Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Kamiko Hautala on 07 May 2010, 11:16
-
http://www.nytimes-se.com/
-
I had to read though ever section on that site once I realised what it was. It was that well done.
-
I lol'd.
-
Strangely, I didn't find it funny. I found it... beautiful. Soothing. I smiled, imagining a better world. Thank you.
-
Reminded me of the news ticker in SimCity.
-
:lol:
The ads are the best part. Good find.
-
Ahhh... Idealism. How quaint it is.
-
Representing the minority view: Could only roll my eyes at most, and be disgusted at the concepts of others.
-
I honestly couldn't read most of it. Maybe if they left it at the Iraq War I could accept the issue for what it is--a dream--but the other articles just seem ridiculous. It's one thing to imagine a world where your views win out above all others, but it's another to think some sort of Enlightenment will happen as a result.
-
"Nay Sayers say nay!"
-
Well it's nice to know that our diehard philosopher types are critiquing this. Point of the link was to show how well done it was, it looks very legit. It comes from this culture jamming group called the Yes Men.
-
Point of the link was to show how well done it was
We can only wish...
....hmmm... there seems to be a discrepancy...
It was done well, not that the NYT has a difficult layout to accomplish (which of course makes them a prime target for it).
That withstanding, what it is is blind idealism. Ideals are good to have, though they are quite impractical when taken to that level.
-
I don't believe that this is meant to be a completely accurate picture of what could happen in the future, rather it's a social statement and change of pace for the news world that makes readers stop and think. Imagine seeing "good news" in the news for once, really.
-
Minority view? Most of that stuff looked like good ideas to me.
I think that some of us are assuming that most of the world agrees with them.
Myself included mind. I'm as guilty of that error as anyone else.
Other than basic statements of outlook I think we really should avoid topics like these. People seem to react so badly when they find out the folks they are socialising with hold political or religious views they hold to be repugnant.
Also. Politics over in the US seem to be a tad, heated, these days. This doesn't help matters.
-
Well in terms of making it look legit, they even used machines to make and ship them out to diff areas of NYC. Very ingenious.
-
Ok, modifying to be as inoffensive as possible, while still conveying my central point:
I find the viewpoints expressed on that page to be in line with a general trend of thought that discounts factual evidence, is uninformed, and typically resides alongside the belief that certain "enlightened" persons have the right to dictate the actions, thoughts, words, and beliefs of others.
The viewpoints expressed in those articles, in my experience, reflect a lack of real-world experience, or an understanding of the drives and natures of human beings. The deus ex machinas needed to create their little imagined scenarios underline this. While I cannot and do not speak to the general character, personality, or any other qualities of the OP or the authors of the page linked, I do believe that the correct action upon reading such material is to analyze it by the harsh and luminescent sun of reality, whereupon the suppositions and ideals contained within will prove to be so much ash.
Better?
-
I found it eye-rolling-ly stupid and childishly ignorant, as well as hopelessly arrogant.
See what I mean?
-
Come on, guys. No need to get insulting. Simmer down.
-
Come on, guys. No need to get insulting. Simmer down.
I'm not insulting anyone here. I said "I found it..." etc.
Liking or disliking that page does not mean that the person who likes it is also subject to my impressions of the page - people are more than simply their political opinions.
I also hate parsnips. I think they are disgusting. However, parsnip eaters are not themselves disgusting, though I question their judgment.
-
I have never eaten a parsnip before in my life.
I am now going to drive to the supermarket and buy some. Thank you Vikarion.
-
I have never eaten a parsnip before in my life.
I am now going to drive to the supermarket and buy some. Thank you Vikarion.
You won't once you've eaten it. :(
-
Imagine seeing "good news" in the news for once, really.
I see good news in the news fairly often. The local AP papers are generally pretty full of them. I also tend to get the majority of my news from the interwebs in non-US and non-major news outlets.
If you want to get away from the "SCARY HORRIBAD NEWS ALL THE TIME" I suggest you do the same. The more local that a newspaper or news venue gets the more positive news it has, no matter where it comes from really, there's a lot of bad shit going on in the world, and let's face it -- it sells newspapers.
-
Well a simple formula is needed for news:
Less people = more positive news, bad news is very minor
More people = more neutral to negative news, good news is entertainment or good deed related
-
Come on, guys. No need to get insulting. Simmer down.
