BBS explains why the Holocaust is funny

[AAFitz]

I lived in Israel for a year and never once heard an Israeli tell a Holocaust joke . Plenty of self effacing Jewish and Kosher jokes but nothing about the Holocaust , nothing at all.

Yeah, BBS' argument had boiled down to "but daaaaad, everybody else is doing it, so why can't I?"

slaughtered by the Germans

... who stayed loyal because they were getting things.

This is absolutely not the case. The German people fought much longer than their hope held out, long after their possessions were bombed away and their sons were killed in the field of honor. In Budapest, Stalingrad, and other battlefields the German soldiers fought to the death, and it wasn't so they could get a new Volvo if they lived. And any historian/living soldier will tell you that the German soldiers on both fronts knew that the war was hopeless by 1944. Yet they continued to fight until 1945, after Hitler's suicide. . . that might be a clue? The courage of the German soldier, and of the German people, were never tied to material possessions. It's ignorant to argue such.

Four sisters of the Ali Mohammed Nasser family in Yemen were killed. Afrah was 9 years old when she and her three younger sisters Zayda (7 years old) , Hoda (5 years old) and Sheika (4 years old) were struck by an American drone. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-childr ... ma/5320570

... who stayed loyal because they were getting things.

As you know, Juan, people you can't see don't actually exist. What goes around never, ever, ever comes around. It's all about how much stuff you can grab right now and shove into your goody bag. Chilax and let the good times roll! There's definitely not a noose tightening. The castle walls are not crumbling. Nope, not at all. You'll never be communally indicted as a Fellow Traveler. The good times will never end! Never, by jove!

And this makes no sense and appears to be the ramblings of senility. However, assuming that it's another post about how Juan Bottom is responsible for the War on Terror, then I agree with the principles that American Drones striking innocent civilians is abhorrible and should never happen. Saxi has it occured to you that you're not inditing me here but every American on this forum including tgd, Neoteny, and yourself?
Well, I do not agree with your fictitious internet character that the issue is a black and white one. I do not agree with your internet character that I am somehow responsible for the war. I've done nothing more than you have, by which I mean living here/being born here. If you actually have figured out who I am, as you alluded, then you know that I've written about this detestable issue in the past for publication.

Juan's howls of indignation are funny.

-Juan is mad his family got "slaughtered" by "the Germans" ... he felt "the Germans" should have raised a voice to Hitler. (But they were offered the world's first workman's comp program, and didn't want to risk it. So they just quietly shook their heads, said 'that's too bad' and then thronged to party mass rallies to support the Führer.)

-Juan is not so mad other people's families are getting "slaughtered" by "the Americans" ... he is meekly supple before the majesty of Obama. (Juan, too, was offered treats and goodies and didn't want to risk them. So he occasionally offers a sympathetic word on an anonymous message board before spending 10 times as many words defending the regime, or rallying to the voting booth in a coat festooned with buttons and badges displaying the Iron O logo.)

Juan's moral hypocrisy is more hilarious by the day. He's in it for #1. You're not a victim, Juan, despite your desperation to be one. You're not part of the intellectual aristocracy, though you've convinced yourself you are. You're one of the plump, unwashed masses whose ethics ebbs and sways depending on the volume of carrots or severity of the stick.

Its tragic and horrible, and I will not attempt to condone it in any way.

I am curious though, how many Presidents have been lucky enough to not have killed, or probably killed an innocent child throughout their entire Presidency?

[Metsfanmax]

Comedians don't have Holocaust Joke Sets, and they don't have 9-11 Joke Sets. But they do have Religious Joke Sets... because you can choose what you believe, but you cannot choose the events that happen to you. And again, I've never made a joke about Catholicism ever. Have I previously insulted Catholicism? Probably. And that's not a joke. But do Catholics deserve the same sensitivity as Holocaust victims? God damn it, no.

Is it possible for a joke about, say, the Crusades to not be in bad taste? I think that JB's indignation about using the Holocaust as a source of joke material has some sense, but it is not possible to think of these things in one simple way. We might always be horrified by what happened, but that doesn't mean it couldn't also be funny or harmless in a certain light (what happened to the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrifying and in some sense a genocide, yet we have "nuclear spoils" on this site). The Holocaust is still real to many who are alive today, or the direct descendants of those people; my father's parents were both concentration camp survivors, and that had a deep impact on how my father was raised (and therefore myself). But that is not what defines me. With time and cultural distance these things become less directly insulting, even if they are obviously horrific upon reflection. Juan, you have to be careful about striking the right balance between impressing upon people the importance of never letting genocides happen again, while at the same time remembering that it is in human nature to be irreverent about such things as a coping mechanism.

