3 ms·

Summary: - Over 801,000 people have died due to direct war violence, and several times as many indirectly - Over 335,000 civilians have been killed as a resul

Summary: - Over 801,000 people have died due to direct war violence, and several times as many indirectly - Over 335,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting - 37 million - the number of war refugees and displaced persons - The US federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $6.4 trillion dollars - The US government is conducting counterterror activities in 80 countries - The wars have been accompanied by violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the US and abroad

dmarlow 6y ago
Before each war, leaders should sit down, write down hypothetical outcomes and see if they still feel it makes sense. Then, after the conflict, come back and see how their estimates were. I'm hopeful that people would be more prudent if they could foresee the impact of their decisions.
- temp0826 6y ago
  Would it ever make sense? This is not how greed and hatred work
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- nibepins 6y ago
  They do that, it happens that "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
  - nostromo 6y ago
    It reminds me of a recent quote I saw in the news: "The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t [in love with me], because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy, but we're getting out of the endless wars."
    - gumby 6y ago
      That same person boasts about an increased pentagon budget. Where does he think that money goes? It doesn’t seem like either leading candidate has taken a position on the military-industrial complex.
      - Jtsummers 6y ago
        The fetishization (despite the massive reduction in the percentage of the population who have served) of the military in the US makes it really hard to take a strong stance against the MIC as a politician (aiming for the presidency, representatives and some senate seats have more freedom here).
        gumby 6y ago
        Congress less so: Rockwell was the pioneer in making sure every congressional district had a contractor or manufacturer making a part of the B-1 bomber to keep congress from cancelling it.
    - belltaco 6y ago
      >“We’ve totally rebuilt the military — $2.5 trillion,” he said, going on to talk about a contract awarded to that shipbuilding company, Fincantieri Marinette Marine, “to build the next generation of guided missile frigates for the United States Navy.” >He then mentioned missiles, rockets and tanks, saying: “What we had were great people in the military, but they weren’t given the right equipment, so now they are. Two and a half trillion dollars. … We’ve invested the $2.5 trillion
    - 6y ago
- save_ferris 6y ago
  I agree. One of the problems that arises, however, is that wars get passed down from administration to administration, and once that happens, nobody wants to be the one to pull out and have that on their legacy. It happened in Vietnam, and it's happening today in the Middle East. In both cases, the government knew early on that "total victory" was not possible, yet administrations kept pressing on. As long as leaders fear the political fallout of such major decisions, they will act in their best interest, even if it costs thousands of young lives.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jjcon 6y ago
Those totals include all deaths in the region which includes ISIS and other conflicts - important info to include

dmarlow 6y ago

Before each war, leaders should sit down, write down hypothetical outcomes and see if they still feel it makes sense. Then, after the conflict, come back and see how their estimates were. I'm hopeful that people would be more prudent if they could foresee the impact of their decisions.

temp0826 6y ago
Would it ever make sense? This is not how greed and hatred work
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nibepins 6y ago
They do that, it happens that "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
- nostromo 6y ago
  It reminds me of a recent quote I saw in the news: "The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t [in love with me], because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy, but we're getting out of the endless wars."
  - gumby 6y ago
    That same person boasts about an increased pentagon budget. Where does he think that money goes? It doesn’t seem like either leading candidate has taken a position on the military-industrial complex.
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      The fetishization (despite the massive reduction in the percentage of the population who have served) of the military in the US makes it really hard to take a strong stance against the MIC as a politician (aiming for the presidency, representatives and some senate seats have more freedom here).
      - gumby 6y ago
        Congress less so: Rockwell was the pioneer in making sure every congressional district had a contractor or manufacturer making a part of the B-1 bomber to keep congress from cancelling it.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    >“We’ve totally rebuilt the military — $2.5 trillion,” he said, going on to talk about a contract awarded to that shipbuilding company, Fincantieri Marinette Marine, “to build the next generation of guided missile frigates for the United States Navy.” >He then mentioned missiles, rockets and tanks, saying: “What we had were great people in the military, but they weren’t given the right equipment, so now they are. Two and a half trillion dollars. … We’ve invested the $2.5 trillion
  - 6y ago
save_ferris 6y ago
I agree. One of the problems that arises, however, is that wars get passed down from administration to administration, and once that happens, nobody wants to be the one to pull out and have that on their legacy. It happened in Vietnam, and it's happening today in the Middle East. In both cases, the government knew early on that "total victory" was not possible, yet administrations kept pressing on. As long as leaders fear the political fallout of such major decisions, they will act in their best interest, even if it costs thousands of young lives.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jjcon 6y ago

Those totals include all deaths in the region which includes ISIS and other conflicts - important info to include