Quantcast

How much are American lives worth?

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
24
SF, CA
Legitimate question, not tongue in cheek.

Are innocent Americans worth more to us than innocents in other countries? If so, what's the proportion? That is, how many dead civilian overseas are we willing to accept if it means saving American lives? How many dead are we willing to accept to carry out an act of retribution for the taking of American lives? This is all assuming anyone in any army has accepted the likelihood of death, and so should not be included as "innocent" deaths.

I'm curious what people think. I'm trying my best to not be inflammatory.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
No innocent death is taken lightly I assure you. All the more justification for the latest generation of "smart weapons".

However, when the enemy places military targets within civilian area's those deaths cannot be avoided. When this happens the fault for those deaths lays on the head of the guy who intentionally put the target amongst civilians (as Hussein has shown wont to do) rather than the guy who dropped the bomb.

Hussein has the opportunity (and has had it for 12 years) to prevent the loss of Iraqi lives. So far he has squandered that opportunity. I hope that somewhere in his country is an individual or group that can swing the current tide before we are force to move beyond diplomatic means of resolution.
 

rbx

Monkey
ok ill answer this one

1 "white" american live=2 black american lives
1 "white" american live=1 israele live
1 "white" american live=100 arab lives
1 "white" american live=200 palestian lives

sorry this is just how i look at it!!
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
24
SF, CA
Originally posted by Damn True
When this happens the fault for those deaths lays on the head of the guy who intentionally put the target amongst civilians (as Hussein has shown wont to do) rather than the guy who dropped the bomb.
I hear this a lot, and I sort of understand it, but it seems more like self-delusion to me. The person that drops the bomb still makes a choice: bomb the "target" and kill civilians, or not. At that point, who cares whose fault it is? Civilians are dead. If the bomb hadn't been dropped, they would be alive.

What we're saying there is:
Proving a point and taking out X strategic target is worth Y civilian lives.

If that strategic target were surrounded by American civilians, would we still bomb it? It would be Saddam's fault...
 

Triphop

Chimp
Sep 10, 2002
96
0
Originally posted by ohio
I hear this a lot, and I sort of understand it, but it seems more like self-delusion to me. The person that drops the bomb still makes a choice: bomb the "target" and kill civilians, or not. At that point, who cares whose fault it is? Civilians are dead. If the bomb hadn't been dropped, they would be alive.

What we're saying there is:
Proving a point and taking out X strategic target is worth Y civilian lives.

If that strategic target were surrounded by American civilians, would we still bomb it? It would be Saddam's fault...
I have been watching a program on PBS about the Gulf War and all that surrounded it. It is quite informative and neutral, actually it criticizes the military strategy quite a bit.

One point they made was about Saddam's use of human shields. That he used hostages, some American, and we still bombed the targets. The report said it was unclear if any of the Americans were harmed in the bombings, I am sure that info would never be released by the gov't if the Americans were killed.

So, if the program is accurate, it appears that past experience would dictate American human shields would not deter a bomb run.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,399
7,784
Originally posted by rbx
ok ill answer this one

1 "white" american live=2 black american lives
1 "white" american live=1 israele live
1 "white" american live=100 arab lives
1 "white" american live=200 palestian lives

sorry this is just how i look at it!!
wow. call me a bleeding-heart liberal, but i am still disgusted by you if you're serious.
 

I Are Baboon

The Full Dopey
Aug 6, 2001
32,437
9,519
MTB New England
Originally posted by rbx
ok ill answer this one

1 "white" american live=2 black american lives
1 "white" american live=1 israele live
1 "white" american live=100 arab lives
1 "white" american live=200 palestian lives

sorry this is just how i look at it!!
:rolleyes:

That is just plain stupid.
 

mrbigisbudgood

Strangely intrigued by Echo
Oct 30, 2001
1,380
3
Charlotte, NC
Originally posted by rbx
ok ill answer this one

1 "white" american live=2 black american lives
1 "white" american live=1 israele live
1 "white" american live=100 arab lives
1 "white" american live=200 palestian lives

sorry this is just how i look at it!!
You are one sick asshole.
 

