Rethinking my support for military adventurism

[Balog]

Yes. Out of hundreds of rockets they fired. HUNDREDS. Most of which missed Israel altogether.

I'm sorry if I'm unimpressed with their prowess as artillerymen.

How many missiles have to successfully hit you before you are impressed?

All of which is beside the point. It just amuses me when your ideological blinders come out.

[MicroBalrog]

It doesn't work like that.

So far, 8,600 rockets have been launched by the idiot terrorists.

16 people have been killed (over a course of nine years) within Israel. That's 537.5 rockets per person killed. I'm sorry if I am unimpressed.

To put it in other terms, about 875,000 Israelis live in range of the longest-ranged rockets. As such, the victimization rate of these rockets is 0.2 per 100,000 per year (not counting the people whom the rockets cannot reach at all). In the meanwhile the death rate from drowning in Israel is 0.97 per 100,000 per year. In America it is 1.5 - meaning you are 7 times more likely to drown to death then I am to be killed by these rockets. Why should I be scared? Are you afraid to swim?

[De Selby]

It doesn't work like that.

So far, 8,600 rockets have been launched by the idiot terrorists.

16 people have been killed (over a course of nine years) within Israel. That's 537.5 rockets per person killed. I'm sorry if I am unimpressed.

To put it in other terms, about 875,000 Israelis live in range of the longest-ranged rockets. As such, the victimization rate of these rockets is 0.2 per 100,000 per year (not counting the people whom the rockets cannot reach at all). In the meanwhile the death rate from drowning in Israel is 0.97 per 100,000 per year. In America it is 1.5 - meaning you are 7 times more likely to drown to death then I am to be killed by these rockets. Why should I be scared? Are you afraid to swim?

You're just callous if you point out that spending all the security-billions on improved road engineering would save more lives.  You can't compare lives number for number...every terrorist death is cause for war; road deaths are just dead people.  Focus on saving the important lives comrade!

[seeker_two]

Note to seeker_two: The F-117 has been retired.

So was the M-14....

So far, 8,600 rockets have been launched by the idiot terrorists.

16 people have been killed (over a course of nine years) within Israel. That's 537.5 rockets per person killed. I'm sorry if I am unimpressed.

I can think of at least 16 people (and their families) that have been impressed by the terrorists' marksmanship....

...and, if someone is shooting at me and mine, I'm not going to wait until they hit something before I start shooting back....

[makattak]

It doesn't work like that.

So far, 8,600 rockets have been launched by the idiot terrorists.

16 people have been killed (over a course of nine years) within Israel. That's 537.5 rockets per person killed. I'm sorry if I am unimpressed.

To put it in other terms, about 875,000 Israelis live in range of the longest-ranged rockets. As such, the victimization rate of these rockets is 0.2 per 100,000 per year (not counting the people whom the rockets cannot reach at all). In the meanwhile the death rate from drowning in Israel is 0.97 per 100,000 per year. In America it is 1.5 - meaning you are 7 times more likely to drown to death then I am to be killed by these rockets. Why should I be scared? Are you afraid to swim?

And their technology won't improve?

So you have nothing to fear from their present rockets. What happens when those rockets get better?

They have the will to kill you. (motive) They are sufficiently close to enact that will. (opportunity) They do not have the capability. (means) However, the technology exists to further that end. How long until those three necessary conditions are met- motive, means, opportunity?

[RaspberrySurprise]

I highly doubt that Micro believes nothing should be done to stop the rocket attacks, what he does believe is that he should not live his days in mortal terror of them as, at the moment, a  bathtub is more likely to kill him than a rocket.

Israel certainly could bomb Gaza into smoldering rubble and kill all who live there, which would most likely stop the attacks coming from Gaza, but the price is far higher than they are willing to pay. If they aren't killing everyone then they have to take care to only kill the terrorists as every civilian casualty creates more idiots willing to strap on the semtex underoos.

[longeyes]

The threat isn't just Gaza. 

I think the point is that counting on poor marksmanship and small caliber when the other guy has you in his sights doesn't seem very prudent as a strategy.

[roo_ster]

The threat isn't just Gaza. 

I think the point is that counting on poor marksmanship and small caliber when the other guy has you in his sights doesn't seem very prudent as a strategy.

This.

All they'd need to make their targeting go from pathetic to deadly would be a few RC model airplane kits and binos.

[MicroBalrog]

The threat isn't just Gaza. 

I think the point is that counting on poor marksmanship and small caliber when the other guy has you in his sights doesn't seem very prudent as a strategy.

If you think what I am arguing for is ignoring the terrorists altogether, you may have me pegged wrong.

[MicroBalrog]

In other news, a new rocket attack was launched on Israel by some idiots operating from Egypt. Out of six rockets, two hit Jordan [killing a Jordanian and injuring five], two fell in the Red Sea, one struck a swimming pool in Eilat (none injured) and one more fell in the Negev desert (none injured).

[richyoung]

He could have starved out the UK, and likely would have, if the USA did not involve itself in WWII very early on (before war declaration in the Atlantic).

