9 ms·

The total body count for US military in the past 30 years is almost certainly less than the total body count for Russian military in the past 9 months. The vas

by prvit 4y ago

The total body count for US military in the past 30 years is almost certainly less than the total body count for Russian military in the past 9 months. The vast majority of the deaths in middle eastern conflicts were caused by locals, not US troops. Not to even mention that hardly any US troops died, but Russian troops are dying by the tens of thousands.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
Only if you don't count the knock-on effects of US policy, which is absurd.
- prvit 4y ago
  No, not really. It’s silly to blame the US for actions of other groups working to pursue their own goals.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    The predictable result of groups that the US unleashed by bad decisions and creating a power vacuum? Yes, they own it.
    - prvit 4y ago
      Why do you think it’s ok to strip those people of their agency like that? Is it because they’re brown and you consider them to be primitive people?
      - hackinthebochs 4y ago
        Arguments like this are so transparent. Do better.
        prvit 4y ago
        Your argument is akin to blaming NATO for the war in Ukraine.
        hackinthebochs 4y ago
        Are you even capable of making an argument in defense of your claims, instead of laundering the moral sentiment of the issue of the hour?
        prvit 4y ago
        Defend my claim against what? I made a specific claim about deaths caused by US forces, nobody has seriously tried to dispute that. You’re trying to push some absurd logic that would also imply that Gavrilo Princip was personally responsible for the tens of millions of deaths caused by WW1.
        mistermann 4y ago
        > I made a specific claim about deaths caused by US forces, nobody has seriously tried to dispute that. Incorrect. I disputed it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33396768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33396768
        prvit 4y ago
        No you didn’t. At no point did you attempt to present conflicting numbers. Instead you sunk to lazy trolling with “is anything true?? question everything!”. Yeah, you can dismiss literally any conversation like that. You started playing games with meanings of well defined words like “terrorism”. It’s like arguing that the sky being blue is just a matter of opinion, completely pointless.
        mistermann 4y ago
        > No you didn’t. Yes, I did. > At no point did you attempt to present conflicting numbers. a) False: "Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War" b) Presenting a competing theory is not even a requirement of disputing a claim - dispute: "to question the truth or rightness of dispute a statement" > Instead you sunk to lazy trolling with “is anything true?? question everything!”. Yeah, you can dismiss literally any conversation like that. Do you lack the ability to see what you are doing here? Are you not literally asserting that appealing to what is actually true is necessarily ~invalid, and can only be "trolling"? > You started playing games with meanings of well defined words like “terrorism”. It’s like arguing that the sky being blue is just a matter of opinion, completely pointless. I often wonder: what would people like you do if someone was to ever take away your memes...do you have anything to fall back on? I challenge you to utilize the same mode of thinking that you would apply when discussing code, processors, or that sort of thing. If you instead choose to continue with your current mode, I will continue to mock you as I am doing now (and to moderators: if people can engage in insults and bald-faced lying, is some teasing in response really that inappropriate?). I look forward to seeing your reaction.
    - rat87 4y ago
      These things are far from predictable. Now you could say we should have known that possibility existed and should still get a good amount of blame from not preventing it but no one is a fortuneteller
mistermann 4y ago
I think the manner in which different people calculate(?) causality is very interesting. Speaking of calculations: what data sources do you use for yours?
- prvit 4y ago
  I haven’t dug into this deeply for a long time, I’m just going with what I recall off the top of my head. Iraq body count is a common reference, it paints the coalition forces in a rather good light https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ For Afghanistan it’s harder to find numbers, but given the vastly higher casualties among local forces, it seems fair to assume that they’d have been doing most of the fighting. Given the doctrinal differences between US and Russian forces, it’s completely unsurprising that Russians would be killing way more people. US relies on air superiority and PGMs whereas Russia is stuck fighting WW1 style artillery battles. Not to mention that US doctrine does not really involve terror attacks on civilian targets, whereas Russian doctrine clearly does. You don’t see US bombing power plants many months into a conflict in order to cause civilian misery to gain an upper hand in negotiations.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Iraq body count is a common reference, it paints the coalition forces in a rather good light https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War I wonder: does it seem possible that humans might choose (and psychologically/epistemically favor) one source over another according to how well it supports their pre-existing worldview? Similarly: might people also "calculate" causality (which directly affects attribution of responsibility for death) differently for similar reasons (assuming they don't just ignore it entirely, even when it is explicitly mentioned in a conversation)? > For Afghanistan it’s harder to find numbers, but given the vastly higher casualties among local forces, it seems fair to assume that they’d have been doing most of the fighting. Do you have any interest in the causality that preceded that fighting, and if so: how many years do you go back in your model, and how many variables are in your model? (Perhaps I should also ask: do you even have a model, or might you be using a different technique/phenomenon to produce your values?) > Given the doctrinal differences between US and Russian forces, it’s completely unsurprising that Russians would be killing way more people. Perhaps...but then there's also this rather unpopular question: what is actually true? > Not to mention that US doctrine does not really involve terror attacks on civilian targets, whereas Russian doctrine clearly does. "Clearly". > You don’t see US bombing power plants many months into a conflict in order to cause civilian misery to gain an upper hand in negotiations. You see mostly what is shown to you, and what your mind allows you to see. I recommend against the premature formation of belief, as well as being mindful of the mind's tendency to conflate belief with knowledge.