[saxitoxin]

Its tragic and horrible, and I will not attempt to condone it in any way.

I am curious though, how many Presidents have been lucky enough to not have killed, or probably killed an innocent child throughout their entire Presidency?

Child death is not the locus of moral indictment. The locus is the deliberate and intentional use of flesh-shredding as a tactic of political intimidation used to cow a population. Hitler's Jewish holocaust, Sharon's Palestinian holocaust and Obama's Near-East holocaust are on a different level of dreadfulness than the Franco-Prussian War.

[BigBallinStalin]

Obviously BBS is ashamed... when have you ever seen BBS respond to sharp criticism with short posts of 1 or 2 sentences? He's so obviously shamed, and unwilling to articulate any of the book-long posts he made at me attacking my defense of the living memory of the Holocaust. How can you not see that?

Haha, why should I pay high prices (my lengthy posts) for low-quality goods (JB's products)? Juan_Bottom isn't known to make correct observations, and if I point this out again with the 5-step model, he'll throw another hissy-fit and produce more garbage ITT.

[AAFitz]

Its tragic and horrible, and I will not attempt to condone it in any way.

I am curious though, how many Presidents have been lucky enough to not have killed, or probably killed an innocent child throughout their entire Presidency?

Child death is not the locus of moral indictment. The locus is the deliberate and intentional use of flesh-shredding as a tactic of political intimidation used to cow a population. Hitler's Jewish holocaust, Sharon's Palestinian holocaust and Obama's Near-East holocaust are on a different level of dreadfulness than the Franco-Prussian War.

Ok....all interesting ideas, but what was the answer to the question?

Has Obama really been at the helm for more children dying than Bush was, who I believe, started two wars, that Obama, possibly, does not know how to safely end?

[saxitoxin]

Its tragic and horrible, and I will not attempt to condone it in any way.

Has Obama really been at the helm for more children dying than Bush was, who I believe, started two wars, that Obama, possibly, does not know how to safely end?

that didn't take long

[AAFitz]

Its tragic and horrible, and I will not attempt to condone it in any way.

Has Obama really been at the helm for more children dying than Bush was, who I believe, started two wars, that Obama, possibly, does not know how to safely end?

that didn't take long

Ok, not an interesting point this time, and still no answer to the question? All you have to say is no fucking clue, or I dont care or anything.

Im not even suggesting the answer is relevant to your point, it was just a question that I was interested in.

If he is wiping out thousands of children needlessly, by all means we should voice our outrage. Unfortunately, what you posted is one tragic example, but with far too little information on which to form a meaningful opinion on the subject really.

Though, if you weren't interested in the subject or the details, why post anything at all. Are you seriously just a troll, even when it concerns children dying and suffering?

Oh, I see, you are suggesting that one post is condoning the killing of innocent children, where it was actually just another unanswered question. Ill just assume this matter is too complex for you too understand then, which leads to the assumption of a meaningless troll.

[saxitoxin]

and still no answer to the question

You asked a question on a topic I didn't bring up. It's like running, naked, into the middle of a town meeting on land use reform and screaming at the Zoning Board you want a recipe for chicken taragon - don't duck the question, give me a fucking recipe for chicken fucking taragon!

The Zoning Board would politely ignore you. That's what I'm doing.

what you posted is one tragic example

If you're of the belief that there has been only one casualty in Obama's Drone Holocaust, and that was Shakira, then I think we may be dealing with a gap of basic awareness of surroundings. My only suggestion is for you to start here and work your way up. I'm sorry I can't provide a more personalized program of assistance.

[BigBallinStalin]

What is it about nationalist sentiment which paints over such egregious actions by the Glorious Leaders?
(the answer to this can help explain why so many Germans relented during the Nazi days--as sax points out, but which others oddly overlook).


AAFitz, here's a report by Standford Law Schools and the NYU School of Law on US drones strikes (only in Pakistan--probably need hundreds more pages to cover the entire AO of US drone strikes):

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content ... DRONES.pdf


Executive Summary

show

[KoolBak]

Brutal thread.....very readable!

