""No I didn't, I was doing it in the context of the Iraq war where they're understood to be excess deaths.""
First, we're not talking about Iraq. I told you that.
Second, we're talking about Afghanistan.
Third, "excess deaths" what does that mean?
Fourth, your cited kill number did not include context, it did not separate out people that would have died if there were no war, the actual causality figures are actually highly estimated and no one really knows what they are, you conflated people killed by the enemy with people killed by the US, you conflated soldier deaths with civilians, deaths caused by famine or disease were conflated with deaths from weapons, etc etc etc.
So whatever you "intentions" were that is what you did.
"As to standard methodology"
In what way is that standard anything? No one does that. Do you think the US was sitting there doing WW2 running those numbers for Germany?
Anyway, we've come to the part of the discussion where I have to start looking things up.
In regards to the Afghan war, wikipedia puts the number at:
And often as not that is because the terrorists like to use civilians as human shields.
""NATO was an alliance formed to counter Russia, it's easy to see why inviting former Warsaw pact members into NATO would be viewed as a hostile act.""
Counter the USSR's attempt to conquer europe and the world actually.
We did what we could to make the Russians feel comfortable. We gave them money. We gave them technology. We invited them to all the clubs and parties and meetings. We tried to get foreign investment to help them. We did exchange programs to get them knowledge. We did the whole international space station purely to try and form some sort of post cold war peace.
We tried very hard to make the Russians see that there was another way.
Now, for a moment, try and see things from our side. We've just fought the cold war. We've been fighting the Russians for generations. My grand fathers fought them. My fathers fought them... and they thought I would fight the russians as well.
And in this context the Russians get agitated every time some previously subject power is given enough security to make it hard for them to be reconquered. This was taken as a sign of bad faith on the part of the Russians against the US and the free world. The opposition to the anti ICBM technology was also taken as bad faith. Why does Russia want the US to stop developing it unless Russia wants to intimidate the first world with nuclear weapons? The UK doesn't have a problem with US anti ICBM tech. The first world is comfortable with it because they have no intention of using their nukes in a threatening manner.
The Russians clearly do and always did. And that's fine. But it means this notion you're peddling that the Russians were going to be peaceful until the US did X or Y is bullshit. They've been planning to cause trouble from the start.
""It's not just the conflict itself but the internal dialogue. You don't think other countries are listening when presidential candidates talk about invading other countries like it's no big deal?""
You don't know what the internal dialog is... you just know what is in the media. Furthermore, when has the US ever talked about invading a country like it was no big deal?
You keep saying these things that are opinions or feelings... there's no empiricism in it. You've built a house of cards out of bias and prejudice.
""I didn't say it was illegitimate, I said that its creation was a legitimate target for criticism as a very ugly form of colonialism (lets treat the land owned by these brown people like they're not even there and let some white Europeans settle it). And their current settlement policy is so indefensible I don't know that I've actually seen anyone ever defend it.""
That's how EVERY country in the middle east got its current territory. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, etc. Not one of them got it any other way.
So again... if you want to question the legitimacy of Israel, then you have to question the legitimacy of all those countries.
Good to know. All I'd say in regards to that, is that Canada is basically the US from a strategic stand point. You're inseparable. If the US stands you'll stand... if the US falls... you'll fall.
""In WWII the axis powers inflicted a 3-1 civilian-military death ratio, and that includes the holocaust.
The 10-1 ratios in drone strikes that I cited, which are the only decent estimate I could find, are not something to brag about.
And even if they were lower than usual they're only acceptable if the acts themselves are necessary, I find it dubious that these actors in other countries are particularly legitimate terrorist threats.""
Citation. That's complete bullshit.
""Re-read what I said, I wasn't 'm not appealing to your heart strings, I was talking about the bigger picture.
The drone strikes are counterproductive because of the ill-will they inflict by causing mass collateral damage.""
""You're still missing the point I'm talking about... which is kind of my point in arguing against the drones and autonomous weapons.
It's not just US dead vs enemy dead. It's US dead vs all the different categories of people who are killed or harmed by military action. Because you dehumanize the enemy (not a criticism, just human nature) you don't really give those other people the proper weight and are way too eager to deploy military force.
The point of having US military personnel in harms way isn't to have them harmed, it's to have people realize their at risk and so give some consideration as to whether the conflict is actually worth it.""
Its not even human nature. It is a requirement of war itself.
You cannot wage war without not only accepting the death of the enemy but methodically planning it and executing the action without hesitation.
You say I don't care about the enemy? This is incorrect. I actively want them dead.
You say I don't care about civilians? This is incorrect, my people spend more money and energy trying to avoid civilian causalities than any other power in history.
As to your desire to have some sort of philosophical revelation in the middle of a battle... that is not the point of the battle. The point is to kill the enemy, secure the objective, and limit the losses to our own forces either in people or other resources so that we can continue to prosecute the war.
If you want to have a philosophical discussion about war... that is not the place to do it. You can have it with me here and now. This is an appropriate place.
You can also have it in the media or write a letter to a public official or whatever.
But the soldier on the battlefield? He's too busy trying to stay alive to even be afraid. Have you ever read war accounts? How the men fighting would do incredibly dangerous things without thinking about it because that was what had to be done. And then after the battle they'd throw up and shake from the terror of what they'd gone through. But in the middle of the fight... they felt no fear. They did their duty.
And you think in the middle of that that the soldiers are going to go through some sort of philosophical process? It won't happen.
What is more, taking deaths of our own simply makes us hate the enemy. That IS human nature. If the enemy kills our robots we won't feel a sense of loss and we won't hate the enemy as much or at all.
But if you force our soldiers to die... we will hate the enemy. We will not only want them dead... but we'll grow cruel... and will want them to suffer.
This happened to the US in WW2 and it happened in Vietnam. We were not kind of Japanese or German soldiers. We were more kind than the Russians... but then they had suffered far worse at the hands of the Germans that did we.
And that loss you seem to what us to feel... it won't do what you think it will do. You think it will make us not want to fight. Perhaps. But it will also make us cruel and hateful.
I do not want that for my people. I want my people to be kept safe. I want them to maintain their kindness. And i want them to not hate. Your idea will backfire.