"Collateral Damage"

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Mar 10, 2009
5,188
1,160
155
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?
 
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:
 
What do you think Georgie? Collateral damage seemed to be a reasonable concept during WW2. Why should we change our opinion today?
 
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 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.
 
And no, i did not have to google or look up that answer. ^^


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

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top