I’m hoping that Dinsdale is not quite as much of a monster as that reprehensible post suggests. Is there any chance of a tactless, major fucked-up “whoosh” here? Perhaps he is trying to demonize the anti-Bush side by expressing such a horribly extreme idea, thereby attaching to that side a sort of strawman?
:mad:
By all that is good, I hope he doesn’t sincerely hold such an opinion.
Uh…no he didn’t. Note that when people point and laugh at you for blowing things entirely out of proportion, it’s because it’s true.
There is an extremely valid argument against Dinsdale’s post. There is an extremely valid way to point out that Dinsdale’s post is horrendous. But if you’re going to focus on that aspect of it, try to be *accurate * with your accusation. At no point did Dinsdale wish death on *all * American soldiers.
Hmm, I just missed Dinsdale’s latest post; own came what millseconds following.
No “woosh.”
Sir, there is NO justification for such a horrific idea.
Kindly go away and spend some time learning to be a better person. Come back when you realize that hoping for death to achieve political gain is beyond the pale.
It more be more respectable to state what is implied — e.g., I hope that more American soldiers are killed, that their mothers and fathers mourn, that their children become traumatized, and that their loved ones have broken hearts. But maybe not.
Dear god, that poor sentence!
I’m not even going to try to help it.
I am not defending Dinsdale because I don’t agree with him but at least I understand the point he was making. His point is that if the death rate of American soldiers goes up, enough of the populace will change their minds and Kerry will be elected President. If Kerry is elected president, he will pull out the troops and put more money into things like health care. The point is that there would be a few more deaths in 2004 but less total deaths by 2008.
I think that the premise is ridiculous and even if the premise were true, the end result would not be what Dinsdale imagines. If the logic of the argument were correct, and the conclusion came true, it would be a reasonable wish. It’s not all that different than what is being discussed in the GD about the Hamas founder’s assassination.
Haj
I used to be a U.S. Navy enlisted sailor.
Much to Dinsdale’s dismay, modern warriors concentrate on force protection very well. The survivability of your forces, whether afloat, on land, or in the air, enables you to outlast an enemy attack and then carry the battle to him.
In modern wars, we do not oblige the Dinsdales of the world by perishing in great numbers.
We instead survive our wars, so we can come home and tell Dinsdale to go fuck himself.
So it was YOU who sent me those bizzare random words e-mails!
Actually, this exact topic came up about a year ago (no coincidence that timing). Although there was no mod clarity on the subject – Lynn suggested that Shodan report the problem to the mods of the forum – I’ll put for the same argument I did then:
FWIW, this is the thread that was being discussed.
I did not then and do not now think that calling for anyone’s death is either ethical or remotely relevant (calling for their deaths accomplishes nothing, unless you’re like a totally radical warlock or something). However, in a time of war, people are going to die; unless we are to ban everyone except absolute pacifists, I think we must allow people to debate which deaths, if any, ultimately result in the most good.
Milum’s dishonest OP is just par for the course for him; were there no other responses to this thread, I’d let it drop like a stone, as it deserves. Someone far more honest should’ve started this thread.
Daniel
Loath though I am to do so, I must defend Dinsdale’s OP on free speech grounds. He’s making a valid point, even if you disagree. A continued trickle of casualties may never make it onto the public radar whereas serious casualties will. There is no doubt that the extensive casualties in Vietnam had a huge impact on the American domestic political scene. There is no doubt that that the 200-odd marine casualties in Lebanon caused a U.S. pull-out. It’s reasonable to suspect the same claim might be true with respect to Iraq.
There are a hundred arguments why a premature American pull-out from Iraq due to mounting casualties would be a terrible thing for everyone. Nonetheless, it’s a perfectly legitimate thing to discuss. I, myself, have expressed the hope that Iraq would not go quite as smoothly as Afghanistan did because I am concerned that American policy makers might get the impression that American military was now so overwhelming that such adventures were risk-free. I read Dinsdale’s rather unfortunately-worded post as making a similar argument.
I was actually going to try to suggest that perhaps we had all missunderstood the OP and that instead of actually wishing death on people he was merely attempting to be fecetious to make a point (if you have seen some of my other posts you can guess how hard it was for me to come to this conclusion), however the OP’s attempt to explaine himself based on missunderstood notions of utilitarianism has made me change my mind, yet again.
Mr. Moto:
Not all of US are going to come home alive. A good friend of mine did not. Check the BS at the door. Some of us have been there and done that and statements like yours cause unnecesary grief.
Discussing the impact of a big increase in casualties is perfectly legitimate.
HOPING for it is something else entirely.
Again, to quote Mr. Wishful Thinking:
“Here’s hoping for more US milit. casualties in Iraq”…At this point, they might best serve their country by being killed or wounded, if that would increase the chances of having Bush voted out in the next election. Not the current steady drip, drip, drip of casualties we are currently enjoying. Let’s see some dramatic losses, if that would galvanize opposition to this unnecessary wasteful policy, and its proponents." (bolding added)
While I respect the points made by those defending Dinsdale’s choice of topic, I have to disagree. LHOD, of course there is a rational debate to be had regarding the least worst scenario in terms of deaths. However, I am unable to believe that Dinsdale thinks Kerry would unilaterally withdraw from Iraq. Based on this and his subsequent posts, I am forced to conclude that Dinsdale wishes these deaths to occur merely so his favoured candidate might win. He has posited no serious benefits to “balance” the deaths he favours, notwithstanding cheap shots about healthcare.
It is this lack of balance which has landed him in hot water; had he attempted to present a more tangible benefit than “Bush will lose the election”, he might have stood a chance of a sensible debate (although he would undoubtedly still have been flamed). As it is, he has made himself look like the very worst sort of partisan; one who is willing to see his side win at any price.
You obviously don’t understand the reason for the outrage.
But that’s not the argument. The argument is wanting people to die in order to free up that money.
Perhaps you have descended to the point where you wish some inocent people death so that others might have a better life. I’m not there yet, nor do I wish ever to be.
Would you hope that if you were there?
Clearly, war is risk free to American policy makers, it is not their blood that gets spilled. Currently only four members of Congress have children in the millitary and none of them are in Iraq.
And the American military is very fucking overwhelming, and will be untill Cheney and CO. suck it dry.
Non sequitur. Whether he is making a valid point does not follow from any right to free speech — leave alone that there isn’t any such right here. SDMB is not Congress. I think his point is invalid because it was made using a rhetorical vice. But it isn’t just invalid, it is weird and inhumane to the extreme. Do you have a brother or a son or a wife who is a soldier?
That’s extremely interesting, if accurate. Where did you pick up that little nugget of info?
Dinsdale suggests that a short-term increase in Iraq War casualties would result in a long-term decrease in total casualties.
Let’s go back a little way.
Truman decides that a short-term increase in Japanese civilian casualties will result in a long-term decrease in total casualties.
Dinsdale is suggesting doing this with his own (I think) people. Does it make him more of a monster because the proposed casualties are American?
Again, I hate to take up Dinsdale’s argument, but that’s not the argument, either. The argument is wanting a shocking number of people to die in the short term in order to instigate a military pull-out that would prevent even more from dying in the long term. A sadistic form of paying off the principle early.