this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
198 points (83.9% liked)

politics

19074 readers
4813 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in November’s presidential election, thankfully. He is not withdrawing because he’s being held responsible for enabling war crimes against the Palestinian people (though a recent poll does have nearly 40 percent of Americans saying they’re less likely to vote for him thanks to his handling of the war). Yet it’s impossible to extricate the collapse in public faith in the Biden campaign from the “uncommitted” movement for Gaza. They were the first people to refuse him their votes, and defections from within the president’s base hollowed out his support well in advance of the debate.

The Democrats and their presumptive nominee Kamala Harris are faced with a choice: On the one hand, they can continue Biden’s monstrous support for Netanyahu, the brutal IDF, and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. That would help allow the party to cover for Biden and put a positive spin on a smooth handoff, even though we all know this would mainly benefit the embittered president himself and his small coterie of loyalists. Such a choice would confirm that the institutional rot that allowed the current situation to develop still characterizes the party.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you want to compare casualties then you need to compare the same periods. The average monthly casualties for the period we had data was far higher than the war on Iraq. Which is kind of to be expected since we were there for 10 years. It's also a much larger country with more people exposed to proportionally larger forces fighting.

So let's do this the right way. According to the Iraqi Body Count project around 200,000 civilians were killed. Or 0.8 percent of civilians in Iraq. In Gaza that number is 2 percent. More than double. And that's just the bodies that made it to a morgue while the health ministry was still capable of accurately counting bodies. Estimates of people who are missing, presumed dead, under the rubble are in the six figure range. So let's be generous and set the total at 100,000, so 60k under rubble, far below the estimates. That's 5 percent of the civilian population dead.

This is not a road you want to go down. Any analysis beyond the most shallow reflects extremely poorly on Israel.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Percentage of the total population is a bad stat, a dead person regardless of how many people you started with.

The point I was trying to make is that the US is clearly okay with killing civilians.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Right. Those two ratios are clearly the mark of countries with the same attitude towards civilian deaths.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you only murder one person, does it not matter?

Death percentages do not matter to the families involved.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ahh yes we're all in hell so why not commit a little genocide? As a treat!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

All I'm saying is that the US citizenry was almost totally fine with the civilian deaths after 9/11, there were only a handful of protests in the US and a lot more support for that war than not (at the time).

If they had attacked and killed 1000 Americans on Oct 7th, there would be far more dead Palestinians, and zero university encampments.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Just how would there be more? What evidence do you have for that?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The evidence is 9/11, the US got attacked, lost almost 2000 people, and they killed around a half million civilians during the resulting fighting.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Oh you think we're far enough down the thread, I forgot we covered this already?

0.8 percent. Versus between 2 and 5 percent, generously. I can put it into per 100,000 for you if you like.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So 1% is okay for civilian deaths but 2-5% is not?

That's a pretty arbitrary cutoff.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 3 months ago

It's a pretty huge difference in how militaries fight. For example we didn't carpet bomb entire neighborhoods in Iraq.