...the sophistication of the U.S. approach has made the number of deaths so small a sample that the ratios no longer can be termed reliable.
This is the only argument I'm struggling with right now. How small of a sample is too small?
I don't know, but these rough figures that favor our troops have held out over the past several armed conflicts (Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II) which leads me to believe that the sampling hasn't gotten too small. If it were a random fluke, then I'd expect the numbers across three wars to not follow the patter that they are following.
If the numbers flesh out, 1000 troop deaths would mean roughly 275 civilian deaths. I'd take that over 1000 civilian deaths and 150 troop deaths. Even in the example of Russia, in a worst case scenario when both sides weren't fighting with civility, the troop mortality rate was greater than the civilian rate.
Morally repugnant might be too strong a term to use, but if in fact our military is able to make an estimated choice like the one I've outlined and they choose more civilian deaths in order to save troop lives, that is reprehensible.
> what was this other plan?
Alclimedes, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
What I think it comes down to is that the U.S. military planners had two generic plans to choose from. One had 1000 civilian deaths + 100 troop deaths + 1 Saddam death = war over. The other had 500 troop deaths + 175 civilian deaths + 1 Saddam death = war over.
Both paths end with us winning the war. Both paths have far fewer civilian deaths than World War II. But one is legal and the other is not. The U.S. has choosen path number one that I think is morally repugnant.
you said they chose "the other plan"
what other plan? how the hell do you know which of the two they chose. you think there weren't 100 ways for us to go in there w/o losing as many soldiers? no way. if we didn't want to lose anyone we'd have leveled bahgdad, and every other city along the way.
civilians approaching military checkpoints in vehilcles would have been shot on site.
civilians running from Iraqi fire would have been left on the bridges to die, not protected by US soldiers surrounding them and returning fire.
they've shown time and again a willingness to risk their lives for the Iraqi civilians, yet you say their methods are morally repugnant. i've been patient and rational throughout this thread, but this is getting unreal.
It's an oversimplification because we obviously aren't in the 'war room' when decisions are made.
I believe the military could stick with the 'traditional' ratio of more military deaths than civilian deaths. The U.S. hasn't lived up to that in recent years. Why not?
In order to win a war now our military needs support from the population. That means a quicker fight, with less U.S. casualties. Neither one of those lends itself to saving foreign civilians.
I believe the military could stick with the 'traditional' ratio of more military deaths than civilian deaths
why? does more soldiers dead=less civilians dead? what the hell does having more people die accomplish? listen to your argument. you're saying that you're not happy that more people aren't dying. that's insane.
look, based solely on the difference in the population size of civilians to soldiers, accidents would account for those civilian deaths. (actually totally random accidents applied to both sides would have meant 3000+ civilian deaths)
look, based solely on the difference in the population size of civilians to soldiers, accidents would account for those civilian deaths. (actually totally random accidents applied to both sides would have meant 3000+ civilian deaths)
are you trying to misunderstand this?
My argument is clearly that there should be fewer civilian deaths, even if it means more military deaths. And based on the examples I've given, the total number of deaths would be lower as well. That's not insane.
The accident rate for a civilian /= the accident rate for military personel. Calculating losses based on that belief is insane. How do you calculate that 3000 number?
Until recently, there has never been a war where the civilian casualties are higher than military casualties. I think that's a horrible precedent for the U.S. to set.
My argument is clearly that there should be fewer civilian deaths, even if it means more military deaths. And based on the examples I've given, the total number of deaths would be lower as well. That's not insane.
The accident rate for a civilian /= the accident rate for military personel. Calculating losses based on that belief is insane. How do you calculate that 3000 number?
Until recently, there has never been a war where the civilian casualties are higher than military casualties. I think that's a horrible precedent for the U.S. to set.
Did it also occur to you the reasons why this may have happened again?
For example until recently whenever there was a war, instead of using an all volunteer force and leaving civilians alone, we and the country involved would draft every young man in sight and stick a rifle into his hands. Fewer civilians to accidentally kill and a whole lot more military to kill. Hundreds of thousands at minimum and millions of deaths possible.
