3 ms·

There is actually some merit to the notion that this is one of the <least> violent times in Human History. But I wouldn't trust that intuition very far. The wo

by 001sky 14y ago

There is actually some merit to the notion that this is one of the <least> violent times in Human History. But I wouldn't trust that intuition very far. The world is becoming a much more dangerous place as we speak. But for comparison, The US has been at war for 12 years, with under 5K combat deaths including the invasion of IRAQ and what-ever-u-want-to-call mess in Afghanistan. Thats comparable in order of magnitude the civillian deaths of the single day 9/11 in the US.[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualti... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

nandemo 14y ago
The Iraq war alone has resulted in at least 100 thousand total deaths (including civilians) according to the most conservative estimates. How is the 5k figure relevant? That's like AlQaeda claiming 9/11 wasn't very violent, since they lost only a dozen combatants.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Historically, however, these conflicts pale in comparison to the 'normal' wars of the 20th century. Read some history if you doubt this. [1] _________ Iran-Iraq War [2] Casualties and losses 320,000–720,000 soldiers and militia killed (Iran) 150,000–375,000 soldiers and militia killed (Iraq) Economic loss of more than $500 billion (per side) 100,000+ civilians killed on both sides ______________ World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. [3] _________________ [1] This is also clearly visible in the citation of the GP comment, but i provide more examples. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
  - noibl 14y ago
    Like pron, you for some reason insist on taking the casualties of one side as representative of the scale of the conflict overall. He says, 25,000 Israelis killed puts the Israeli-Arab conflict on the same scale as the Mexican Drug War (30,000) when in fact the overall death toll puts it more on the scale of the Wars in Yugoslavia (115,000). You say that the 'cost' of the Iraq war is a mere 5,000 deaths, coldly ignoring the deaths of many tens of thousands of people just because they're on 'the other side'. I hesitate to ask exactly which historians you recommend that would justify this selectivity.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      I hesitate to ask exactly which historians you recommend that would justify this selectivity. The post-9/11 wars are not in (or near) the top 10 conflicts for the US. And, en-toto casualties are an order of magnitude lower than Iran-Iraq war, etc if you want to look at it that way. Either way, you lose.
      - noibl 14y ago
        I've certainly lost the thread of your argument since you've replaced the comment I replied to, about 'the cost of doing business', with statistics from the Iran-Iraq war. I'm not really interested in whether certain wars are bigger than other wars. I am interested in how the trivialisation of ongoing conflicts tends to dovetail neatly with pro-war agendas ('cost of doing business'). [Unexplained downvotes, how novel.]
        001sky 14y ago
        The comment thread you are interjecting to is not of your interest, then. This sub-thread is explicitly about the quantification of violence, and comparing data accross conflicts. It seems clear you have not read either the earlier comments or much history very carefully. Your repeated attempts to politicise (a/k/a dumb down) the conversation are also trivial and out of place.
        noibl 14y ago
nivertech 14y ago
2 million murdered in Darfur and South Sudan - nobody cares. 1 Hamas terrorist killed - CNN breaking news. Make your own conclusions.

by 001sky 14y ago

nandemo 14y ago

The Iraq war alone has resulted in at least 100 thousand total deaths (including civilians) according to the most conservative estimates. How is the 5k figure relevant? That's like AlQaeda claiming 9/11 wasn't very violent, since they lost only a dozen combatants.

001sky 14y ago
Historically, however, these conflicts pale in comparison to the 'normal' wars of the 20th century. Read some history if you doubt this. [1] _________ Iran-Iraq War [2] Casualties and losses 320,000–720,000 soldiers and militia killed (Iran) 150,000–375,000 soldiers and militia killed (Iraq) Economic loss of more than $500 billion (per side) 100,000+ civilians killed on both sides ______________ World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. [3] _________________ [1] This is also clearly visible in the citation of the GP comment, but i provide more examples. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
- noibl 14y ago
  Like pron, you for some reason insist on taking the casualties of one side as representative of the scale of the conflict overall. He says, 25,000 Israelis killed puts the Israeli-Arab conflict on the same scale as the Mexican Drug War (30,000) when in fact the overall death toll puts it more on the scale of the Wars in Yugoslavia (115,000). You say that the 'cost' of the Iraq war is a mere 5,000 deaths, coldly ignoring the deaths of many tens of thousands of people just because they're on 'the other side'. I hesitate to ask exactly which historians you recommend that would justify this selectivity.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    I hesitate to ask exactly which historians you recommend that would justify this selectivity. The post-9/11 wars are not in (or near) the top 10 conflicts for the US. And, en-toto casualties are an order of magnitude lower than Iran-Iraq war, etc if you want to look at it that way. Either way, you lose.
    - noibl 14y ago
      I've certainly lost the thread of your argument since you've replaced the comment I replied to, about 'the cost of doing business', with statistics from the Iran-Iraq war. I'm not really interested in whether certain wars are bigger than other wars. I am interested in how the trivialisation of ongoing conflicts tends to dovetail neatly with pro-war agendas ('cost of doing business'). [Unexplained downvotes, how novel.]
      - 001sky 14y ago
        The comment thread you are interjecting to is not of your interest, then. This sub-thread is explicitly about the quantification of violence, and comparing data accross conflicts. It seems clear you have not read either the earlier comments or much history very carefully. Your repeated attempts to politicise (a/k/a dumb down) the conversation are also trivial and out of place.
        noibl 14y ago

nivertech 14y ago

2 million murdered in Darfur and South Sudan - nobody cares. 1 Hamas terrorist killed - CNN breaking news. Make your own conclusions.