I'm not insulting anyone here. I said "I found it..." etc.
Personally, I found Vik's statement dangerously close to violating Rule 11, though I also appreciate his point about criticizing the site rather than the member here.
-
Come on, guys. No need to get insulting. Simmer down.
I'm not insulting anyone here. I said "I found it..." etc.
Personally, I found Vik's statement dangerously close to violating Rule 11, though I also appreciate his point about criticizing the site rather than the member here.
I thought about that, but then, by that logic, isn't posting this is the first place, with the title it has, basically calling my viewpoints trash?
I decided that I could differentiate between people's views and the people, so I'm expressing my views about the views expressed on that page. I'm not expressing it about the authors any more than is absolutely necessary by inference, or those who posted/agreed with it.
The other options are to either declare this board leftist-aligned/authoritarian-aligned, and forbid opposing viewpoints, or to avoid discussion of political views altogether. I don't think that those are better options, but I'll consider rephrasing the initial statement if I can find more appropriate and still sincere words.
-
I thought about that, but then, by that logic, isn't posting this is the first place, with the title it has, basically calling my viewpoints trash?
I don't know if I'd phrase it that way myself, but I will agree that I intentionally stayed away from addressing the substance of the site for not entirely dissimilar reasons. :)
-
Considering I made the political thread, which just so happens to be the most viewed and replied thread on this board, I will make sure that only that thread is what we discuss when it comes to political viewpoints. We can't jump around from thread to thread preaching our particular ideologies, especially when Night made it clear in the rules.
I'm fine with what Vikarion said, and with what anyone else says about this prank newspaper.
-
Ok, modifying to be as inoffensive as possible, while still conveying my central point:
I find the viewpoints expressed on that page to be in line with a general trend of thought that discounts factual evidence, is uninformed, and typically resides alongside the belief that certain "enlightened" persons have the right to dictate the actions, thoughts, words, and beliefs of others.
The viewpoints expressed in those articles, in my experience, reflect a lack of real-world experience, or an understanding of the drives and natures of human beings. The deus ex machinas needed to create their little imagined scenarios underline this. While I cannot and do not speak to the general character, personality, or any other qualities of the OP or the authors of the page linked, I do believe that the correct action upon reading such material is to analyze it by the harsh and luminescent sun of reality, whereupon the suppositions and ideals contained within will prove to be so much ash.
Better?
Ok, Casi, modified. This work?
-
Wow! :D
-
I liked it better the first time, also I liked the way I worded it "Idealism. How quaint". ;) Said the same thing, but in less words! Hehe.
That said:
The other options are to either declare this board leftist-aligned/authoritarian-aligned
Are you kidding? Have you seen the results on the political compass thing? I'm practically a Fascist by comparison!
-
Idealism is awesome, it makes for great songs. And without it, the entertainment value of history would plummet. :D
-
Incidentally Vikarion. I didn't take offense at your response. All I was trying to say is maybe specific political discussions are a bad idea here, rather than general expressions of philosophy & outlook.
-
Idealism is awesome, it makes for great songs. And without it, the entertainment value of history would plummet. :D
...but it is horribly impractical taken beyond a very minor level.
-
For the record, this IS idealism. I don't see anyone going "Well now that we have this satirical look at the New York Times out, I'm forcing you to talk about the economic benefits / hindrances of wind power." A shame that something so simple came out to be complex and controversial to the various cynical masses.
I'm not judging anyone, but I always thought that people would respect the idea of not polluting the planet's ecosystem with polluting energy, or that wars ended would be enjoyed. Of course, everyone has their own view, but really? Hmm.
-
Those weren't the bits I viewed as incredibly unrealistic. (Not that I think humanity's about to end war on its own, mind.)
But some of the economic "news" there seemed more than just unrealistic, it seemed downright counterproductive in multiple ways. :)
-
Well, actually, no, I don't want war to end. To be conducted with a minimal amount of casualties, yes, if possibly, but not end.
War is the clash of competing ideas, when there is no other way of resolving the differences between ideas. It is, if you will, a proof of a prototype: is a society based on certain ideas stronger than another society based on others?
Competition is necessary for life in an entropic universe. Without it, we grow stagnant, and then weaken. We become unable to adjust to the challenges that will eventually arise, and therefore, ensure our extinction. One of the reasons humanity is so successful is our strong drive to compete, not just against each other, but against anything.
And I don't want pollution to end. If we take pollution as being "Something that changes nature from the state it would exist in without man", then everything we do is pollution. I prefer a more limited definition of pollution being the negative byproducts of positive changes to our lives. I make this rather general to encapsulate such things as noise pollution and etc.
Now, attempting to limit pollution is good, but trying to limit it to the point that it retards industrial and technological progress is suicidal. This planet only has so many resources, and humanity must either regress to primitivism, or expand into the solar system. Taking the middle road, as it were, of a maintained ecological footprint, population, and lifestyle will not only be exceptionally difficult, but lead to stagnation and eventual extinction as we slowly deplete resources and remain unwilling to tap others.
It's also quite likely that a "sustainable ecological system" will require most people to accept a standard of living a good bit below what we experience today. That simply isn't going to happen, not without use of violence on a regular basis against citizenry - a temporary solution at best, since that will just lead to revolution.
Pollution is the result of technological progress. Minimize it as much as possible without damaging industrial capability and technological progress, but never put that goal before the good of humanity.
-
Hey I like this Guy
.
-
"War" as "competition of ideas" is all fine and good, but the death and destruction and suffering that goes along with it? Not so much.
Certainly, the sort of "total war" the last couple of centuries have brought us doesn't actually advance the state of our species. Something akin to counting coup or even only resulting specifically in casualties among volunteer warriors would differ dramatically.
I don't define "pollution" as "changing the state of nature", because we're not talking about kids making mudpies in the back yard. Contamination to the point that we actively harmthe health of our own species is probably at least a minimum bound for the definition, though of course some folks would go further.
"The good of humanity" is about the most nebulous, subjective metric I could imagine. ;)
-
"War" as "competition of ideas" is all fine and good, but the death and destruction and suffering that goes along with it? Not so much.
Certainly, the sort of "total war" the last couple of centuries have brought us doesn't actually advance the state of our species. Something akin to counting coup or even only resulting specifically in casualties among volunteer warriors would differ dramatically.
I don't define "pollution" as "changing the state of nature", because we're not talking about kids making mudpies in the back yard. Contamination to the point that we actively harmthe health of our own species is probably at least a minimum bound for the definition, though of course some folks would go further.
"The good of humanity" is about the most nebulous, subjective metric I could imagine. ;)
In regards to war...
Yes. The two world wars were very, very damaging. At the same time, they propelled advances in science and medicine that have saved more lives than those two wars took. As horrible and destructive as those wars were, consider the ways that those technical advances have cured diseases, removed colonialism, and brought about prosperity for so many.
The key with war is managing it. My view on war isn't "yay, let's all shoot each other", but "we are inevitably going to shoot each other, so let's try to get the non-combatants out of the way and do it in a civilized as possible fashion".
The ideals of unilateral disarmament, world peace, and so forth are not possible, so I say that we use war as positively as possible. Hopefully, we may eventually find a way of waging it that does not even require the expenditure of human life, but I'm fairly skeptical.
As far as "pollution" goes, I would have to say that your definition (harming our own species) is not the one popularly held. For example, suppose we had an industrial process that extended the human lifespan by twenty years, but required dumping a by-product into the ocean that killed blue whales - and only blue whales. That's still pollution, even if the resulting extinction would not harm humans in any significant way.
-
Yes. The two world wars were very, very damaging. At the same time, they propelled advances in science and medicine that have saved more lives than those two wars took. As horrible and destructive as those wars were, consider the ways that those technical advances have cured diseases, removed colonialism, and brought about prosperity for so many.
Would we have had similar advances without the >50 million dead in WWII? Neither you nor I can say, to be quite honest, but I suspect that the resources that went into destroying and then rebuilding Europe and much of the Pacific Rim could have done a lot more had they started from where we were in early 1914 (prior to WWI).
And for the record, I would say colonialism has changed, not gone away.
-
I'm not judging anyone, but I always thought that people would respect the idea of not polluting the planet's ecosystem with polluting energy, or that wars ended would be enjoyed.