Again and we talk about the precision, before we just would have carpet bombed and killed indiscriminately. It was also just pure trench warfare. Now we have mobile troops that quickly deploy and hold positions in major centers that we choose. The strike quickly (days instead of months or years) and establish supply lines and strongholds.
I think you are being a bit intentionally dense about this because we are not even talking about the same type of fighting, or the same philosophy when building and deploying a military force.
If you think the sample going from millions to less than 100 isn't going to change or skew the ratio you are wrong as well.
Just live with it Bunge, war by nature is destructive and kills people. I cannot think of how they could have done this any better. I don't see how a couple hundred/a thousand twitchy nervous young men carrying assault rifles is any less likely to accidentally kill civilians than a the occasional stray precision missle. You mention having troops assault the restaurant. You presume there is no fighting to get there, nor any to get out. You assume their judgement will be more accurate when fighting the enemy at their most deceptive in close quarters.
All of it leads to more death in my mind which....seems to be what you desire...
ok, for example we've lost 30 soldiers to accidents and friendly fire. that's 30 of 250,000.
that's 0.012% of our forces have been killed by accident. people were killed who weren't targets, and in fact were allies.
if you take a population of 22.5 million, if 0.0012% were killed by accidents/friendly fire, that would amount to 2,700 civilian deaths.
those 1,000 dead are those killed by both sides, not just US forces. we know for a fact that Iraqi soldiers were shooting civilians who were running away. so not all 1,000 of those are our fault.
so instead of 10,000 soldiers dead, and 9,000 civilians, we have 75 and 1,000.
that's what you're pissed off about? you think we should just slaughter a few hundred of our troops to get to your "golden war ratio"?
again, our troops are 75 times more likely to die than Iraqi civilians. wtf more do you want?
that's what you're pissed off about? you think we should just slaughter a few hundred of our troops to get to your "golden war ratio"?
Why do you use the same percentage to calculate the accidental/friendly fire death rate for civilians? That's absurd when you calculate into the equation the fact that civilians aren't in the fighting or handling weapons while the troops are.
I mean, if the civilians in a war were flying around in heliocopters like our troops, then I could see using the same percentage. Their civilian heliocopters would suffer roughly the same level of errors as our own if not more so they would be at a greater risk than they are.
But...the civilians aren't in the same risk category as our troops so you can't use the same percentages.
Ultimately we'll get a 'true' body count of the civilians (we probably have an accurate count of our troop deaths.) There's no chance, even after we take out the civilians killed by Iraqi troops, there's no chance fewer Iraqi civilians died than U.S. troops.
I'm not 'pissed' about anything. I think our military has made a calculated decision to deflate troop casualties. But in order to do so they have to risk more civilian lives. That's why the numbers are reversed.
I think it's clear what I'm getting at, but you're avoiding the general basis for my argument. It's great that only 1000 civies died. It's a happy day. It's better than the 3 million in Italy in WWII. Does that mean it's the right number though? No. What if it could have been 275? Wouldn't that be better?
Just live with it Bunge, war by nature is destructive and kills people. I cannot think of how they could have done this any better.... You mention having troops assault the restaurant. You presume there is no fighting to get there, nor any to get out. You assume their judgement will be more accurate when fighting the enemy at their most deceptive in close quarters.
All of it leads to more death in my mind which....seems to be what you desire...
Let's be fair. I want less death than we have. If the numbers pan out (and with a smaller sampling they might not) we could have had 500 military deaths with 275 civilian deaths. That's...775 dead as opposed to the 1100 we have now. So quit saying I want more dead. It's baseless in the context of this thread.
I say send in troops to the restaurant, yes. I know it would have cost military lives, but it would have saved civilian lives. If the numbers pan out, in order for 14 civilians to have died in the attack, 42 troops would have died as well. If 10 troops die in the attack (probably the largest number we would have lost in any individual battle in the war) then about 3 civilians would have died. That's 13 total, one less than the 14 civilians that did die.
More importantly that's 11 civilians that survived.
My point, using this attack as an example: we dropped bombs in a residential area knowing that we would/could kill civilians. We opted to do just that instead of sending in troops. This attack is a perfect example of how we are willing to make civilians expendible while protecting our troops. I think that's wrong.
Now, other factors may have come into play in this particular case (timeframes, who knows what) but when the numbers play out over the course of several wars, it should be obvious that something's not right.
