"Collateral Damage"

[Sallow]

When you're fighting an enemy that doesn't have a uniformed military and their fighters ARE the civilian population it's bound to happen.,,,,,,,


THAT"S "why"

Which is why when this country attacks another country..there had better be a very good reason for it.

 

[uscitizen]

I kept hearing the "Nuke me all and let god sort em out" during the early years of the Iraq war.

That credo was in play looooooong before the '80s, pal.

80's???? Wtf does that have to do with anything?

 

[California Girl]

I kept hearing the "Nuke me all and let god sort em out" during the early years of the Iraq war.

That credo was in play looooooong before the '80s, pal.

80's???? Wtf does that have to do with anything?

You glibly used the phrase as part of the Iraq war. I think Oddie was just pointing out that it was not new... it has been used for decades. It didn't suddenly come into play during Iraq.

 

[daveman]

Interesting. You might be right. Easy enough to check - they have total fatality figures on all of the wars mentioned, both combatant and civilian. Let's go find out, shall we?

Right now, I'm going to bed. Will look into it tomorrow.

You'll find I'm correct.

The figures on civilian deaths vary greatly for Vietnam and Iraq. They are a little more accurate for WW's I and II. Here is what I came up with:

WW I - The total number of deaths includes about 10 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians

WW II - Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million

Vietnam - 55,000 combatant deaths. Civilians roughly 1 million.

Iraq - Civilians roughly 1 million.

The fact that the number of civilian deaths seems to decrease with the more modern wars is not indicative of anything except the fact that the more modern wars were smaller wars. Comparing the percentage of civilian deaths to combatant deaths is the proper way to analyze the situation. It has nothing to do with an "agenda."

Your figure for Iraq is nonsense.

 

[daveman]

Because now we don't defeat the enemy's army, we set out to defeat the enemy's economy and the WILL of the PEOPLE to continue fighting


Civilians are therefore, THE TARGET OF CHOICE

Reality disagrees with you.

 

[hortysir]

How many civilians were slaughtered in the "civil" war?

C'mon....You can tell us.....

More then ALL of the US wars.... combined.

Nope they were soldiers/troops.
Are you confusing civilians with citizens?

Are you forgetting, just one example, Sherman's march?

Do you think he only targeted soldiers?

 

[George Costanza]

What do you think Georgie? Collateral damage seemed to be a reasonable concept during WW2. Why should we change our opinion today?

OK - but doesn't the huge escalation of civilian deaths with each, succeeding war, cause you to look at the whole thing a little more carefully?

What if we get to the point where 100% of the casualties are civilians?

Using your logic since millions of civilians were killed in WW2 we must have wiped out the civilian population in Iraq and surrounding Countries, right? Ohh wait we killed very few in over all numbers. Unless of course you believe shit like the lancet report that was fabricated.

Statistics on war casualties, both combatant and civilian, are notoriously all over the map. I will be the first to recognize that.

 

[Moonglow]

Because the percentage of military casualties has gone down.

That may be true, but it does not answer the question, why?

because we are at war with radical muslims not a standing army George !! and the enemy weather we like to admit it or not are part of the civilian population that they plan,plot and hide in ........

How is the weather today?

 

[Douger]

The very concept of war and patriotism is proof that the human race are the dumbest animals on earth.
Do any of you think the guy at the gyro stand in Afghaniland has a desire to come and kill YOU ?
How about the Vietnamese gurl selling bogogi and sewing clothing ?
Fucking stupid animals.
Your owners get mad at another countries owners and send you morons to settle the issue. Idiots.

 

[Ringel05]

Consider this . . .

In WW I, civilian deaths accounted for 10% of the total casualties.

In WW II, civilian deaths accounted for 50% of the total casualties.

In the Vietnam War, civilian deaths accounted for 70% of the total casualties.

In the Iraq War, civilian deaths accounted for 90% of the total casualties.

Source: The Link Channel documentary, "The War You Don't See."

People who see war as necessary are quick to shrug off civilian casualties during war as "collateral damage," pointing out that "collateral damage" is, of course, regrettable, but necessary; hardly a reason to not engage in war.

Regardless of how you feel about "collateral damage," the statistics presented by this documentary are sobering to say the least, and raise the obvious question - why?

Personally I'd love to see HOW they came up with their numbers, what their classifications were, and were not plus all other data points then we could actually get a realistic picture.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Civilians are sometimes targets in which case they are not "Collateral Damage".

Is there any reason to believe the figures quoted are anything other than fantasy? I'd bet that somebody just has a nasty imagination.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Civilians are sometimes targets in which case they are not "Collateral Damage".

Is there any reason to believe the figures quoted are anything other than fantasy? I'd bet that somebody just has a nasty imagination.