All energy sources we have -- including so called "clean energy" pollutes. Wind Energy kills huge swaths of migrating birds. Hydro-electric disrupts spawning beds and migration of fish. Geothermal disrupts the planet's seismic cycles. Even Solar has expensive, highly toxic batteries for storing the energy. Nuclear is actually one of the best yield, cleanest energy sources -- just not the way we do it, because of the nuclear disarmament treaties the Carter era gave us. Spent fuel rods are the vast majority of toxic waste from Nuclear facilities, and still retain ~80% of the energy the initial fuel rod had, but require enrichment processing in order to tap into that, and we decided to make that illegal out of concern for "stopping the spread of nuclear arms", since the process is very similar to enriching uranium and plutonium for weapons-grade use.
Would we have had similar advances without the >50 million dead in WWII? Neither you nor I can say, to be quite honest, but I suspect that the resources that went into destroying and then rebuilding Europe and much of the Pacific Rim could have done a lot more had they started from where we were in early 1914 (prior to WWI)
No, actually. We can say with incredible certainty that we would not have a huge swath of medical knowledge that we currently have, because the way it would be obtained (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) is barbaric, cruel, and against every ounce of international law.
Edit: Removed redundant wordage.
-
Just an aside, the propeller wind turbine things are obsolete.
http://www.windside.com/
-
...note the toxic batteries, however, remain necessary. Also -- those are neat.
-
In terms of future combat scenarios, I am not skeptical on the basis that robotics will take over our daily lives. In thirty years time or so, perhaps we may have the ability to wage war with robotics and technological attacks. An enemy wiping out all of the country's power supply is more destructive than losing troops, in my opinion. In terms of getting the WMDs out of the picture, that is not impossible. Don't necessarily assume that human greed will always take over, because if it has then we wouldn't be in the technological and social state that we are in now, as a world society.
World peace, although an amazing concept and wish, will never happen. This, again, all brings me back to my main point: The newspaper is a "WHAT IF". :bash:
-
The newspaper is a "WHAT IF". :bash:
No.. it was some pretty far-left propaganda is what it was. You should've expected that not everyone would sigh wistfully with rainbows in their eyes after reading it ;)
-
The newspaper is a "WHAT IF". :bash:
No.. it was some pretty far-left propaganda is what it was. You should've expected that not everyone would sigh wistfully with rainbows in their eyes after reading it ;)
This. I've moved steadily left over the years, but Havo is exactly right on.
-
Idealism is awesome, it makes for great songs. And without it, the entertainment value of history would plummet. :D
...but it is horribly impractical taken beyond a very minor level.
Or very lucrative, to the right people.
Regarding war, contrary to popular belief, the world has never been more peaceful than it is today when viewed in regards to the size of the human population. Statistically speaking, the chance of any given human dying at the hands of other humans is utterly microscopic compared to what it used to be, once upon a time.
And it's an ongoing trend. Even counting both world wars and all the smaller ones, the 20th century was more peaceful than any century before it in recorded history, when measured against population size. I believe the biggest reason why we perceive our own times as being so violent is because we now get every war spoon-fed to us through the media - unless it happens in Africa, that is.
And media will keep feeding us news about people killing each other, and we will keep paying them to do so. Because, despite every moralist wagging their finger to the tune of the contrary, people killing people is, has always been and will always continue to be great entertainment.
-
The newspaper is a "WHAT IF". :bash:
No.. it was some pretty far-left propaganda is what it was. You should've expected that not everyone would sigh wistfully with rainbows in their eyes after reading it ;)
It was far left by the standards of a US political system that is truly the best government money can buy. Come to that calling what the US has a government these days is a bit of a joke. It just changes hands from one set of corporate interests to another. It is far left by the standards of a right-wing that is either deranged enough, or dishonest enough, to call to call a mainstream corp operator like Obama a socialist.
-
Is there a way to move this thread to the political thread I made? This is perfect for it, and I don't want to be known as the controversy poster. ;)
-
I'd submit that some of the ideas on that site are fairly progressive even by European standards.
-
Here are some interesting headlines in response:
"War ends; 500,000 more unemployed!"
"Salary Cap Law; brain drain accelerates"
"Taxes up to fund Government Programs"
I read most of the items presented there and go "please no, not an even larger Federal government."
---
As for Iraq & WMD; he thought and acted like he had them, his soldiers thought he had them*, our intelligence sources said he had them (including foreign intelligence), and he used to have them and used them. You act based on what you know at the time; not what you know after the fact.
*Marine Platoons on the ground during the invasion had Iraqi Brigades surrendering to them. The Iraqis barely had uniforms and almost no water (in the desert!), but what they did carry was Gas Mask. When asked why the Iraqis responded that they were not worried about the Americans using WMDs, but rather Saddam using them and getting caught in the crossfire.