Perhaps you believe it's alright to put civilians at risk (shelling a hotel) to save troops. I think the Geneva Convention disagrees.
What if it could have been 275? Wouldn't that be better?
sure, if it could have been 10 that would be even better. i still don't get where you're trying to go with this.
did the US follow some rules of engagement that led to the systematic slaughter of civilians? no.
unless there's something you can point to where you can say "this part of the campaign (not "this incident") was costing civilian lives expressly to save our own troops you don't have much of a leg to stand on. this war has the least casualties on both sides. it has the lowest percentage of total population lost on both sides.
the rate of civilian deaths to troop deaths fell 3 times faster since the last gulf war. (and i do believe that modern warfare will skew those numbers over ww2 style fighting).
hell, how many civilians were lost in japan? you include them in those numbers?
this ratio you're talking about it bullshit. you're dealing with straight numbers when comparing hugely varying population sizes. that's so pointless it hurts.
as an example, that's like saying "7 kids in school A got a perfect score on their SAT's, while only 2 kids in school B got perfect scores, therefore school A is better" but school A has a 8,000 students while school B has 80. that type of comparision does not work in this that situation, and doesn't apply to the death tolls either.
did the US follow some rules of engagement that led to the systematic slaughter of civilians? no.
Does the U.S. follow some rules of engagement that lead to more civilian deaths because they're put at greater risk than necessary rather than putting troops in harm's way?
Does the U.S. follow some rules of engagement that lead to more civilian deaths because they're put at greater risk than necessary rather than putting troops in harm's way?
I think the circumstantial evidence supports that theory, yes.
Not for one minute have I ever believed that (aside from a kook with a gun) our military targets civilians. If it's ever happened (like a kook with a gun) it's not sanctioned. I'm sure it happened in Vietnam, but I don't equate our current military with those times. In my mind I'm looking at the present.
Realistically, when all is said and done, a war with 500 or 1000 civilian deaths is an amazing feat. Neither number is a lot in terms of war. I think because of that our military is willing to let that number rise in order to get our own casualties down to even more absurd levels. That's less headaches for the generals, less headaches for the politicians, less heartache for the American public.
Think of it in dollars: "If I spend $500, my neighbor will only have to spend $175. But if I make my neighbor spend $1000, I'll only have to pay $100." Most people would make their neighbor unwittingly pay $1000 if it meant that they themselves could save that extra $400.
I think it's a very 'normal' thing to do. They're worrying about their own first. I do think though that it's a violation of the Geneva Convention too.
This isn't about our guys shooting civilians, or targeting hotels. I think it's about a philosophy really.
again, do you have any evidence that this is actually going on, or is this just your stipulation based on nothing but a gut feeling?
i want you to show me where the US policy in this war increased civilian casualties from x amount to 1,000. i'm sure there are specific things you can point to (such as "this bomb did this, that shell did that) but i'm talking about policy. (the other incidents would fall squarly into the accidents category)
is there an example of US policy in this war that consistantly increased civilian casualities?
i want you to show me where the US policy in this war increased civilian casualties from x amount to 1,000.
This is silly. No one has access to US policy. We're discussing the civilian casualties of the war and I say the numbers bear my theory out. If we had access to the actual policy then there would be no discussion necessary.
History and precedent show military casualties to be higher than civilian casualties. Logic and rational though predict this as well. The public pressure and numbers support my case. The fact that we will target a restaurant with indiscriminate bombs support my point.
Is there proof? That's why I put this forth for discussion.
This is silly. No one has access to US policy. We're discussing the civilian casualties of the war and I say the numbers bear my theory out. If we had access to the actual policy then there would be no discussion necessary.
except we do in a sense. we're seeing what they do. they have embedded reporters with them.
for example, the Iraqi's using civilians as sheilds, that would be an example of military policy that greatly increases the odds of civilian casualties.
dressing military personal in civilian clothing, using civilian vehicles, again examples of military policy.
Quote:
1. History and precedent show military casualties to be higher than civilian casualties.
2. Logic and rational though predict this as well.
3. The public pressure and numbers support my case.
to number 1, i'd say yes. however, times change, technology changes, and fighting styles change. should we expect the same death tolls and ratios in combat forever? no. as styles and technology change, so will these ratios.