[AAFitz]

and still no answer to the question

You asked a question on a topic I didn't bring up. It's like running, naked, into the middle of a town meeting on land use reform and screaming at the Zoning Board you want a recipe for chicken taragon - don't duck the question, give me a fucking recipe for chicken fucking taragon!

The Zoning Board would politely ignore you. That's what I'm doing.

what you posted is one tragic example

If you're of the belief that there has been only one casualty in Obama's Drone Holocaust, and that was Shakira, then I think we may be dealing with a gap of basic awareness of surroundings. My only suggestion is for you to start here and work your way up. I'm sorry I can't provide a more personalized program of assistance.

No, I asked you a question that needs to be answered before your previous post was relevant.

And just to keep you up to speed, you didnt ignore me, you quoted it without answering it, which is why you are a meaningless troll.

But, given your post, showing that a person, the president or anyone is responsible for a Child's death, the context and details are absolutely required to form an opinion about what to think about that, or certainly do about that.

I think you should enter into your program there, because all of this is basic stuff. Good luck with it.

[PLAYER57832]

I am not going to read through this thread, but when you talk of the haulocaust and humor, its good to remember Mel Brookes.

[saxitoxin]

and still no answer to the question

You asked a question on a topic I didn't bring up. It's like running, naked, into the middle of a town meeting on land use reform and screaming at the Zoning Board you want a recipe for chicken taragon - don't duck the question, give me a fucking recipe for chicken fucking taragon!

The Zoning Board would politely ignore you. That's what I'm doing.

what you posted is one tragic example

If you're of the belief that there has been only one casualty in Obama's Drone Holocaust, and that was Shakira, then I think we may be dealing with a gap of basic awareness of surroundings. My only suggestion is for you to start here and work your way up. I'm sorry I can't provide a more personalized program of assistance.

No, I asked you a question that needs to be answered before your previous post was relevant.

And just to keep you up to speed, you didnt ignore me, you quoted it without answering it, which is why you are a meaningless troll.

But, given your post, showing that a person, the president or anyone is responsible for a Child's death, the context and details are absolutely required to form an opinion about what to think about that, or certainly do about that.

I think you should enter into your program there, because all of this is basic stuff. Good luck with it.

I'm sorry you're upset.

[Metsfanmax]

But, given your post, showing that a person, the president or anyone is responsible for a Child's death, the context and details are absolutely required to form an opinion about what to think about that, or certainly do about that.

I don't have a source readily available, but I recall reading somewhere that Obama insisted on final say on all drone strikes, which would indeed make him directly responsible.

I recommend reading this thought-provoking article that I came across recently, discussing the anti-war legacy of MLK Jr. and how it might (not) relate to Obama. I formerly thought that targeted strikes against leaders of groups such as al Qaeda might be, on balance, the right thing to do. But it is increasingly difficult to support the drone strike program as it is currently being applied.

[AAFitz]

What is it about nationalist sentiment which paints over such egregious actions by the Glorious Leaders?
(the answer to this can help explain why so many Germans relented during the Nazi days--as sax points out, but which others oddly overlook).


AAFitz, here's a report by Standford Law Schools and the NYU School of Law on US drones strikes (only in Pakistan--probably need hundreds more pages to cover the entire AO of US drone strikes):

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content ... DRONES.pdf


Executive Summary

show

No idea, but Im certainly not doing that. I simply asked two questions so that I might better form a more educated opinion. For all I know, Obama is worse than Hitler and has killed more babies than any leader in war ever has, or that that was the only child harmed in 4 years of war. Suggesting asking those questions condones or justifies any children being killed is just ridiculous.

Further, assuming my opinion on the acts is beyond reckless since in no way did I give it. Personally, I had hoped Obama was going to pull out of the mid-east, which is why I voted for him.

However, I do know that sometimes children do die in war, so while part of me wants to reflexively condemn every person in history that has made an order that led to the death of an innocent child, I do know that its possible even more children would have died, if some of those orders were not made, but even then, that does not necessarily condone it. Again, I dont know that, which is why I was asking questions.

Do you think we should not allow any action that will possibly kill a child ever? Is there a way to do that in a war? Or, is it just the drone attacks that you disagree with? Should we abandon all drone attacks?

Im really just trying to form a better understanding of the situation, and what people think about it. You have graciously offered some interesting info, and I will read more about it, but do be careful about insinuating opinions or actions that I simply did not do.

[AAFitz]

But, given your post, showing that a person, the president or anyone is responsible for a Child's death, the context and details are absolutely required to form an opinion about what to think about that, or certainly do about that.

