"Collateral Damage"

[daveman]

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?

It's okay if a Democrat is in the White House.

 

[George Costanza]

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?

No, the documentary says the number of civilian casualties (percentage wise) has gone up with each succeeding war.

Why do you think the percentage has gone up with each succeeding war?

 

[George Costanza]

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

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

I don't know - but I'm willing to bet it was very, very low. Think about it. The Civil War pitted one army against another, shoulder to shoulder, line against line. Not too many civilians around to get shot when they came together at Gettysburg.

The main cause of civilian casualties today is, I'm sure, bombing.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

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?

No, the documentary says the number of civilian casualties (percentage wise) has gone up with each succeeding war.

Why do you think the percentage has gone up with each succeeding war?

Because the percentage of military casualties has gone down.

 

[George Costanza]

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

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

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

Right church, wrong pew. The total casualties in the Civil War was some huge number. But these were soldiers on each side, not civilians.

 

[George Costanza]

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?

No, the documentary says the number of civilian casualties (percentage wise) has gone up with each succeeding war.

Why do you think the percentage has gone up with each succeeding war?

Because the percentage of military casualties has gone down.

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

 

[George Costanza]

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?

The poster who uses the name of a sitcom character did not intend this thread to evolve into a discussion of the morality of civilian deaths in war. I am only asking why the percentage of civilian deaths seems to be increasing exponentially.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Not necessary to get personal or insulting, Mr. Internet Tough Guy. And don't presume to speculate on how I would recommend we fight our wars. I thank you for your service, but it doesn't entitle you to be an asshole.

 

[syrenn]

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

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

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

Right church, wrong pew. The total casualties in the Civil War was some huge number. But these were soldiers on each side, not civilians.

correct church.. correct pew.... LOL.

The answer works for both.... use the whole quote.. ( edit) ...along with the following post sorry...

The question was how many civilian causalities.

The total number of civilian causalities during the civil war...is more then all of the civilian causalities of US wars combined.

The answer is the same for military casualties. the number of American causalities during the civil war is more then all of our wars combined.

 

[George Costanza]

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

Right church, wrong pew. The total casualties in the Civil War was some huge number. But these were soldiers on each side, not civilians.

correct church.. correct pew.... LOL.

The answer works for both.... use the whole quote.. ( edit) ...along with the following post sorry...

The question was how many civilian causalities.

The total number of civilian causalities during the civil war...is more then all of the civilian causalities of US wars combined.

The answer is the same for military casualties. the number of American causalities during the civil war is more then all of our wars combined.

I find that hard to believe. I'm off to Google.

Here is what Wiki says:

It remains the deadliest war in American history, resulting in the deaths of 620000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian casualties.

 

[The Gadfly]

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?

George,
If any potential enemy knows that all he has to do to keep us from fighting him is to hide and fight among his civilian population, he can attack us with impunity, then hide behind his civilians. That is simply not viable, realistic or acceptable for us as national policy, for reasons which should be obvious. As for your last point, that simply cannot happen, unless you count unlawful combatants, dressed as civilians, as "innocent civilians". Some people would like to categorize things exactly that way, but it's obviously misleading, and intended to be. In my entire tour, I never shot at an unarmed civilian, much less killed one. I DID shoot armed people in civilian clothing. As a soldier, I can hardly be responsible for enemy violations of the applicable Geneva Conventions, specifically, fighting out of uniform among civilians. Likewise, we are not responsible for civilian casualties deliberately inflicted on non-combatant civilians by the enemy, for the purpose of terrorizing said population. From personal observation, I am pretty damn sure the enemy killed more non-combatant Vietnamese civilians that we did-A LOT MORE, and deliberately, too! One more time, you want to meet the REAL murderers, torturers, baby killers and rapists of Vietnam, talk to the VC, because THEY, not we, were the ones doing it!

 

[daveman]

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?

No, the documentary says the number of civilian casualties (percentage wise) has gone up with each succeeding war.

Why do you think the percentage has gone up with each succeeding war?

