"Collateral Damage"

[RetiredGySgt]

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 1 million in Iraq is a blatant lie, it is more like 100,00 unless you believe the discredited Lancet report. Official figures ARE available not made up ones by guessing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Hate to say it George, but those figure just do not sound right.

This site says there were between 102,000 and 112,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. That includes targets of suicide bombers and and insurgent attacks. Personally, I think wars suck, but I see no reason to hold the US responsible for what the other side does. To balance that out, I will also refuse to hold the other side responsible for what we do.

I have not watched the movie, but if they want to hold the US responsible for what the other side, they have an agenda and a problem with honesty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The only unconventional weapons available to us are WMDs, should we nuke them, or should you shut the fuck up because you do not know what you are talking about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 they are playing with statistics would be my first guess.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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."

First of all George, trusting anything that comes from that station is a fools game......It is nothing more than anti-american Amy Goodman's ''the US is all evil, all the the time", far left propoganda bullshit station.

I have no doubt they didn't include the numbers of civilians killed by Al qaeda and their sympathizers. Nor did it include the number killed by tribal warfare.

And, that "million civilians killed" figure is pure propaganda, that the far left has been pushing as legit for years.

A million civilians?....Really?:

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf

Believing ANYTHING that comes from those far left propaganda pushing scumbags is friggin' ridiculous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Assuming it is true, perhaps it is because we are actually getting better at keeping people alive in wars. Civilians end up dying in disproportionately higher numbers because they are not wearing all the protective gear soldiers are.

Either that, or the other side has fewer scruples about killing civilians.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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."

Umm, if there were 1,000,000 civilian deaths in Iraq that would mean there were a lot more combatant deaths than they are telling us.

 

[Colin]

Most of the civilian deaths in WW2 were NOT collateral damage! Civilians were intended targets of aerial bombing campaigns!

 

[California Girl]

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."

Umm, if there were 1,000,000 civilian deaths in Iraq that would mean there were a lot more combatant deaths than they are telling us.

George either makes shit up or uses incredibly idiotic sources. 1 million civilians dead in Iraq? Yea, that's believable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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."

Umm, if there were 1,000,000 civilian deaths in Iraq that would mean there were a lot more combatant deaths than they are telling us.

George either makes shit up or uses incredibly idiotic sources. 1 million civilians dead in Iraq? Yea, that's believable.

The lancet report claimed that. They did not count bodies, get official figures , question Soldiers or commands, they did a survey of a few Iraqi families and then fabricated the number. It was debunked almost as fast as it appeared. Almost no one uses it as a source anymore unless they are lying.

 

[yidnar]

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?

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 ........

 

[California Girl]

Umm, if there were 1,000,000 civilian deaths in Iraq that would mean there were a lot more combatant deaths than they are telling us.

George either makes shit up or uses incredibly idiotic sources. 1 million civilians dead in Iraq? Yea, that's believable.

The lancet report claimed that. They did not count bodies, get official figures , question Soldiers or commands, they did a survey of a few Iraqi families and then fabricated the number. It was debunked almost as fast as it appeared. Almost no one uses it as a source anymore unless they are lying.

I know. George prefers hysteria and emotion to logical thought.

 

[Moonglow]

helps with keeping the population lower

 

[California Girl]

helps with keeping the population lower

His figures on Iraq have already been shown to come from a discredited source. Those figures are widely exaggerated.... and, yet again, you make moronic comments.... and you wonder why I call you an idiot? Truth hurts.

 

[Moonglow]

helps with keeping the population lower

His figures on Iraq have already been shown to come from a discredited source. Those figures are widely exaggerated.... and, yet again, you make moronic comments.... and you wonder why I call you an idiot? Truth hurts.

If it were not for war, the world population would be much higher.

 

[freedombecki]

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"

I'm glad you brought that up, hortysir. Recent "historians" aren't playing fair; they're incorporating brutal dictators' murders of their own people and showing them as our military's fault.

Such recordings are low down and dishonest at best, political foul balls at worst, and like other under-the-table lies of omission, they actually harm the entire nation and are the shame of misplaced propaganda.

 

[freedombecki]

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, I've known you to be a reasonable man, but your initial statistics could be coming from a biased source whose author may have picked up data from a source with a lot to gain from misinformation.

I've made a study of our military's sophisticated weaponry and intelligence. 99% of their human targets are carrying weapons to take our men out. Could it be you missed some reports of recent US engagements in which the same child's body was photographed at numerous different "kill" locations? Our men are dealing with some very dishonest personnel who would murder an entire family, take the children around from village to village to claim to some naive or even collaborative news outlets what the "American devil" did. Please use skepticism when dealing with propaganda reports that do not reflect our specific-sophisticated military neutralization equipment.

Thanks for your consideration of this specificity that is used by us, and be aware that some statistics are put out there by very highly anti-American entities who would use lies to damage our nation's good if not sterling reputation.

 

[California Girl]

helps with keeping the population lower

His figures on Iraq have already been shown to come from a discredited source. Those figures are widely exaggerated.... and, yet again, you make moronic comments.... and you wonder why I call you an idiot? Truth hurts.

If it were not for war, the world population would be much higher.

 

[editec]

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?[/QUOTE]

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

 

[uscitizen]

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?