I don't have a source readily available, but I recall reading somewhere that Obama insisted on final say on all drone strikes, which would indeed make him directly responsible.

I recommend reading this thought-provoking article that I came across recently, discussing the anti-war legacy of MLK Jr. and how it might (not) relate to Obama. I formerly thought that targeted strikes against leaders of groups such as al Qaeda might be, on balance, the right thing to do. But it is increasingly difficult to support the drone strike program as it is currently being applied.

Are you suggesting he wasn't directly responsible, if he let the military just use drone strikes at their discretion?

And again, Im mostly trying to get a feel for what opinion I should have about any US President being responsible for the death of a child.

Also, I may very well come to believe you about the drone strikes and become the biggest advocate against recalling drone strikes, and imprisoning Obama for the ones he made, but for now, Im just genuinely asking some questions about it.

Its odd that people assume my position on the subject so rashly and foolishly. I dont mean you though. Thanks for the info.

[saxitoxin]

I don't have a source readily available, but I recall reading somewhere that Obama insisted on final say on all drone strikes, which would indeed make him directly responsible.

Yes, Obama personally approves every internationally-condemned drone murder: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01 ... -terrorism And, Pro Publica did a good report on how Obama suppresses the number of women and children he orders burned alive by Hellfire missiles (http://www.propublica.org/article/obama ... ont-add-up). Then there's the case of Anwar al-Awalki's 16 year old son from Colorado who Obama personally ordered butchered to pressure adult members of his family to turn themselves in so he could pad his 'tough on terror' cred for the election: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_kil ... r_old_son/

Of course, we could go on for pages but this has been endlessly covered in the mainstream media. At some point we simply have to assume posters have basic knowledge of major themes in current events and we have to decline to respond to demands we prove the Earth is round as a precursor to discussion. For people who lack that basic awareness, I started a thread in which people can pretend they're the manager of a Hooter's restaurant: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184813

[AAFitz]

I don't have a source readily available, but I recall reading somewhere that Obama insisted on final say on all drone strikes, which would indeed make him directly responsible.

Yes, Obama personally approves every internationally-condemned drone murder: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01 ... -terrorism And, Pro Publica did a good report on how Obama suppresses the number of women and children he orders burned alive by Hellfire missiles (http://www.propublica.org/article/obama ... ont-add-up). Then there's the case of Anwar al-Awalki's 16 year old son from Colorado who Obama personally ordered butchered to pressure adult members of his family to turn themselves in so he could pad his 'tough on terror' cred for the election: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_kil ... r_old_son/

Of course, we could go on for pages but this has been endlessly covered in the mainstream media. At some point we simply have to assume posters have basic knowledge of major themes in current events and we have to decline to respond to demands we prove the Earth is round as a precursor to discussion. For people who lack that basic awareness, I started a thread in which people can pretend they're the manager of a Hooter's restaurant: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184813

Starting pointless threads is kind of you thing anyways. Troll on.

And you can cover up ignoring the poignant questions. Its ok. They were tough ones, and context kind of ruins a trolling post anyways.

[saxitoxin]

I don't have a source readily available, but I recall reading somewhere that Obama insisted on final say on all drone strikes, which would indeed make him directly responsible.

Yes, Obama personally approves every internationally-condemned drone murder: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01 ... -terrorism And, Pro Publica did a good report on how Obama suppresses the number of women and children he orders burned alive by Hellfire missiles (http://www.propublica.org/article/obama ... ont-add-up). Then there's the case of Anwar al-Awalki's 16 year old son from Colorado who Obama personally ordered butchered to pressure adult members of his family to turn themselves in so he could pad his 'tough on terror' cred for the election: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_kil ... r_old_son/

Of course, we could go on for pages but this has been endlessly covered in the mainstream media. At some point we simply have to assume posters have basic knowledge of major themes in current events and we have to decline to respond to demands we prove the Earth is round as a precursor to discussion. For people who lack that basic awareness, I started a thread in which people can pretend they're the manager of a Hooter's restaurant: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184813

Starting pointless threads is kind of you thing anyways. Troll on.

And you can cover up ignoring the poignant questions. Its ok. They were tough ones, and context kind of ruins a trolling post anyways.

Like I said, I'm sorry you're upset. I'm glad your self-esteem is still high, though.

