Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Nov 27, 2005.
Charts, Graphs at site:
Always figured the numbers were doctored. These guys just went out and proved it.
I see my Lady is still playing games with statistics.
The cost of security operations in Iraq indicates to me it is more risky to live there then driving my car. Even building schools for the locals you have to protect the Iraqi subcontrators with gunmen because the insane insurgents tend to attack them. (I just read an article about Afghanistan that has the same problem)
about civilian casualties: It is inevitable but its clearly documented the ROE
by the US are set to minimalize them but accidents happen.
The peace activists buying into the US chemical weapon use and slaughter
of civilians are just gullible and used by the enemy. The enemy about 30% of the Muslim if you believe there polls (ok time to hit me back T.)
Well I dont know how many Muslims really hate the West to an extent
they want to fight and destroy it but public support and the sales
of Bin Laden memorabilia indicates it is a significant amount.
I'll give you that there are some suppositions here, but I'll also ask you to read it through and see if it doesn't make much more sense than Lancet 'study' or any of the other drivel being thrown left and right.
I agree, this study seems solid. I am sure you have also over time
seen the numerous reports of false reporting by Iraqis that have
been disproved by coroners. Counting casualties is a tricky game.
While I can believe the numbers of around 20k to 30k of civilian casualties
I think the conclusions about safety are not helpful. Apple/orange thing.
I am just messing with you because you brought up your disbelieve
But its also dangerous from political "feelings" to judge the validity of stats.
Are you just kidding with another poster here? As a strong military supporter and participant, I would be overwhelmingly appalled that YOU as an uninterested non-combatant might have been killed as a result of any action by me or any representative of me.
We've killed innocents in every war. With each news release about "surgical" weaponry and "surgical" military strike we become immune to the fact that people that have no interest in and nothing to do with the present "WAR" at hand are being killed for no reason other than they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. With our advertised "surgical technology" there is no excuse for this type nonchalance when it comes to purely noncombatants and completely innocents being slaughtered at the hands of an aggressive military force.
Even the oft adverised (it's nothing more than advertisement) insurgents with all their primitive weaponry tend to target their perceived enemies with much less "collateral" damage, if you will. Even "1" collateral death is too many for me.
WAR is not something to be cavalier about.
it is the grim reality of war. Innocent people die, thats why the political
leadership has to think hard before using military force.
the rules of engagement set by the US forces are setup to minimize
civilian casualties. This aint Dresden or Warshaw anymore.
In comparison to other armies current campaigns civilian casualties
in relationship to killed enemies are very low.
Whats up with the strong military supporter linw ? If you would prefer
the military you would ignore civilan casualties and maximize the survival
rate of your troops. So dont give me that crap.
Thanks to modern communication "we" are well informed about human suffering that comes with warfare.
thats the enemies propaganda. There is no reason for the US military to
slaugter civilans just for the heck of it, nor does the military or cilvilan leader advocate such behavior. Not to mention international treaties that
the US decided to subscrive to that ban this kind of behavior.
umm the insurgents target innocent civilians to begin with in the majority of their operations these days. Who would be the collateral damage? Aliens ?
You are sure a crazy.
Did I say these "insurgents" are targeting innocent civilians? Or did you? What good could they possibly hope to achieve from this tactic? I think I said quite the opposite. Check your Understand A Meter.
That's a quote I hope you never forget. A rationalization for your own death by inadvertant military force might be considered by you as "non sequitur." That's a byline the nation might agree with, don't you think? You being sarcastic or what?
Separate names with a comma.