The Toninator

Muffin
Jul 6, 2001
5,436
17
High(ts) Htown
Originally posted by rbx
coming off as a racist..
So are you saying you’re sorry that you’re coming off like a racist or your sorry that you are a racist? And if you are why are you sorry?
That’s pretty much lack of conviction. IF your going to believe in something and voice your opinion on something so extreme you need to own it 100% and not be some wishy washy pansy ass.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,399
7,784
Originally posted by rbx
nope not a joke..

toshi; why are you disgusted?
how can anyone make such a judgment? that you were born the color and nationality that you are is pure chance. being born white isn't something you earned; it's just something that happens to be.
 

splat

Nam I am
Look at the media that is exacly how they treat it! this past spring , when 1000's were dying in India due to Drought and heat , you barely herd anything about it on the news, but at the same time if a Bomder in Isreal kills several people it is considered the top story of the night !

lets face it that is exactly how we are fed the information. I'm not saying its right or that I agree, but it is.

and you will see they use a scale very similar to the one posted
 

Ridemonkey

This is not an active account
Sep 18, 2002
4,108
1
Toronto, Canada
Originally posted by Toshi
how can anyone make such a judgment? that you were born the color and nationality that you are is pure chance. being born white isn't something you earned; it's just something that happens to be.
I think he is pointing out how many americans feel about our own value compared to other races, not saying that he believes in those values.
 

rbx

Monkey
Originally posted by splat
Look at the media that is exacly how they treat it! this past spring , when 1000's were dying in India due to Drought and heat , you barely herd anything about it on the news, but at the same time if a Bomder in Isreal kills several people it is considered the top story of the night !

lets face it that is exactly how we are fed the information. I'm not saying its right or that I agree, but it is .
perfect example of what i was trying to say...
 

The Toninator

Muffin
Jul 6, 2001
5,436
17
High(ts) Htown
Originally posted by rbx
...i am saying that SOME people think their lives are worth more than others simply because they are WHITE and THEY are american!!!(which i am totally against)
Oh well now i'm actually offended. How can you, not an (u.s.)amercian, tell me how i value life?
that on of the most ignorant things i have ever read and it acutally very racist.
 

Ridemonkey

This is not an active account
Sep 18, 2002
4,108
1
Toronto, Canada
Originally posted by The Toninator
Oh well now i'm actually offended. How can you, not an (u.s.)amercian, tell me how i value life?
that on of the most ignorant things i have ever read and it acutally very racist.
Yup, all these countries that ride the coat tails of our stability sure are quick to criticize eh?
 

mrbigisbudgood

Strangely intrigued by Echo
Oct 30, 2001
1,380
3
Charlotte, NC
I think we Americans value life enough to put our own troops at risk to save the Iraqi people, and the rest of the people in the Middle East, from a deranged psycho.

Don't tell Americans that we don't value life as we should. Nazi Germany? Kuwait? Do I need to continue? What is Canada doing for the Middle East?
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by ohio
I hear this a lot, and I sort of understand it, but it seems more like self-delusion to me. The person that drops the bomb still makes a choice: bomb the "target" and kill civilians, or not. At that point, who cares whose fault it is? Civilians are dead. If the bomb hadn't been dropped, they would be alive.

What we're saying there is:
Proving a point and taking out X strategic target is worth Y civilian lives.

If that strategic target were surrounded by American civilians, would we still bomb it? It would be Saddam's fault...
Strategic targets are just that. They should be targets that if destroyed diminish the ability of your enemy to wage war. IE blowing up an aircraft factory with civilian workers is a legitimiate target. Or the enemy decides to place noncombatants around his main command and control center. Now while it might make the decision difficult to make but the destruction of the target will save American and those you are fighting lives or shorten the war effort. (Shorter wars = less causalities)

In World War II there are numerous examples of the Japanese placing American POWs around war industry and those places still being bombed. It was still Japan's fault.

OR even if you want to make it more upclose and personal What if they put civilians around their combat troops or on the outside of their tanks while fighting? (Back to the rules of engagement problems) The decision is not easy and the fact that someone else forced you into the decision is NO comfort after it has been made regardless of the choice. I can promise you that from personal experience.

If we valued American lives over other nationalities, then we wouldn't have been in Bosnia or Somilia.

I do understand your point, don't fight the war the civilians don't get killed. And to this point, we haven't started fighting. But if Saddam or any leader is so good for his country do you think that he would do this? If he would do this what other atrocities is he capable of? I mean you take this step you are pretty far down a very nasty road.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Originally posted by DRB
Strategic targets are just that. They should be targets that if destroyed diminish the ability of your enemy to wage war. IE blowing up an aircraft factory with civilian workers is a legitimiate target. Or the enemy decides to place noncombatants around his main command and control center. Now while it might make the decision difficult to make but the destruction of the target will save American and those you are fighting lives or shorten the war effort. (Shorter wars = less causalities)

In World War II there are numerous examples of the Japanese placing American POWs around war industry and those places still being bombed. It was still Japan's fault.