by prvit 4y ago

hackinthebochs 4y ago

Only if you don't count the knock-on effects of US policy, which is absurd.

prvit 4y ago
No, not really. It’s silly to blame the US for actions of other groups working to pursue their own goals.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  The predictable result of groups that the US unleashed by bad decisions and creating a power vacuum? Yes, they own it.
  - prvit 4y ago
    Why do you think it’s ok to strip those people of their agency like that? Is it because they’re brown and you consider them to be primitive people?
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      Arguments like this are so transparent. Do better.
      - prvit 4y ago
        Your argument is akin to blaming NATO for the war in Ukraine.
        hackinthebochs 4y ago
        Are you even capable of making an argument in defense of your claims, instead of laundering the moral sentiment of the issue of the hour?
        prvit 4y ago
        Defend my claim against what? I made a specific claim about deaths caused by US forces, nobody has seriously tried to dispute that. You’re trying to push some absurd logic that would also imply that Gavrilo Princip was personally responsible for the tens of millions of deaths caused by WW1.
        mistermann 4y ago
        > I made a specific claim about deaths caused by US forces, nobody has seriously tried to dispute that. Incorrect. I disputed it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33396768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33396768
        prvit 4y ago
        No you didn’t. At no point did you attempt to present conflicting numbers. Instead you sunk to lazy trolling with “is anything true?? question everything!”. Yeah, you can dismiss literally any conversation like that. You started playing games with meanings of well defined words like “terrorism”. It’s like arguing that the sky being blue is just a matter of opinion, completely pointless.
        mistermann 4y ago
        > No you didn’t. Yes, I did. > At no point did you attempt to present conflicting numbers. a) False: "Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War" b) Presenting a competing theory is not even a requirement of disputing a claim - dispute: "to question the truth or rightness of dispute a statement" > Instead you sunk to lazy trolling with “is anything true?? question everything!”. Yeah, you can dismiss literally any conversation like that. Do you lack the ability to see what you are doing here? Are you not literally asserting that appealing to what is actually true is necessarily ~invalid, and can only be "trolling"? > You started playing games with meanings of well defined words like “terrorism”. It’s like arguing that the sky being blue is just a matter of opinion, completely pointless. I often wonder: what would people like you do if someone was to ever take away your memes...do you have anything to fall back on? I challenge you to utilize the same mode of thinking that you would apply when discussing code, processors, or that sort of thing. If you instead choose to continue with your current mode, I will continue to mock you as I am doing now (and to moderators: if people can engage in insults and bald-faced lying, is some teasing in response really that inappropriate?). I look forward to seeing your reaction.
  - rat87 4y ago
    These things are far from predictable. Now you could say we should have known that possibility existed and should still get a good amount of blame from not preventing it but no one is a fortuneteller

mistermann 4y ago

I think the manner in which different people calculate(?) causality is very interesting. Speaking of calculations: what data sources do you use for yours?

prvit 4y ago
I haven’t dug into this deeply for a long time, I’m just going with what I recall off the top of my head. Iraq body count is a common reference, it paints the coalition forces in a rather good light https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ For Afghanistan it’s harder to find numbers, but given the vastly higher casualties among local forces, it seems fair to assume that they’d have been doing most of the fighting. Given the doctrinal differences between US and Russian forces, it’s completely unsurprising that Russians would be killing way more people. US relies on air superiority and PGMs whereas Russia is stuck fighting WW1 style artillery battles. Not to mention that US doctrine does not really involve terror attacks on civilian targets, whereas Russian doctrine clearly does. You don’t see US bombing power plants many months into a conflict in order to cause civilian misery to gain an upper hand in negotiations.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Iraq body count is a common reference, it paints the coalition forces in a rather good light https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War I wonder: does it seem possible that humans might choose (and psychologically/epistemically favor) one source over another according to how well it supports their pre-existing worldview? Similarly: might people also "calculate" causality (which directly affects attribution of responsibility for death) differently for similar reasons (assuming they don't just ignore it entirely, even when it is explicitly mentioned in a conversation)? > For Afghanistan it’s harder to find numbers, but given the vastly higher casualties among local forces, it seems fair to assume that they’d have been doing most of the fighting. Do you have any interest in the causality that preceded that fighting, and if so: how many years do you go back in your model, and how many variables are in your model? (Perhaps I should also ask: do you even have a model, or might you be using a different technique/phenomenon to produce your values?) > Given the doctrinal differences between US and Russian forces, it’s completely unsurprising that Russians would be killing way more people. Perhaps...but then there's also this rather unpopular question: what is actually true? > Not to mention that US doctrine does not really involve terror attacks on civilian targets, whereas Russian doctrine clearly does. "Clearly". > You don’t see US bombing power plants many months into a conflict in order to cause civilian misery to gain an upper hand in negotiations. You see mostly what is shown to you, and what your mind allows you to see. I recommend against the premature formation of belief, as well as being mindful of the mind's tendency to conflate belief with knowledge.