[Metsfanmax]

But, given your post, showing that a person, the president or anyone is responsible for a Child's death, the context and details are absolutely required to form an opinion about what to think about that, or certainly do about that.

I don't have a source readily available, but I recall reading somewhere that Obama insisted on final say on all drone strikes, which would indeed make him directly responsible.

I recommend reading this thought-provoking article that I came across recently, discussing the anti-war legacy of MLK Jr. and how it might (not) relate to Obama. I formerly thought that targeted strikes against leaders of groups such as al Qaeda might be, on balance, the right thing to do. But it is increasingly difficult to support the drone strike program as it is currently being applied.

Are you suggesting he wasn't directly responsible, if he let the military just use drone strikes at their discretion?

And again, Im mostly trying to get a feel for what opinion I should have about any US President being responsible for the death of a child.

I am really only suggesting that given Obama's direct control over who is targeted by the drones, it is not possible to exclude from him the responsibility of the killing of civilians (whereas one might attempt this tactic if the drone program were simply another facet of the sprawling US military complex that happens at the level of faceless bureaucrats). One thing that the linked article points out is that the drone program is not necessarily wrong, when evaluated in the confines of "what is the best way to eradicate terrorist threat to the United States" (although, again, whether the current program is really defeating al Qaeda and other groups is debatable), but is rather part of a larger collective mentality that we can only be safe if we are constantly trying to defeat those who mean us harm. In other words, the right question is, "should we be attempting to eradicate those people?" If the answer is yes, only then can we be confident that all we need to do is make sure the people we target are the people directly involved.

[BigBallinStalin]

What is it about nationalist sentiment which paints over such egregious actions by the Glorious Leaders?
(the answer to this can help explain why so many Germans relented during the Nazi days--as sax points out, but which others oddly overlook).


AAFitz, here's a report by Standford Law Schools and the NYU School of Law on US drones strikes (only in Pakistan--probably need hundreds more pages to cover the entire AO of US drone strikes):

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content ... DRONES.pdf


Executive Summary

show

No idea, but Im certainly not doing that. I simply asked two questions so that I might better form a more educated opinion. For all I know, Obama is worse than Hitler and has killed more babies than any leader in war ever has, or that that was the only child harmed in 4 years of war. Suggesting asking those questions condones or justifies any children being killed is just ridiculous.

Further, assuming my opinion on the acts is beyond reckless since in no way did I give it. Personally, I had hoped Obama was going to pull out of the mid-east, which is why I voted for him.

However, I do know that sometimes children do die in war, so while part of me wants to reflexively condemn every person in history that has made an order that led to the death of an innocent child, I do know that its possible even more children would have died, if some of those orders were not made, but even then, that does not necessarily condone it. Again, I dont know that, which is why I was asking questions.

Do you think we should not allow any action that will possibly kill a child ever? Is there a way to do that in a war? Or, is it just the drone attacks that you disagree with? Should we abandon all drone attacks?

Im really just trying to form a better understanding of the situation, and what people think about it. You have graciously offered some interesting info, and I will read more about it, but do be careful about insinuating opinions or actions that I simply did not do.

1. Upon rereading you and saxi's earlier exchange, it sounded like you were trying to find excuses for Obama. Of course, 'putting words in people's mouths'--even implicitly--is difficult to avoid, so saxi may be guilty of this. Y'all's exchange reminded me of insipid flag-waving in general, so that's why I responded.

2. Killing Children

Q: What is the optimal amount of dead children in regard to the War on Terror?

Nobody really knows because there's the dilemma of contradictory counterfactuals.

For example, US foreign policy analyst A presents his counterfactual: "if we don't bomb these people, then terrorism will get worse," but he can't show that terrorism would get worse if bombing those people was not conducted. Furthermore, there's no theory which can accurately predict future terrorism attacks--while controlling for other relevant variables.

US foreign policy analyst B presents his counterfactual, which contradicts A's: "if we do bomb these people, then terrorism will get worse," but again this position faces the same constraints as A's.

So, the USFP analysts tend to engage in selective perception by highlighting only the instances of history which conform to their position. The authors within distinguished magazines such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy often fall into this behavior. Dr. Coyne further describes that selective perception problem and reinforces my story of the counterfactuals in his article (search for "pattern prediction" and "point prediction").


