PeakOil is You
Can War save us?
- PenultimateMan
by Aaron » Fri 03 Dec 2004, 14:38:35
The cost of Missile Defense $1,000,000,000,000
The cost of invading Iraq $150,000,000,000
The cost of the war on terror $65,000,000,000
The cost of the war on drugs $18,000,000,000
Destroying the environment while fighting for the last scrapes of energy...
priceless.
The cost of invading Iraq $150,000,000,000
The cost of the war on terror $65,000,000,000
The cost of the war on drugs $18,000,000,000
Destroying the environment while fighting for the last scrapes of energy...
priceless.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
by Bytesmiths » Fri 03 Dec 2004, 14:38:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', 'Y')ou are still "traumatized" because of the loss of the Vietnam War, because you lost a couple of thousand US-SOLDIERS in that war.
Nit: over 55,000 US soldiers died there, which was enough so that essentially every US citizen knew of someone who died.
In Iraq, we're nearing a critical "third-order" threshold, where every US citizen knows someone who knows someone who died. At this point, resolve generally stiffens: "A lady at work has a brother who lost his son. By god, we've got to go in there and clean this up!" You saw evidence of that in the appalling lack of alternatives in the US Presidential race -- the question became "who would wage war better," rather than "what the hell are we doing there?"
At the "second-order" threshold, resolve begins to weaken. When every person in the US personally knows someone who died, they begin to have doubts. This seems to happen at about 0.01% of the population, and may require 26,000 dead.
During WWII, Europe and Japan suffered "first-order" losses, where nearly every person suffered the loss of an immediate family member. Although many people were impacted in the US, they never had this level of involvement. Many families who were in an "offset" generation escaped personal involvement to the level of losing a parent or child.
So I agree that the US public is not ready for such involvement. The real question is: are those who pull the strings ready? The moneyed interests enjoyed isolation from WWII -- witness the current US leadership, few (if any) of which have served in armed conflict.
The US public is pretty easily manipulated by money, and those with the money have not endured even a second-order relationship to war, so I'm pessimistic that the public will stop mindlessly following until casualties reach a high second-order level.
:::: Jan Steinman, Communication Steward, EcoReality, a forming sustainable community. Be the change! ::::
-
Bytesmiths - Tar Sands
- Posts: 730
- Joined: Wed 27 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Salt Spring Island, Cascadia
by Free » Fri 03 Dec 2004, 22:05:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bytesmiths', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', 'Y')ou are still "traumatized" because of the loss of the Vietnam War, because you lost a couple of thousand US-SOLDIERS in that war.
Nit: over 55,000 US soldiers died there, which was enough so that essentially every US citizen knew of someone who died.In Iraq, we're nearing a critical "third-order" threshold, where every US citizen knows someone who knows someone who died. At this point, resolve generally stiffens: "A lady at work has a brother who lost his son. By god, we've got to go in there and clean this up!" You saw evidence of that in the appalling lack of alternatives in the US Presidential race -- the question became "who would wage war better," rather than "what the hell are we doing there?"
At the "second-order" threshold, resolve begins to weaken. When every person in the US personally knows someone who died, they begin to have doubts. This seems to happen at about 0.01% of the population, and may require 26,000 dead.
I knew it was 55000, but over a decade! With no disrespect intended towards the braves who have fallen, sorry but this is just "peanuts" in comparison to casualties in so many other wars fought on this planet during history.
It is a very interesting perspective though to think in terms of "level of involvement", I didnt think about this. I agree with you that it is unlikely that we see Vietnam-like unrests even if the casualties would be much higher, because of money controlled media-manipulation. As long as the public thinks this sacrifice is necessary to "fight them over there so they dont come here".
But before that is even considerable there is another much more serious problem for the US-Army - the supply of fresh cannon fodder.
The recruiting targets where not met recently, I think they where too low for about 30 percent. I cant see this going anywhere but to a draft. Never forget the "shadow casualties" apart from the ca. 1200 KIA, there are 10000nds of wounded, maimed, traumatized ones.
But if theres a draft, then the Vietnam-scenario becomes much more likely...
-
Free - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Europe
25 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Open Topic Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests