21
   

How many people has the United States killed in your lifetime?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 04:56 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I was just dismissed as well.

I'll forgo the investigation, review, and compiling of the interludes by the u.s. that bothered me in addition to what didn't, for your interest, as that would take me several hours, to then be dismissed.
mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 05:22 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Without doing any research, I would say............all of them.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 05:39 pm
@ossobuco,
This spitting is in the way. It remains a serious subject.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 06:09 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Not all research is equal. I'm looking for ability to do historic research about politically polemic matters, if I were trying to gauge mathematical ability then golf balls would make more sense.
All right, you got me there. Good point.

Quote:

There certainly doesn't lack for strong opinions about things like whether a war should be waged or not, or whether a country should be increasing the number of people it kills or not. But these opinions increasingly seem to me to have been formulated in the complete absence of any form of hard data.
I think most of us suffer from the handicap of being confined to our own perspective. And when it comes to matters like this, a person really only 'knows' what he wants to know. If that's the case, it's not hard to believe that people can form some dubious opinions. And I'm not at all excluding myself in the least...

thack45 wrote:
In that case,in my lifetime I'd guess the US has:
- Actively killed less people than 150 years ago
- Passively killed more than 150 years ago
What I meant there is that from my perspective, the US is intentionally killing less people (at least percentage wise) than it was 150 years ago. I'm also taking in to account civilian killings - things like sales of tobacco, alcohol and the like; malpractice, good old fashioned murders...

Now I realize that the fact I don't feel the need to lament every unnecessary death may make me callous. And the fact that I don't feel particularly inclined to do the exact math in order to come to the conclusion that things seem relatively better now than they used to be - re intentional killing, may also make me callous. Am I mistaken? possibly. But this is the under-informed opinion I have.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 06:57 pm
@ossobuco,
Don't sweat it osso. I get dismissed all the time. When the day is done and my pride is back safely at bay, I find it's to my advantage.

Of course, wha'do I know?
ossobuco
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 07:06 pm
@thack45,
Hi, thack.
I think I'll go at this for my own interest. So, no one skip lunch.
I'm often taken as vaporous, since I can be in self expression.

I won't rush now, though.
ossobuco
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 07:25 pm
A lot of what Robert now says, I've said before him on a2k. No way I want to chase that down, that's just memory, me going on re our u.s. invasions. Now I see:

"I really have no idea what you are on about, osso. And it's one of the rare things I'm really not all that curious about."


Such a delight.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 07:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

How about WWII? The problem becomes intractible, because many a2k members were borrn after WWII and Korean wars.


cicerone, WWII and the Korean war were not in my lifetime. That happened before I was born. Robert asked "in your lifetime".
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 07:56 pm
@CalamityJane,
They were in my lifetime. Robert is about thirty, I'm about seventy.

I'm in agreement on present robert posts, but am being shunned for dimwittendess of some sort, what is she about? which I take as usual, while I'm the only apparent one who agrees with him.

Why would I stay up all night to compile links?
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 08:29 pm
@ossobuco,
I understand your position. Nobody wants to be made to be perceived as an asshole.
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 09:18 pm
@CalamityJane,
That's the ****'n reason why numbers will never mesh.
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 09:20 pm
@thack45,
True.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 11:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Not if it is a collaborative effort to develop a timeline ranging from the oldest member's lifetime to the youngest member's lifetime.

The casualty numbers for a specific dot on the timeline don't change just because someones range of years doesn't cover that particular spot on the timeline.

To make it easier on folks, we could start the timeline at 1911 to cover anyone under 100 and end the timeline at 1998 since the youngest member here should be at least 13 years old.

So now all we need is to work up a chronological list of all the wars, conflicts, interventions, invasions, terrorist acts and other similar actions the United States was involved in and then get casualty counts for each.

One thing we'll have to determine is whether this list of actions will include only overt actions or will also include covert actions. Also, will the list be limited to only actions where we supplied our personnel/citizens to the action or will it include actions in which we just sold arms to the conflicting entities?
Lustig Andrei
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 11:40 pm
@Butrflynet,
. . . and are we talking solely about deaths as the result of hostile actions (wars, incursions etc.) or do we include executions by state and Fed. governments, police shootouts with law-breakers etc.??
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 12:00 am
@Butrflynet,
If you are able to define what the parameters are, you might get someplace, but nobody really knows what to include and what is to be omitted. Many of the questions have been asked, and I wonder if anyone has been keeping notes as to what exactly is to be included. Chronological numbers can have some semblance of organization, but that's only the beginning. The knowledge of a 13-year old cannot possibly have the experience or knowledge about the many ways the US has killed people around the world.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 12:02 am
A guess: 250,000

And this is meaningful because...?

I don't care what the number is.

10 is not necessarily better that 100,000.

The issue is why these people were killed.

Of course if you are an absolutist pacifist, it probably does make a difference, but that's an issue for another thread.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 12:11 am
YOB: 1983 (~29 years)

Definition used: Deaths from foreign military actions of US soldiers/weapons. Not a number defined by the total dead from conflicts, but some number of the dead in a conflict directly attributable to a US action.
Estimate without googling: 500,000 - 600,000

While thinking about it, here's two more guesses for other additional groups

Definition: Killed domestically by capital punishment
Estimate without googling: 15,000 - 20,000

Definition: Killed domestically by police action
Estimate without googling: 25,000 - 30,000

A
R
Taking guesses without judgement or google
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 12:16 am
@failures art,
You need to Google
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 12:27 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You need to Google

Part of the point of this is gauge perception, not pass judgement. I replied as I saw fit, and plenty of numbers are available. Googling a death count for Iraq (for example) will return a very large range of numbers, and how these numbers are defined may not align with how I choose to define it. So what exactly should I have googled?

Is there a "correct" number that we could all agree on? If not, bugger off.

A
R
T
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 12:36 am
@failures art,
OK - Thanks
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 01:31:34