Let's briefly use public choice to analyze this particular aspect of USFP
Usually, the government and its various bureaucracies incentivize the production of goods (foreign policies) which sound like A's policies because this justifies their budget expenditures and reinforces their generally hawkish belief that war brings peace. It's profitable to do so, and having a war tends to be great for boosting a politician's image because a war gives them the guise of being a real leader and a Defender of Freedom (e.g. Obama--Libya 2011, Bush 2--AFG and Iraq, Clinton--Kosovo, Bush 1--Panama and Iraq).

Then, there's interest groups--specifically the military-industrial complex, which organizes votes and collects significant amounts of cash and campaign contributions which are then rewarded to the politicians who essentially vote for their services (producing military equipment, performing maintenance, military-related R&D, etc.).

Since governments can amass such significant revenues from taxation and deficit spending, then the price of killing children (among other acts) becomes very low. In other words, the supply of 'security' increases yet the demand for security (from voters) remains practically unchanged. If demand does change, it's temporary, yet the government is impervious to such changes because they need not satisfy consumer preferences. Why? Because taxation and deficit spending are involuntary exchanges, thus enabling the government to overinvest in security.

Also, the price for engaging in such warfare (and killing kids) remains low because unmanned warfare decreases the magnitude of negative feedback from the voting public. Hardly any body bags and no draft will change the incentives which the voting public faces. This is why it's so easy to ignore the impact of US drone strikes and US small-scale counterinsurgency operations across the world--which also support predatory governments.


Basically, if something hardly affects you (e.g. some small increase in taxes per person; general unawareness of the extent of USFP and its consequences), then it's difficult to justify expending additional resources of yours in order to understand US foreign policy, vote to change it for the better--if possible, convince others to do so, etc. It's cheaper to believe what you want to believe, and the politicians are more than happy to oblige that attitude.

[saxitoxin]

But, given your post, showing that a person, the president or anyone is responsible for a Child's death, the context and details are absolutely required to form an opinion about what to think about that, or certainly do about that.

I don't have a source readily available, but I recall reading somewhere that Obama insisted on final say on all drone strikes, which would indeed make him directly responsible.

I recommend reading this thought-provoking article that I came across recently, discussing the anti-war legacy of MLK Jr. and how it might (not) relate to Obama. I formerly thought that targeted strikes against leaders of groups such as al Qaeda might be, on balance, the right thing to do. But it is increasingly difficult to support the drone strike program as it is currently being applied.

Are you suggesting he wasn't directly responsible, if he let the military just use drone strikes at their discretion?

And again, Im mostly trying to get a feel for what opinion I should have about any US President being responsible for the death of a child.

I am really only suggesting that given Obama's direct control over who is targeted by the drones, it is not possible to exclude from him the responsibility of the killing of civilians (whereas one might attempt this tactic if the drone program were simply another facet of the sprawling US military complex that happens at the level of faceless bureaucrats). One thing that the linked article points out is that the drone program is not necessarily wrong, when evaluated in the confines of "what is the best way to eradicate terrorist threat to the United States" (although, again, whether the current program is really defeating al Qaeda and other groups is debatable), but is rather part of a larger collective mentality that we can only be safe if we are constantly trying to defeat those who mean us harm. In other words, the right question is, "should we be attempting to eradicate those people?" If the answer is yes, only then can we be confident that all we need to do is make sure the people we target are the people directly involved.

If the US is serious about not wanting buildings in lower Manhattan knocked down every few years, a more effective method than executing children to frighten their parents would be to stop sending guns and cash to the Israelis, stop propping up the brutal, medieval kingdoms in Bahrain and SA and stop bombing Libya and Iraq into the stone age.

But there are too many people in the EOP, just like the last one, who are banking on the multi million dollar directorships and speaking honorariums that have been promised if they keep things status quo ante bellum. So burning children alive in front of their parents while draining the treasury to buy goodie bags for Juan and the rest of the proles to buy their silence will have to do.

[AAFitz]

I don't have a source readily available, but I recall reading somewhere that Obama insisted on final say on all drone strikes, which would indeed make him directly responsible.

Yes, Obama personally approves every internationally-condemned drone murder: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01 ... -terrorism And, Pro Publica did a good report on how Obama suppresses the number of women and children he orders burned alive by Hellfire missiles (http://www.propublica.org/article/obama ... ont-add-up). Then there's the case of Anwar al-Awalki's 16 year old son from Colorado who Obama personally ordered butchered to pressure adult members of his family to turn themselves in so he could pad his 'tough on terror' cred for the election: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_kil ... r_old_son/

Of course, we could go on for pages but this has been endlessly covered in the mainstream media. At some point we simply have to assume posters have basic knowledge of major themes in current events and we have to decline to respond to demands we prove the Earth is round as a precursor to discussion. For people who lack that basic awareness, I started a thread in which people can pretend they're the manager of a Hooter's restaurant: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184813

Starting pointless threads is kind of you thing anyways. Troll on.