The UK just could not sustain the loss in cargo ships the Krauts were inflicting and could not feed themselves without importing food.

Thats rather problematic, isn't it?  For an alleged democracy to be waging war, in advance of a declaration of war?

[Balog]

Defending shipping lanes and free trade is not prosecuting a war.

[roo_ster]

Thats rather problematic, isn't it?  For an alleged democracy to be waging war, in advance of a declaration of war?

Why, yes, it is!  Maybe constitutional republics ought to refrain from it and follow their constitutions.

Defending shipping lanes and free trade is not prosecuting a war.

We (USA under FDR) went WAY beyond that. 

Off the top of my head:
1. Allowed the UK to purchase war material on credit.
2. "Sold" the UK numerous WWI-era American destroyers to help break the blockade for a pittance.  On credit.
3. IIRC, shot at German ships in international waters that were attacking Brit shipping (check that one, I am not as sure).

[MechAg94]

On the other side of that, I remember hearing that the average height of Britons who grew up in the period eating US food was a little higher than average before and after.

[RaspberrySurprise]

I'm guessing the Jordanians are not amused?

[MicroBalrog]

I'm guessing the Jordanians are not amused?

Not amused at all. But then they already have a policy of shooting Hamas-types on evry opportunity.

Hamas' and their ilk have a tendency to defecate where they eat, which has earned them the... 'appreciation' of Israelis, Egyptians, and Jordanians alike. They murdered enough Egyptians that their government now uses chemical weapons to flood their smuggling tunnels.

[makattak]

Defending shipping lanes and free trade is not prosecuting a war.

It is if a country has another blockaded.

Or would you claim if, say, Australia began sinking our submarines that were blockading Japan that Australia had not committed an act of war?

[seeker_two]

Or would you claim if, say, Australia began sinking our submarines that were blockading Japan that Australia had not committed an act of war?

Bad example....you'd never get an Australian in a submarine...they can't hold their breath that long.... 

[White Horseradish]

White Horseradish, you completely missed the point of my post. 

Which was... ?

All I can say is "Google is your friend."  Do a little research on the subject instead of regurgitating a sound byte.

edited to clarify

That is just hilarious. You accuse me of repeating someone else's words(which I wasn't, I merely asked a question) and then, in response, you tell me to Google? That's ironic, and not in an Alanis Morissette sense, either...

[RocketMan]

WH, your answer sounded like a typical, generic lefty sound bite, hence my reply.

The rest of it is simple,  Before we invaded, the bad guys had some basic labs set up in A-stan, trying to weaponize various bad things.  They were dabbling with both chemical and some real simple bio-weapons.  The area was stable enough for their needs, with a low likelihood of their being interrupted by outside attack.
When we leave A-stan, the bad guys will probably move back in and set up shop once again.  When we're gone, there is little chance that they will be interferred with, giving them a greater chance of success at developing long term.
None of this has anything to do with building AKs with files.
All of this information is readily available on the net.

[White Horseradish]

The rest of it is simple,  Before we invaded, the bad guys had some basic labs set up in A-stan, trying to weaponize various bad things.  They were dabbling with both chemical and some real simple bio-weapons.  The area was stable enough for their needs, with a low likelihood of their being interrupted by outside attack.
When we leave A-stan, the bad guys will probably move back in and set up shop once again.  When we're gone, there is little chance that they will be interferred with, giving them a greater chance of success at developing long term.
None of this has anything to do with building AKs with files.
All of this information is readily available on the net.

I would think that a lab basic enough to operate in that particular nether region of the world could be set up in any number of other places with little trouble and an even lesser chance we will interfere so long as we are busy "winning hearts and minds". Why do you think they are fixed to Afghanistan?

I think that getting a handle on who waltzes across our border would go much further towards preventing a domestic attack than explaining to illiterate shepherds which orifice to use to produce children and getting shot at for our trouble. Am I wrong?

[RocketMan]

I would think that a lab basic enough to operate in that particular nether region of the world could be set up in any number of other places with little trouble and an even lesser chance we will interfere so long as we are busy "winning hearts and minds". Why do you think they are fixed to Afghanistan?

They aren't "fixed" to Afghanistan so much as that it provides a place, once we leave, that better allows them to work without interference from others.  Their other bases are not that stable in my opinion.  To much possibility of outside actors causing them problems.

I think that getting a handle on who waltzes across our border would go much further towards preventing a domestic attack than explaining to illiterate shepherds which orifice to use to produce children and getting shot at for our trouble. Am I wrong?

I tend to agree.  But we both know .gov will not secure our borders.  So, denying the bad guys a place to work in A-stan seems a reasonable option at the moment.
However, long term, we do need to get out of Afghanistan.  The US will be no more successful at installing some form of stable government in Afghanistan than anyone else has been.  It will revert to what it was before we arrived, shortly after we leave.  And Al Queda will return to set up shop.

[richyoung]

Defending shipping lanes and free trade is not prosecuting a war.

Attacking the warships of a nation on the high seas, and assisting their belligerent in attacking them, not to mention selling warships and supplies on credit to the belligerent ARE "prosecuting a war", by any definition.