-
It was far left by the standards of a US political system
Dunno if you've noticed this, but Europe in general is pretty far left...
-
I have noticed but I'm unaware of any major European nation that limits maximum wages to 15x the minimum.
-
The ability to write propaganda isn't dependent upon things that have already been 'achieved', though.
-
Sure, which is consonant with what I said: that's further along the spectrum than Europe currently sits.
In the interest of sticking to the guidelines, I can't say much more on the subject of war and conflict at the moment.
-
Here are some interesting headlines in response:
"War ends; 500,000 more unemployed!"
"Salary Cap Law; brain drain accelerates"
"Taxes up to fund Government Programs"
I read most of the items presented there and go "please no, not an even larger Federal government."
---
As for Iraq & WMD; he thought and acted like he had them, his soldiers thought he had them*, our intelligence sources said he had them (including foreign intelligence), and he used to have them and used them. You act based on what you know at the time; not what you know after the fact.
*Marine Platoons on the ground during the invasion had Iraqi Brigades surrendering to them. The Iraqis barely had uniforms and almost no water (in the desert!), but what they did carry was Gas Mask. When asked why the Iraqis responded that they were not worried about the Americans using WMDs, but rather Saddam using them and getting caught in the crossfire.
There is ample evidence that intelligence reports didn't know if Saddam had WMDs, and I could fight you to that 'till the death, but I won't go there. Also, your 500k unemployed number isn't probably for a war ending.
Additionally, I don't support salary caps, and though some programs in the fauxpaper are a little too left for me, salary caps aren't going to come. Tax caps are different.
-
There is ample evidence that intelligence reports didn't know if Saddam had WMDs, and I could fight you to that 'till the death, but I won't go there.
You don't know if the guy acting like he has a gun in his pocket actually has a gun in his pocket or a banana, but I think most people would respond as if he had a gun in his pocket.
Also, your 500k unemployed number isn't probably for a war ending.
So, how many people are employed by the state-building effort? How many of them would return home to reclaim jobs they left vacant for years only to find them occupied? Do we see a reduction in military spending to go along with the "return"? How many jobs are tied up in supplying ammo, replacement vehicles, augmenting training, supplying replacement parts, etc?
I may have exaggerated the number, but the return of troops is not the end of the story.
-
Requesting topic lock.
What started as a fun and cool 'alternative timeline' post, is now reduced to leftist vs rightwing. It's not going anywhere pleasant.
... also, rightwingers need to l2brain.
-
Requesting topic lock.
What started as a fun and cool 'alternative timeline' post, is now reduced to leftist vs rightwing. It's not going anywhere pleasant.
I don't think anyone here has violated any of the forum rules, or even the spirit of said rules. I modified a post that might have been close, even. Do we really want to establish a policy of ending a discussion simply because we think the subject matter is "stale"?
... also, rightwingers need to[... ]
On the other hand, I do think this does qualify as a personal attack. Objectively, neither political position has a monopoly on brains. Specific to this forum, generalizing your opponents as idiots isn't a tactic that I have come to expect of your posts, Miz.
-
It was a poke at how things will inevitably turn. It's already starting to get ugly. It's nothing to do with stale, it's simply so that there is no way to actually come to a conclusion here.
-
It was a poke at how things will inevitably turn. It's already starting to get ugly. It's nothing to do with stale, it's simply so that there is no way to actually come to a conclusion here.
Ah, didn't realize it was in jest. My apologies.
-
Actually, I'm really enjoying the political discussions here. It's been so long since I've been able to have one without someone resorting to ad hominem, poisoning the well, straw man-ning, or whatnot that it's simply wonderful.
-
... also, leftists need to l2brain.
I agree :lol:
<3
e:
... also, rightwingers need to[... ]
On the other hand, I do think this does qualify as a personal attack. Objectively, neither political position has a monopoly on brains. Specific to this forum, generalizing your opponents as idiots isn't a tactic that I have come to expect of your posts, Miz.
That was a joke, Vik, as was my reply. :D
-
Thing is. Discussion is pointless when the people talking are essentially living in two different paradigms. All that will happen is that people get annoyed.
I think the US political system is essentially broken and corrupt. I also believe that the rest of the world tends to suffer as a result. I doubt I'd ever convince the US conservatives here that this is the case and I doubt that they'd convince me that I am wrong.