And you can cover up ignoring the poignant questions. Its ok. They were tough ones, and context kind of ruins a trolling post anyways.

Like I said, I'm sorry you're upset. I'm glad your self-esteem is still high, though.

Im not upset in the least, im just laughing at your silly trolling, and posting contempt that it is in a thread about dead kids, which, at first, you pretended to actually care about.

[AAFitz]

What is it about nationalist sentiment which paints over such egregious actions by the Glorious Leaders?
(the answer to this can help explain why so many Germans relented during the Nazi days--as sax points out, but which others oddly overlook).


AAFitz, here's a report by Standford Law Schools and the NYU School of Law on US drones strikes (only in Pakistan--probably need hundreds more pages to cover the entire AO of US drone strikes):

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content ... DRONES.pdf


Executive Summary

show

No idea, but Im certainly not doing that. I simply asked two questions so that I might better form a more educated opinion. For all I know, Obama is worse than Hitler and has killed more babies than any leader in war ever has, or that that was the only child harmed in 4 years of war. Suggesting asking those questions condones or justifies any children being killed is just ridiculous.

Further, assuming my opinion on the acts is beyond reckless since in no way did I give it. Personally, I had hoped Obama was going to pull out of the mid-east, which is why I voted for him.

However, I do know that sometimes children do die in war, so while part of me wants to reflexively condemn every person in history that has made an order that led to the death of an innocent child, I do know that its possible even more children would have died, if some of those orders were not made, but even then, that does not necessarily condone it. Again, I dont know that, which is why I was asking questions.

Do you think we should not allow any action that will possibly kill a child ever? Is there a way to do that in a war? Or, is it just the drone attacks that you disagree with? Should we abandon all drone attacks?

Im really just trying to form a better understanding of the situation, and what people think about it. You have graciously offered some interesting info, and I will read more about it, but do be careful about insinuating opinions or actions that I simply did not do.

1. Upon rereading you and saxi's earlier exchange, it sounded like you were trying to find excuses for Obama. Of course, 'putting words in people's mouths'--even implicitly--is difficult to avoid, so saxi may be guilty of this. Y'all's exchange reminded me of insipid flag-waving in general, so that's why I responded.

2. Killing Children

Q: What is the optimal amount of dead children in regard to the War on Terror?

Nobody really knows because there's the dilemma of contradictory counterfactuals.

For example, US foreign policy analyst A presents his counterfactual: "if we don't bomb these people, then terrorism will get worse," but he can't show that terrorism would get worse if bombing those people was not conducted. Furthermore, there's no theory which can accurately predict future terrorism attacks--while controlling for other relevant variables.

US foreign policy analyst B presents his counterfactual, which contradicts A's: "if we do bomb these people, then terrorism will get worse," but again this position faces the same constraints as A's.

So, the USFP analysts tend to engage in selective perception by highlighting only the instances of history which conform to their position. The authors within distinguished magazines such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy often fall into this behavior. Dr. Coyne further describes that selective perception problem and reinforces my story of the counterfactuals in his article (search for "pattern prediction" and "point prediction").


Let's briefly use public choice to analyze this particular aspect of USFP
Usually, the government and its various bureaucracies incentivize the production of goods (foreign policies) which sound like A's policies because this justifies their budget expenditures and reinforces their generally hawkish belief that war brings peace. It's profitable to do so, and having a war tends to be great for boosting a politician's image because a war gives them the guise of being a real leader and a Defender of Freedom (e.g. Obama--Libya 2011, Bush 2--AFG and Iraq, Clinton--Kosovo, Bush 1--Panama and Iraq).

Then, there's interest groups--specifically the military-industrial complex, which organizes votes and collects significant amounts of cash and campaign contributions which are then rewarded to the politicians who essentially vote for their services (producing military equipment, performing maintenance, military-related R&D, etc.).

Since governments can amass such significant revenues from taxation and deficit spending, then the price of killing children (among other acts) becomes very low. In other words, the supply of 'security' increases yet the demand for security (from voters) remains practically unchanged. If demand does change, it's temporary, yet the government is impervious to such changes because they need not satisfy consumer preferences. Why? Because taxation and deficit spending are involuntary exchanges, thus enabling the government to overinvest in security.