OR even if you want to make it more upclose and personal What if they put civilians around their combat troops or on the outside of their tanks while fighting? (Back to the rules of engagement problems) The decision is not easy and the fact that someone else forced you into the decision is NO comfort after it has been made regardless of the choice. I can promise you that from personal experience.

If we valued American lives over other nationalities, then we wouldn't have been in Bosnia or Somilia.

I do understand your point, don't fight the war the civilians don't get killed. And to this point, we haven't started fighting. But if Saddam or any leader is so good for his country do you think that he would do this? If he would do this what other atrocities is he capable of? I mean you take this step you are pretty far down a very nasty road.
Very well said.

We clearly value human life regardless of nationality. In this case it is my belief that we value the lives of Iraqi citizens more than their own leader does.
He has no compunction about using Chemical weapons on his own people or placing them as human shields around his military targets. The intent of the latter is because he knows the international media will pick up the video feed of a blown up medical clinic that "oh by the way" had a anti-aircraft missile battery on the roof.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
24
SF, CA
Originally posted by Damn True
Very well said.

In this case it is my belief that we value the lives of Iraqi citizens more than their own leader does.
Mine too.

Civilian casualties are inevitable in war. I understand perfectly well that it is unavoidable, and in many cases means a net savings of lives. I just don't believe people reflect on that often enough; especially once the war is waged, is it easy to emotionally dehumanize the enemy's citizen's into simply the enemy. I don't think we can be reminded often enough of WHO we are going to fight this war for.

I also don't like passing the blame by saying it is Saddam's fault... maybe it's the objectivist in me, but I would much prefer to hear "we deeply regret that this is what we had to do to achieve our strategic aims." Instead of saying we were left with no choice, recognize that there WAS a choice, and we had good reasons for choosing to do what we did.
 

rbx

Monkey
Originally posted by Damn True
Very well said.

We clearly value human life regardless of nationality. In this case it is my belief that we value the lives of Iraqi citizens more than their own leader does.
He has no compunction about using Chemical weapons on his own people or placing them as human shields around his military targets. The intent of the latter is because he knows the international media will pick up the video feed of a blown up medical clinic that "oh by the way" had a anti-aircraft missile battery on the roof.
i am not against getting rid of a crazy dictator like saddam hussein.but to say that the u.s ALWAYS played a positive role in the middle east thats another story.(look up what kysinger did)
ww2 was a noble fight and i DO respect what american soldiers and other countries did to help liberate europe.

toninator---during the mayor elections for new-york when hillary clinton even mentionned that she supports the palistians right for freedom she was immediatly attacked as if it was a "shameful" thing to do.what the hell do you want me to think after seing such disgusting right wing actions!!!
 

The Toninator

Muffin
Jul 6, 2001
5,436
17
High(ts) Htown
Originally posted by rbx

toninator---during the mayor elections for new-york when hillary clinton even mentionned that she supports the palistians right for freedom she was immediatly attacked as if it was a "shameful" thing to do.what the hell do you want me to think after seing such disgusting right wing actions!!!
Hillary Clinton is stupid. As for the rest of that statement i'm not sure i understand what you are saying.
 

Will_Jekyll

CUSTOM Chimp
Aug 10, 2001
98
0
Superior,CO
Originally posted by splat
Look at the media that is exacly how they treat it! this past spring , when 1000's were dying in India due to Drought and heat , you barely herd anything about it on the news, but at the same time if a Bomder in Isreal kills several people it is considered the top story of the night !

lets face it that is exactly how we are fed the information. I'm not saying its right or that I agree, but it is.

and you will see they use a scale very similar to the one posted
You hear of one becasue it was casued by terrorists the other is caused slowly by mother nature. The drought is just not good news. I don't think it has anyhting to do with precieved value of life you are just trying to add things in.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by ohio
Mine too.

I just don't believe people reflect on that often enough; especially once the war is waged, is it easy to emotionally dehumanize the enemy's citizen's into simply the enemy. I don't think we can be reminded often enough of WHO we are going to fight this war for.

I also don't like passing the blame by saying it is Saddam's fault... maybe it's the objectivist in me, but I would much prefer to hear "we deeply regret that this is what we had to do to achieve our strategic aims." Instead of saying we were left with no choice, recognize that there WAS a choice, and we had good reasons for choosing to do what we did.
I agree with both of your points. War is a terrible terrible thing that the videos of smart bombs never properly communicate. However, when the videos of the "Highway of Death" I think more of what its about struck home. There are several good photo-documentaries of the up close loss of life and the ugly side of war.