2. that is just flat out wrong. i've shown half a dozen ways how you should not expect higher casualties in military forces than civilian forces when there is such a drastic difference in the population sizes.
3. public pressure from like minded people. that's not really very meaningful. i could say just as easily that public pressure agrees with me, as there are many folks who do. this is just a wash.
Quote:
The fact that we will target a restaurant with indiscriminate bombs support my point.
actually, that's exactly what i mean. we don't make a habit of targeting resturants. we targeted this one place, one time, in a unique instance to kill a specific high value target. odds are if we killed saddam, it will save more lives in the long run, and i think you know that.
if we blew up every eatery we knew existed that would be an example of bad policy. but that isn't happening.
if we had a few million troops in Iraq our death toll would probably climb higher than the civilian death toll. would that make you happy? we have a low death toll because we don't have many soldiers over there to die, and we're fighting a shitty army that runs and hides in civilian locations, in civilian clothing.
"Until recently, there has never been a war where the civilian casualties are higher than military casualties. I think that's a horrible precedent for the U.S. to set."
and then continued to elucidate his lunacy, point by painful point, it becomes clear that there's no possibility of reasoning. No one is getting anywhere, and the ability to take this war and somehow find that the level of civilian deaths, which has been unbelivbaly low in ALL the reports I have seen, even on Al-Jazeera, is just the most foolish thing imaginable.
Bunge is now on my ignore list. I think I'll be able to follow the fireworks just fine from reading the responses. If there was something new, if there was some sign that his positions moved and evolved over time, it'd be different.
weird thing is i don't remember bunge being nuts before. i'm trying to pull him back into the light.
James Brown: Do you see the light?
Elwood: What light?
You guys are paranoid, that's all. You look for people pushing conspiracy theories but that closes you off to actually thinking about certain ideas.
You start off with a principle, the U.S. Military does no wrong, then you have to protect it. Rather than entertain the idea that the U.S. Military might not be all pretty, you freak out as if I'm saying they should all be shot. I become a "U.S. hater" or whatever the new catch phrase is.
I speak about a hypothetical, and you conservatives freak out as if I'm satan. It's sad really, that you can't even consider this a possibility. It shows your dogma. You can't even reason through the possibility. To you it's not even possible that the U.S. is making a decision like this.
I think that's a flaw in your reasoning abilities, not mine.
Quote:
if we blew up every eatery we knew existed that would be an example of bad policy. but that isn't happening.
Bad policy? That would be lunacy. But by saying this you're essentially saying that we would have to go overboard for you to think we've done something wrong. That anything less than targeting restaurants is OK. That is essentially what you're saying with this. That the bar is set so high, anything less we can just sweep under the table.
I'm saying the opposite. That it looks like we are doing things at a smaller level to be 'safe' for our troops, but it ends up reversing the mortality rate from 3 to 1 to 1 to 10. That's quite a reversal.
EDIT: Alclimedes, in a previous post I said "This is silly." I said that because I'm arguing a hypothetical point and you were asking for concrete evidence. I think you've been seeing me as a conspiracy theorist paranoid, when in fact I'm just hypothesizing a point. If then next. I used to program and I use the If then next statement in a lot of arguments. It's because I can acknowledge that I'm ignorant of most things, specifically what's going on behind the scenes like in the 'war room' where a decision like this would be made.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
...the sophistication of the U.S. approach has made the number of deaths so small a sample that the ratios no longer can be termed reliable.
This is the only argument I'm struggling with right now. How small of a sample is too small?
I don't know, but these rough figures that favor our troops have held out over the past several armed conflicts (Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II) which leads me to believe that the sampling hasn't gotten too small. If it were a random fluke, then I'd expect the numbers across three wars to not follow the patter that they are following.
If the numbers flesh out, 1000 troop deaths would mean roughly 275 civilian deaths. I'd take that over 1000 civilian deaths and 150 troop deaths. Even in the example of Russia, in a worst case scenario when both sides weren't fighting with civility, the troop mortality rate was greater than the civilian rate.