Also, the price for engaging in such warfare (and killing kids) remains low because unmanned warfare decreases the magnitude of negative feedback from the voting public. Hardly any body bags and no draft will change the incentives which the voting public faces. This is why it's so easy to ignore the impact of US drone strikes and US small-scale counterinsurgency operations across the world--which also support predatory governments.


Basically, if something hardly affects you (e.g. some small increase in taxes per person; general unawareness of the extent of USFP and its consequences), then it's difficult to justify expending additional resources of yours in order to understand US foreign policy, vote to change it for the better--if possible, convince others to do so, etc. It's cheaper to believe what you want to believe, and the politicians are more than happy to oblige that attitude.

I agree with much of this, and to add to it, I believe at one point the cost incurred per person ever killed by a terrorist was about $90,000,000. Its higher now.

Though, one can argue that this number has saved countless other victims, its difficult to argue that it was the best use of money.

What it comes down to, is you can kill people all day long, and that will eliminate some temporary threats, but if your essentially terrorize and entire nation for a long period of time, it will lead to invariably more terrorists, short of nuking all of them, which you know, someone, somewhere has written an analysis on the feasibility of.

In the end, all terrorism is impossible to destroy, but dealing with the root of the problem, is probably better than just continually killing people, including innocent women and children.

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree with much of this, and to add to it, I believe at one point the cost incurred per person ever killed by a terrorist was about $90,000,000. Its higher now.

Though, one can argue that this number has saved countless other victims, its difficult to argue that it was the best use of money.

Agreed.

The chance of you slipping in a bathtub and dying is slightly higher than getting killed by a terrorist. Therefore, the USG should spend >$90,000,000 per person on the War Against Slippery Bathtubs. I've found this to be a good enough assessment for determining if the US is wasting money on the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

Stuffy old farts like Jeffrey Goldberg disagree, and although his arguments are somewhat creative, they aren't convincing because his position still does not justify the obscenely greater amount of money wasted spent on the GWOT. That is, his arguments justify about 5% of GWOT spending.


Also, terrorism insurance rates provide another useful measure for comparing US government expenditures on the GWOT. According to Tom Duncan's "The Overlooked Costs of the Permanent War Economy: A Market Process Approach":

In fact, shortly after incurring the initial losses from 9/11 [19], private insurance firms reentered the terrorism
insurance market, and

by 2009 the median terrorism insurance premium for a $303 million property had
more than halved to only $9,541 per year. This represents a conservative measure
of expected loss or risk, and a simple back-calculation in the risk equation
suggests that the insurer estimates the likelihood of a terrorist attack on a property
to be very low: less than one in 30,000 per year (2011: 24).

[19]
Mueller and Stewart (2011: 23-24) note, “In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack in which insured losses
reached $35 billion, most insurance firms placed terrorism exclusions on their policies. Since then, however, the
U.S. government implemented the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act to provide ‘a temporary window of reinsurance
relief to help insurers manage the ongoing risk of terrorism.’ With that, insurance firms reentered the terrorism
insurance market…”

Note on footnote 19: that USG subsidy to terrorism insurance will carelessly entice people into underestimating the costs (including risk) of terrorism.

What it comes down to, is you can kill people all day long, and that will eliminate some temporary threats, but if your essentially terrorize and entire nation for a long period of time, it will lead to invariably more terrorists, short of nuking all of them, which you know, someone, somewhere has written an analysis on the feasibility of.

In the end, all terrorism is impossible to destroy, but dealing with the root of the problem, is probably better than just continually killing people, including innocent women and children.

In my view, the US is shooting itself in the shoot. Its policies have been, are, and will continue to ruin our economy by misplacing trillions in unwanted and unnecessary investments, by burdening its people with higher public debt (thus taxation) in the future, and by providing us a growing threat on the horizon due to antagonizing millions of people around the world.

Unfortunately, the USG is locked into this dumb cycle--unless more and more Americans get wise and start resisting through civil disobedience or even simply by voting. Of course, with voting, you select a political package of promises, and the costs of USFP may fail to offset the government goodies (Obamacare, Romenycare, and all that jazz).

Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that more and more Americans will gradually realize what's going, will stop placing so much faith into government, and will desire a more internal change through relatively more democratic and self-governing means.