Likewise I tend to the view that the current wars in the middle east are criminal attempts to control other people's resources by main force. Also a good way to send surplus population (from the POV of the ruling classes anyway) away to get killed. Again I don't expect conservatives to agree with me nor do I expect they could convince me otherwise.
So what, exactly, is the point of talking about it?
-
Thing is. Discussion is pointless when the people talking are essentially living in two different paradigms. All that will happen is that people get annoyed.
I think the US political system is essentially broken and corrupt. I also believe that the rest of the world tends to suffer as a result. I doubt I'd ever convince the US conservatives here that this is the case and I doubt that they'd convince me that I am wrong.
Likewise I tend to the view that the current wars in the middle east are criminal attempts to control other people's resources by main force. Also a good way to send surplus population (from the POV of the ruling classes anyway) away to get killed. Again I don't expect conservatives to agree with me nor do I expect they could convince me otherwise.
So what, exactly, is the point of talking about it?
Mirrors my view on it. I enjoy discussions but sorry to say politic/religious ones almost always tend to sink down in to a slugfeast fast..
-
I think the US political system is essentially broken and corrupt.
What we need is a Monarchy!
I also believe that the rest of the world tends to suffer as a result.
In this day and age that doesn't just go for us, though, it goes for everyone. The whole world suffers at the hands of the whole world. Yay Globalization and necessary evils!
I doubt I'd ever convince the US conservatives here that this is the case and I doubt that they'd convince me that I am wrong.
Depends on the conservative, and how you approached it, I would think. I find most conservatives tend to agree with the above statements, but there is a crazy polarization of the nation.
Likewise I tend to the view that the current wars in the middle east are criminal attempts to control other people's resources by main force.
I wouldn't use the word "criminal". Also the pluralization of wars is upsetting. There's two separate wars going on over there and one of them has fairly noble reasons, and that's Afghanastan. We did have people smash into a building, and we are going after the people who supported those who did it (Taliban and all). Then there's another one over there, that is about controlling other people's resources by force, and that's Iraq.
It saddens me that people conflate the two and say that both are criminal yaddayadda. That's really not the case. One is, one isn't. Though again I wouldn't say criminal.
Also a good way to send surplus population (from the POV of the ruling classes anyway) away to get killed.
Interesting.
Again I don't expect conservatives to agree with me nor do I expect they could convince me otherwise.
So what, exactly, is the point of talking about it?
Because there's more in the world than "Conservative" and "Liberal".
-
I think the US political system is essentially broken and corrupt.
Agreed, things like national political parties, nominated Vice Presidents, and no-term limits on the Senate/House should be addressed!
I also believe that the rest of the world tends to suffer as a result.
I think the rest of the world suffers regardless.
The US, the west is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If the west keeps out of the internal affairs of various other nations, history will look back and say "why didn't you do anything?" If the west decides to involve itself, it is blamed for any failings that happen.
Likewise I tend to the view that the current wars in the middle east are criminal attempts to control other people's resources by main force.
War is always about the flow of resources and power, ideological excuses boil down to resources and power.
In the case of the Mid-East, the control the west seeks is stabilization of oil prices and allies in the region who will not jump on-board another OPEC price hike. The degree of global interconnects means that even though the US may not get its oil from the Mid-East, its allies and major trading partners do.
Now, this being said reducing the west's dependence on oil near-term is critical to not caring about the stability of the Mid-East and withdrawing our men, material, and money from the region. I, as a "conservative," fully support withdrawing from the Mid-East entirely, so long as everyone in the West can agree that we aren't going to go back in 10, 20, 50-years.
Also a good way to send surplus population (from the POV of the ruling classes anyway) away to get killed.
If it was an attempt to "send surplus population away to get killed," then the ruling class is failing horribly and expending entirely too much money on protecting the "surplus population."
The cost of equipping a Grunt is $17,500 before you start to include all the supporting equipment and actors.
Total Coalition Casualties to date (not casualties this year) is a little less than 6,500. In 2009 alone, 33,963 people died in motor vehicle accidents in just the US.
Simply put there are more effective, cheaper ways to deal with a "surplus population."
But hey, if you think it is about getting rid of surplus population, so be it. There are those who believe 12 men have not walked on the moon and that Elvis is still alive.