The official civilian death count for Iraq is around 100,000. Proven by death certificates and verifiable bodies. The million number was a fabrication based on a small poll of Iraqis in Baghdad. The survey ask a few people what their losses were and then they created from whole cloth the number 600,000 to 1 million. It has been roundly condemned and proven false more than once.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Civilians are sometimes targets in which case they are not "Collateral Damage".

Is there any reason to believe the figures quoted are anything other than fantasy? I'd bet that somebody just has a nasty imagination.

The official civilian death count for Iraq is around 100,000. Proven by death certificates and verifiable bodies. The million number was a fabrication based on a small poll of Iraqis in Baghdad. The survey ask a few people what their losses were and then they created from whole cloth the number 600,000 to 1 million. It has been roundly condemned and proven false more than once.

And it's not surprising that a far left, anti-american propaganda machine like LINK TV would use the fully debunked numbers as legitimate.

 

[daveman]

Civilians are sometimes targets in which case they are not "Collateral Damage".

Is there any reason to believe the figures quoted are anything other than fantasy? I'd bet that somebody just has a nasty imagination.

Like I said: There's an agenda to be served, a portrait to be painted. Reality has nothing to do with it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Consider this . . .

In WW I, civilian deaths accounted for 10% of the total casualties.

In WW II, civilian deaths accounted for 50% of the total casualties.

In the Vietnam War, civilian deaths accounted for 70% of the total casualties.

In the Iraq War, civilian deaths accounted for 90% of the total casualties.

Source: The Link Channel documentary, "The War You Don't See."

People who see war as necessary are quick to shrug off civilian casualties during war as "collateral damage," pointing out that "collateral damage" is, of course, regrettable, but necessary; hardly a reason to not engage in war.

Regardless of how you feel about "collateral damage," the statistics presented by this documentary are sobering to say the least, and raise the obvious question - why?

The decline of conventional warfare and the rise of the asymmetric battlefield and insurgency that removes all clear "front lines" and puts civilians in the middle of the conflict.

As for World War II, the war was so vicious that civilian targets were seen as fair game. Especially after the Germans bombed London, we firebombed Tokyo and Dresden and then ultimately Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I don't actually have a problem with inflicting destruction on civilian targets and populations in a conventional war. It's good tactics. Bring the other country and their government to their knees. You don't hear many people bemoaning Jimmy Doolittle's raid that incinerated Tokyo. In fact, it's seen as a heroic mission. We were that pissed off about Pearl Harbor. Ironically, you hear people bitching about Hiroshema and Nakasaki, even though those events brought about the end of the war.

I have a huge problem with it in insurgency warfare as it's counterproductive.

 

[uscitizen]

Civilians are sometimes targets in which case they are not "Collateral Damage".

Is there any reason to believe the figures quoted are anything other than fantasy? I'd bet that somebody just has a nasty imagination.

The official civilian death count for Iraq is around 100,000. Proven by death certificates and verifiable bodies. The million number was a fabrication based on a small poll of Iraqis in Baghdad. The survey ask a few people what their losses were and then they created from whole cloth the number 600,000 to 1 million. It has been roundly condemned and proven false more than once.

And it's not surprising that a far left, anti-american propaganda machine like LINK TV would use the fully debunked numbers as legitimate.

US troops had orders not to keep count.
that says something in itself.

 

[whitehall]

The consensus of the argument seems to be that collateral damage is fine as long as a democrat is in the Oval Office. Can it be that the left is so dishonest that it compares the (thousand or less?) casualies in Iraq to the 40 Million casualties worldwide during WW2? Maybe they do the same math in the global warming argument.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The official civilian death count for Iraq is around 100,000. Proven by death certificates and verifiable bodies. The million number was a fabrication based on a small poll of Iraqis in Baghdad. The survey ask a few people what their losses were and then they created from whole cloth the number 600,000 to 1 million. It has been roundly condemned and proven false more than once.

And it's not surprising that a far left, anti-american propaganda machine like LINK TV would use the fully debunked numbers as legitimate.

US troops had orders not to keep count.
that says something in itself.

The vast majority of Iraqi civilian deaths were due to terrorists and rogue Iraqi troops. Yet you tards blame American soldiers.

 

[The Gadfly]

The official civilian death count for Iraq is around 100,000. Proven by death certificates and verifiable bodies. The million number was a fabrication based on a small poll of Iraqis in Baghdad. The survey ask a few people what their losses were and then they created from whole cloth the number 600,000 to 1 million. It has been roundly condemned and proven false more than once.

And it's not surprising that a far left, anti-american propaganda machine like LINK TV would use the fully debunked numbers as legitimate.

US troops had orders not to keep count.
that says something in itself.

Yeah, it says we learned in Vietnam the "Body count math" is completely unreliable. Come on, U.S., you were there too; tell me I'm wrong.