Morally repugnant might be too strong a term to use, but if in fact our military is able to make an estimated choice like the one I've outlined and they choose more civilian deaths in order to save troop lives, that is reprehensible.
> what was this other plan?
Alclimedes, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
What I think it comes down to is that the U.S. military planners had two generic plans to choose from. One had 1000 civilian deaths + 100 troop deaths + 1 Saddam death = war over. The other had 500 troop deaths + 175 civilian deaths + 1 Saddam death = war over.
Both paths end with us winning the war. Both paths have far fewer civilian deaths than World War II. But one is legal and the other is not. The U.S. has choosen path number one that I think is morally repugnant.
you said they chose "the other plan"
what other plan? how the hell do you know which of the two they chose. you think there weren't 100 ways for us to go in there w/o losing as many soldiers? no way. if we didn't want to lose anyone we'd have leveled bahgdad, and every other city along the way.
civilians approaching military checkpoints in vehilcles would have been shot on site.
civilians running from Iraqi fire would have been left on the bridges to die, not protected by US soldiers surrounding them and returning fire.
they've shown time and again a willingness to risk their lives for the Iraqi civilians, yet you say their methods are morally repugnant. i've been patient and rational throughout this thread, but this is getting unreal.
Originally posted by alcimedes
you said they chose "the other plan"
It's an oversimplification because we obviously aren't in the 'war room' when decisions are made.
I believe the military could stick with the 'traditional' ratio of more military deaths than civilian deaths. The U.S. hasn't lived up to that in recent years. Why not?
In order to win a war now our military needs support from the population. That means a quicker fight, with less U.S. casualties. Neither one of those lends itself to saving foreign civilians.
I believe the military could stick with the 'traditional' ratio of more military deaths than civilian deaths
why? does more soldiers dead=less civilians dead? what the hell does having more people die accomplish? listen to your argument. you're saying that you're not happy that more people aren't dying. that's insane.
look, based solely on the difference in the population size of civilians to soldiers, accidents would account for those civilian deaths. (actually totally random accidents applied to both sides would have meant 3000+ civilian deaths)
are you trying to misunderstand this?
Originally posted by alcimedes
look, based solely on the difference in the population size of civilians to soldiers, accidents would account for those civilian deaths. (actually totally random accidents applied to both sides would have meant 3000+ civilian deaths)
are you trying to misunderstand this?
My argument is clearly that there should be fewer civilian deaths, even if it means more military deaths. And based on the examples I've given, the total number of deaths would be lower as well. That's not insane.
The accident rate for a civilian /= the accident rate for military personel. Calculating losses based on that belief is insane. How do you calculate that 3000 number?
Until recently, there has never been a war where the civilian casualties are higher than military casualties. I think that's a horrible precedent for the U.S. to set.
Originally posted by bunge
My argument is clearly that there should be fewer civilian deaths, even if it means more military deaths. And based on the examples I've given, the total number of deaths would be lower as well. That's not insane.
The accident rate for a civilian /= the accident rate for military personel. Calculating losses based on that belief is insane. How do you calculate that 3000 number?
Until recently, there has never been a war where the civilian casualties are higher than military casualties. I think that's a horrible precedent for the U.S. to set.
Did it also occur to you the reasons why this may have happened again?
For example until recently whenever there was a war, instead of using an all volunteer force and leaving civilians alone, we and the country involved would draft every young man in sight and stick a rifle into his hands. Fewer civilians to accidentally kill and a whole lot more military to kill. Hundreds of thousands at minimum and millions of deaths possible.
Again and we talk about the precision, before we just would have carpet bombed and killed indiscriminately. It was also just pure trench warfare. Now we have mobile troops that quickly deploy and hold positions in major centers that we choose. The strike quickly (days instead of months or years) and establish supply lines and strongholds.
I think you are being a bit intentionally dense about this because we are not even talking about the same type of fighting, or the same philosophy when building and deploying a military force.
If you think the sample going from millions to less than 100 isn't going to change or skew the ratio you are wrong as well.
Just live with it Bunge, war by nature is destructive and kills people. I cannot think of how they could have done this any better. I don't see how a couple hundred/a thousand twitchy nervous young men carrying assault rifles is any less likely to accidentally kill civilians than a the occasional stray precision missle. You mention having troops assault the restaurant. You presume there is no fighting to get there, nor any to get out. You assume their judgement will be more accurate when fighting the enemy at their most deceptive in close quarters.
