"Collateral Damage"

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
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?
 

yidnar

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
12,289
Reaction score
4,782
Points
315
Location
Inside your head.
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?
are you saying the Us involvement in ww1 and ww2 was not necessary ?? and I do not believe 90 % of the casualties the Us has inflicted on our enemies in the Middle East were civilians !!:doubt:
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,863
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
What do you think Georgie? Collateral damage seemed to be a reasonable concept during WW2. Why should we change our opinion today?
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
I kept hearing the "Nuke me all and let god sort em out" during the early years of the Iraq war.
 

percysunshine

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
28,518
Reaction score
5,014
Points
280
Location
Sty
Looks to me like alot less soldiers are dying with each 'next' war.

This must be a bad thing.
 

hortysir

In Memorial of 47
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
20,518
Reaction score
4,257
Points
270
Location
Port Charlotte, FL
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"
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,863
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
I kept hearing the "Nuke me all and let god sort em out" during the early years of the Iraq war.
Quit the krap kitty with groucho glasses. It's becoming redundant, vacant and stupid. Regardless of what you think you "heard" during the early days of the Iraq war we killed a substantial number of innocent people in Europe and Japan before we were able to claim VE and VJ day. Was it worth it? Damn right it was.
 

syrenn

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
47,839
Reaction score
11,195
Points
0
And no, i did not have to google or look up that answer. ^^


the answer also works for military war time death....
 
Last edited:

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,658
Reaction score
14,353
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
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"
It’s also why fighting such an enemy with conventional weapons and tactics is obsolete, an anachronism.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,863
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
We aren't talking about arcane 19th century military theories. People are still walking around today who participated in the wholesale civilian bombing of Europe and the Nuclear attack on Japan. The poster who uses the name of a sit-com character opened up a can 'o worms and he needs to respond. Collateral damage is OK if....National security is at stake? What then?
 

syrenn

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
47,839
Reaction score
11,195
Points
0
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"
It’s also why fighting such an enemy with conventional weapons and tactics is obsolete, an anachronism.


Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
 

hortysir

In Memorial of 47
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
20,518
Reaction score
4,257
Points
270
Location
Port Charlotte, FL
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"
It’s also why fighting such an enemy with conventional weapons and tactics is obsolete, an anachronism.


Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
This is a great book about the man that got our Snipers mobile in urban warfare....our best weapon against the insurgents:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Shooter-Autobiography-Top-Ranked-Marine-Sniper/dp/0312336861/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1315715651&sr=8-8]Amazon.com: Shooter: The Autobiography of the Top-Ranked Marine Sniper (9780312336868): Sgt. Jack Coughlin, Lt. Casey Kuhlman, Donald A. Davis: Books[/ame]
 

Mr_Rockhead

Slouching toward Medicare
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
359
Reaction score
65
Points
78
Location
New Hampshire
Looks to me like alot less soldiers are dying with each 'next' war.

This must be a bad thing.
I tend to agree with this.

Since, with each succeeding war fewer military got killed, I would expect the percentage of the total to go down for military and up for civilian.
 

The Gadfly

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
613
Points
48
"Collateral damage"? What collateral damage? If it was carrying a weapon, and not wearing an American or ARVN uniform, I shot it. That's not collateral damage, just dead VC. Calling armed , non-uniformed combatants (a/k/a "Unlawful Combatants") "civilians" is a bit of a stretch, in my book.. As for the expression, "Kill 'em all..." I first heard it in 'Nam as a response to the question, "Since Charlie doesn't wear a uniform, how can you tell the VC from the civilians?" Answer: "You can't, so kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!" (No one actually DID that, of course). Generally, if they had weapons or explosives on them, they were fair game.
 

The Gadfly

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
613
Points
48
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?
Have you ever fought a war with guerrillas wearing no recognizable uniform hiding and fighting among the civilian population? NO? Well, I have. It's ugly, and civilians are bound to get killed, mostly accidentally. Regrettable, but it happens. If we had fought the way I imagine you'd recommend, I would not have lived through my tour to discuss the matter with you. Anyone unduly concerned with such trifles had a VERY short life expectancy in Vietnam.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,939
Reaction score
12,155
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
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?
Have you bothered to ask yourself why the percentage of civilian casualties has gone up? Furthermore, did the documentary tell you that the total number of civilian casualties has gone down?
 
OP
George Costanza

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
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?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top