequent
developments in 2005 -- it would always remain the best decision given the
facts as they were known but that isn't a necessary argument since it is in
fact reaping freedom for so many.



Robert

1. This is based on calculations I did back in 2005.  But the rate of deaths
has not changed significantly since then and I doubt it will change before
2007 given current trends.
2. http://costofwar.com/ 

 It isn't about "how many verses the 9/11" -- were it merely revenge perhaps
that
would make perverted sense but rather how many against freedom, both liberty
and freedom from attack by Islamo-Fascist or any other brand of
international
terrorism.

[D-DAY also lost far more US soldiers than did Pearl Harbor so you can
easily
see how the above analysis equating Iraq-9/11 causulties is misapplied.]

Many people overlook that following 9/11, we declared war NOT just on "Al
Qaeda"
but rather on "Terrorists of Internal Scope and the Countries that aid and
harbor
them."

Saddam was openly guilty of the latter, and arguably guilty of support for
Al Qaeda
in specific (Zarqawi had already been given refuge in Iraq before the war,
and was
 shuttling back and forth with support for Ansar Al Islam.)
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051218/34e2cce0/attachment.html>