Because the number of combatants' deaths has gone down.

Also, and I'm not surprised that the documentary didn't mention it, the total number of civilian deaths has gone down with each successive conflict.

But that didn't serve the agenda, and so was ignored. And they counted on people like yourself to be unable or unwilling to ask the question.

The reason is precision weapons, precision engagement, and a growing unwillingness to cause civilian deaths.

But that doesn't fit the agenda, either.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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?

LINK TV?.......Get the **** outta here!

 

[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?

George,
If any potential enemy knows that all he has to do to keep us from fighting him is to hide and fight among his civilian population, he can attack us with impunity, then hide behind his civilians. That is simply not viable, realistic or acceptable for us as national policy, for reasons which should be obvious. As for your last point, that simply cannot happen, unless you count unlawful combatants, dressed as civilians, as "innocent civilians". Some people would like to categorize things exactly that way, but it's obviously misleading, and intended to be. In my entire tour, I never shot at an unarmed civilian, much less killed one. I DID shoot armed people in civilian clothing. As a soldier, I can hardly be responsible for enemy violations of the applicable Geneva Conventions, specifically, fighting out of uniform among civilians. Likewise, we are not responsible for civilian casualties deliberately inflicted on non-combatant civilians by the enemy, for the purpose of terrorizing said population. From personal observation, I am pretty damn sure the enemy killed more non-combatant Vietnamese civilians that we did-A LOT MORE, and deliberately, too! One more time, you want to meet the REAL murderers, torturers, baby killers and rapists of Vietnam, talk to the VC, because THEY, not we, were the ones doing it!

A good and thoughtful analysis. Thank you.

I suspect that by far the largest number of civilians killed in any modern war, was due to bombing.

 

[syrenn]

No, the documentary says the number of civilian casualties (percentage wise) has gone up with each succeeding war.

Why do you think the percentage has gone up with each succeeding war?

Because the percentage of military casualties has gone down.

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

The answer is very simple George. Why has collateral damage increased with time?

Better weapons. Bigger weapons. More destructive weapons.

There is no "field of battle" where opposing army's square off and hack each other to pieces.

At one time only military engaged in battle. Now you have ever local with a gun in the mix. You have "military" using women and children as human shields.

 

[George Costanza]

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?

No, the documentary says the number of civilian casualties (percentage wise) has gone up with each succeeding war.

Why do you think the percentage has gone up with each succeeding war?

Because the number of combatants' deaths has gone down.

Also, and I'm not surprised that the documentary didn't mention it, the total number of civilian deaths has gone down with each successive conflict.

But that didn't serve the agenda, and so was ignored. And they counted on people like yourself to be unable or unwilling to ask the question.

The reason is precision weapons, precision engagement, and a growing unwillingness to cause civilian deaths.

But that doesn't fit the agenda, either.

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.

 

[daveman]

No, the documentary says the number of civilian casualties (percentage wise) has gone up with each succeeding war.

Why do you think the percentage has gone up with each succeeding war?

Because the number of combatants' deaths has gone down.

Also, and I'm not surprised that the documentary didn't mention it, the total number of civilian deaths has gone down with each successive conflict.

But that didn't serve the agenda, and so was ignored. And they counted on people like yourself to be unable or unwilling to ask the question.

The reason is precision weapons, precision engagement, and a growing unwillingness to cause civilian deaths.

But that doesn't fit the agenda, either.

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.

 

[George Costanza]

Because the number of combatants' deaths has gone down.

Also, and I'm not surprised that the documentary didn't mention it, the total number of civilian deaths has gone down with each successive conflict.

But that didn't serve the agenda, and so was ignored. And they counted on people like yourself to be unable or unwilling to ask the question.

The reason is precision weapons, precision engagement, and a growing unwillingness to cause civilian deaths.

But that doesn't fit the agenda, either.

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."

 

[Care4all]

the people who were killed on 9/11 were in a sense, collateral damage to bin laden and al qaeda.....

and killing those civilians was not alright with me!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.