Civilian deaths in Vietnam war
Accept what makes you feel better. It’s only natural.
Well, Red DID try and cherry pick the dates and probably doesn’t accept Chinese deaths since it was their own people that killed them, as opposed to Evil Americans™.
I had a longer post about chemical weapons, their use since 1925, and deterrence, which promptly got eaten. I’ll just ask this question: if the U.S. bombs Syria, and Syria (orthe rebels) uses chemical weapons again, now what? (FWIW, the author of the previous link, Yossef Bodansky, claims to be the Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare for the U.S. House of Representatives from 1988-2004. IOW, not a “Mom’s basement” neckbeard Truther. A 1998 article from him about Iraqi WMDs on US Gov’t letterhead and stored at an USAF website. Not proof he’s right, but maybe more worth your time than listening to Alex Jones would be.)
Returning to my question, does the U.S. bomb them again? If so, where? And is the U.S. prepared to face an “accidental” chemical agent release from a bombed stockpile? (That presumably will wipe out several busloads of nuns holding puppies.) Does the U.S. move towards actually raiding the stockpiles? Which’ll take much more bombing to degrade air defenses to where you can get assets in and out without killing them. What if the Russians say that’s enough?
There are a lot of pitfalls waiting to trap the U.S, if it chooses to get involved in this civil war.
There’s no mention of your beloved four million number in the article (which even if true would encompass all Vietnam War casualties-that is those inflicted by both sides). Such numbers are as exaggerated as those who claim seventy million died under Mao.
Is it a viable option for the US (and the world community I suppose, such as it is) to simply ignore Assad using chemical weapons on his populace? We did with Saddam (and in a few other cases IIRC), so I guess we could with Assad as well. Should we always simply ignore it when a nation state, ruler or dictator does so? If so, then what are the prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons actually worth, if anything? Was it EVER worth anything, or was it always mere words on a paper?
Those are really the only questions worth exploring if we are talking about cost. SHOULD we involve ourselves in the internal affairs of a nation state when the ruler of such a state uses WMD against his own citizens, or should we simply allow him to do what he wills? Should we continue to honor a prohibition against the use of chemical weapons by nation states or simply toss it on the trash bin and carry on, allowing countries to do whatever they want if they have the power to do so?
Take it up with R.J. Rummel. I lack the background to able to critically evaluate his research. The following quoted discussion at necometrics mirrors my feelings on the validity of the various cited death tolls:
FWIW, 58 million is quite a bit less than 70 million, but the error bars are going to be so large on this statistic, I don’t consider the larger number greatly exaggerated.
To your question of is ignoring Syria viable? Yes. It has been the rule for every previous use of chemical weapons since WW1, not that there have been very many. Syria is not a signatory to the Convention and the U.N. has not issued a formal resolution authorizing military force. The U.S. is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, which bars the initiation of military force by a signatory, absent self-defense, or a U.N. resolution. Accordingly, I don’t see a pressing reason for the U.S. to shoot missiles at Syria.
If the U.S. wishes to sanction Syria any more than they currently are, have at it. If private American citizens wish to go and help the FSA lift the yoke of Baathist tyranny, then they should go. They’d be joining an honorable tradition, including the Spanish Civil War and volunteers with the Royal Air Force during World War 2.
As to what a treaty is worth, what are the enforcement mechanisms within the treaty? Again, Syria didn’t sign it. Should other nations attack the U.S. because the U.S. has used land mines in contravention of a very wide spread treaty banning them? Or should military force only be used where there is a compelling state interest such as self-defense or defense of a allied state?
Finally, “allowing countries to do whatever they want if they have the power to do so” is the essence of international law, and is, frankly, what the U.S. would be doing here with a missile strike.
The only number that makes me “feel better” is the true number. Your cite lists numbers about 100x lower than your claim.
I am and was against the Vietnam war, but that doesn’t mean I will casually accept anything bad that someone posts about it. It was bad enough-- no need to exaggerate.
You don’t get it. Our taxes don’t pay for our expenditures at it is. Last I heard, we have an annual budget deficit of ~$650 billion? So any new expenditure is really a new debt. Hitting the debt ceiling next month limits our ability to issue scads of debt in the absence of new revenues, no?
This isn’t the same thing. I thought the US was successful in Libya- we took out Khadafi’s military hardware from the air in time to prevent the rebels getting squished, and instead helped them claim victory. But there weren’t any WMDs
Once we start bombing, the military action won’t seem to make sense unless it ends with seizing the WMDs. I think it’ll cost ~$1 trillion and kill ~1 million people.
Right. It is like a diode- we’ll be in a state of war with Syria, and won’t just be able to step out of it. Right now it looks like Congress is debating authorizing air strikes for 90 days. McCain has suggested destroying Syria’s (formidable) anti-aircraft capabilities so we can really bomb the shit out of them. That ain’t cheap, but in the long run it still leaves the WMDs on the ground.
That’s a much better answer. I wonder what they will actually pay for though. The article notes unseating Assad. I don’t think that would be the end of it, and getting to the end of it would probably cost [see above].
If critics disagree, well then let’s add my PAYGO funding mechanism to the bill. The costs of the Syrian engagement (and any further engagements fomented by it) shall be paid by an income tax surcharge on earners above $250k/yr. If the total costs amount to less than $1 billion, the PAYGO rules are waived and the bill is paid through the Defense Dept. Budget (or Arab states, in all cases).
No problem. Care to “casually*” add most of the death toll in Cambodia and Laos?
All the happened “casually”: as in lobbing a football in your backyard, right?
Best ever first generation American. Is there a prize? If so, I’d surely vote for you.
That said, don’t forget why you are alive today. Or ask your Grandfather.
So in other words blame the US for everything bad that happened in Indochina.
Add France.
AID FOR FRANCE IN INDOCHINA, 1950-1954 warning. Pdf and a long read.
Hey, all you have to do is quote the section that supports your claim of 4M and we’re good. It was your claim, so quit posting links without quotes. Confucius say; he who links without a quote is hoping no one checks. Quote away, mi amigo. Quote away.
n.b.: You and I are on the same side on this issue. I don’t know why you feel the need to push it beyond the point of factual information where I can no longer agree with you.
Just came across this short article.
A very good point is made, which might cause some heads to explode.
Just want to point out it was Reagan who allied with Saddam. W, of course, was staunchly against.
Who of course only stepped in the vacuum after Saddam’s regime had fallen.
Red Fury: Ok, maybe we can evaluate Iraq in 500,000 years. … I was making a wisecrack: I agree with your response. And I think an expert could provide a decent take on the effects of this hypothetical Syrian action in a decade and possibly quite a bit sooner.
Not really. If we hit the default ceiling, we’ll have another political crisis which will affect matters across the board. I’m assuming it will be resolved. If it’s not, we’ll have worse worries than the failure to replace a few dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles next year.
Meh! You are right. I’m no fan of Confusion. 
Possibly. Never claimed to be infallible. Though on Iraq I was actually Omnipotent without trying too hard Hope it won’t happen again – I think the stakes are raised and hope to be wrong.