However, I do believe that you can't separate the two aspects of civilian casualties in regards to the use of human shields. First the decision of a foreign leader to place his citizens as human shields and the second the decision to drop the bombs. It is unfair.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
They can't always tell what is near a target. If they deploy a radar guided bomb or missile it tracks, homes in on, and then destroys a source of radar emission. If the source is a mobile anti-aircaft battery it could be parked in an empty lot or in the courtyard of a school.

Which is why Hussein puts those things in places like that.
 

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
Originally posted by Toshi
how can anyone make such a judgment? that you were born the color and nationality that you are is pure chance. being born white isn't something you earned; it's just something that happens to be.
Then explain Michael Jackson;) ;) ;) ;)
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
24
SF, CA
Originally posted by Damn True
They can't always tell what is near a target.
Exactly. Which is why civilian casualties will result from ANY war or bombing campaign (not sure why we choose not to call them wars...), even if the enemy DOESN'T use "civilian shields."

We have the images of a "clean war," filled with surgical strikes, and "smart" bombs... when it's simply not the reality. Smart bombs are not smart enough to turn around after they discover the intelligence was wrong and it's a school not a factory. They might be precise enough to hit a 10ft square on the ground, but they still blow up 3 city blocks... There is no such thing as a clean war.
 

slein

Monkey
Jul 21, 2002
331
0
CANADA
i think we should put a little more stock into the diplomatic process. if we can achieve our goals this way, with hurting as few people as possible, then our civilisation has come a long way.

i applaud BUSH's effort on IRAQ: it is hardline, and hopefully SADDAM will be disposed of. offensive military action should be the last resort. albeit quicker, diplomacy should save lives. attacking IRAQ now may not save many lives in the future as far as i'm concerned (although i can't predict the future very well yet). smart bombs are only as effective as the minimum wage worker that put them together and the air force pilots that can't tell the difference between offensive fire and training missions. look at the CANUCK soldiers that were killed in AFGHANISTAN - i knew MARC LEGER - he was a good troop.

however, i have a lot of concern for the weapons inspectors in theatre. they've essentially had the cross hairs placed on them by the AMERICAN and BRITISH threat of force. if one of them gets killed, i will be severely pissed off. this forum won't be the same after that. and a friend of mine is a UNMOVIC inspector in IRAQ right now and he's still alive for the moment.

as for the price of a life, its all about karma, dudes.
 

gecko

I'm Batman
Jun 28, 2001
252
0
Toronto, Canada
Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Yup, all these countries that ride the coat tails of our stability sure are quick to criticize eh?
Unless rbx is a newly appointed spokesperson for the Prime Minister, I think it's safe to say he doesn't represent the opinions of this nation as a whole.

Besides, financial stability doesn't alway mean you're right. The rest of the world still has the right to voice opinions...as stupid as those opinions may be.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Originally posted by slein
i think we should put a little more stock into the diplomatic process. if we can achieve our goals this way, with hurting as few people as possible, then our civilisation has come a long way.

i applaud BUSH's effort on IRAQ: it is hardline, and hopefully SADDAM will be disposed of. offensive military action should be the last resort. albeit quicker, diplomacy should save lives. attacking IRAQ now may not save many lives in the future as far as i'm concerned (although i can't predict the future very well yet). smart bombs are only as effective as the minimum wage worker that put them together and the air force pilots that can't tell the difference between offensive fire and training missions. look at the CANUCK soldiers that were killed in AFGHANISTAN - i knew MARC LEGER - he was a good troop.

however, i have a lot of concern for the weapons inspectors in theatre. they've essentially had the cross hairs placed on them by the AMERICAN and BRITISH threat of force. if one of them gets killed, i will be severely pissed off. this forum won't be the same after that. and a friend of mine is a UNMOVIC inspector in IRAQ right now and he's still alive for the moment.

as for the price of a life, its all about karma, dudes.

We have tried diplomacy. Hussein has had 12 years to comply and has yet to show even the slightest intent to do so.

The impotence of the UN and the Clinton Administration allowed him to laugh in the face of the dissarmament agreement,
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Originally posted by rbx
ok ill answer this one

1 "white" american live=2 black american lives
1 "white" american live=1 israele live
1 "white" american live=100 arab lives
1 "white" american live=200 palestian lives

sorry this is just how i look at it!!

You may want to re-calculate this.

The U.S. provides over 60% of all worldwide food and medical aid. I seriously don't see the correlation between reality and your assertion.
 

gecko

I'm Batman
Jun 28, 2001
252
0
Toronto, Canada
Originally posted by Damn True
You may want to re-calculate this.

The U.S. provides over 60% of all worldwide food and medical aid. I seriously don't see the correlation between reality and your assertion.
Is that true? Not doubting it, just impressed.