All of it leads to more death in my mind which....seems to be what you desire...
Strange....
Nick
that's 0.012% of our forces have been killed by accident. people were killed who weren't targets, and in fact were allies.
if you take a population of 22.5 million, if 0.0012% were killed by accidents/friendly fire, that would amount to 2,700 civilian deaths.
those 1,000 dead are those killed by both sides, not just US forces. we know for a fact that Iraqi soldiers were shooting civilians who were running away. so not all 1,000 of those are our fault.
so instead of 10,000 soldiers dead, and 9,000 civilians, we have 75 and 1,000.
that's what you're pissed off about? you think we should just slaughter a few hundred of our troops to get to your "golden war ratio"?
again, our troops are 75 times more likely to die than Iraqi civilians. wtf more do you want?
Originally posted by alcimedes
that's what you're pissed off about? you think we should just slaughter a few hundred of our troops to get to your "golden war ratio"?
Why do you use the same percentage to calculate the accidental/friendly fire death rate for civilians? That's absurd when you calculate into the equation the fact that civilians aren't in the fighting or handling weapons while the troops are.
I mean, if the civilians in a war were flying around in heliocopters like our troops, then I could see using the same percentage. Their civilian heliocopters would suffer roughly the same level of errors as our own if not more so they would be at a greater risk than they are.
But...the civilians aren't in the same risk category as our troops so you can't use the same percentages.
Ultimately we'll get a 'true' body count of the civilians (we probably have an accurate count of our troop deaths.) There's no chance, even after we take out the civilians killed by Iraqi troops, there's no chance fewer Iraqi civilians died than U.S. troops.
I'm not 'pissed' about anything. I think our military has made a calculated decision to deflate troop casualties. But in order to do so they have to risk more civilian lives. That's why the numbers are reversed.
I think it's clear what I'm getting at, but you're avoiding the general basis for my argument. It's great that only 1000 civies died. It's a happy day. It's better than the 3 million in Italy in WWII. Does that mean it's the right number though? No. What if it could have been 275? Wouldn't that be better?
Originally posted by trumptman
Just live with it Bunge, war by nature is destructive and kills people. I cannot think of how they could have done this any better.... You mention having troops assault the restaurant. You presume there is no fighting to get there, nor any to get out. You assume their judgement will be more accurate when fighting the enemy at their most deceptive in close quarters.
All of it leads to more death in my mind which....seems to be what you desire...
Let's be fair. I want less death than we have. If the numbers pan out (and with a smaller sampling they might not) we could have had 500 military deaths with 275 civilian deaths. That's...775 dead as opposed to the 1100 we have now. So quit saying I want more dead. It's baseless in the context of this thread.
I say send in troops to the restaurant, yes. I know it would have cost military lives, but it would have saved civilian lives. If the numbers pan out, in order for 14 civilians to have died in the attack, 42 troops would have died as well. If 10 troops die in the attack (probably the largest number we would have lost in any individual battle in the war) then about 3 civilians would have died. That's 13 total, one less than the 14 civilians that did die.
More importantly that's 11 civilians that survived.
My point, using this attack as an example: we dropped bombs in a residential area knowing that we would/could kill civilians. We opted to do just that instead of sending in troops. This attack is a perfect example of how we are willing to make civilians expendible while protecting our troops. I think that's wrong.
Now, other factors may have come into play in this particular case (timeframes, who knows what) but when the numbers play out over the course of several wars, it should be obvious that something's not right.
Perhaps you believe it's alright to put civilians at risk (shelling a hotel) to save troops. I think the Geneva Convention disagrees.
What if it could have been 275? Wouldn't that be better?
sure, if it could have been 10 that would be even better. i still don't get where you're trying to go with this.
did the US follow some rules of engagement that led to the systematic slaughter of civilians? no.
unless there's something you can point to where you can say "this part of the campaign (not "this incident") was costing civilian lives expressly to save our own troops you don't have much of a leg to stand on. this war has the least casualties on both sides. it has the lowest percentage of total population lost on both sides.
the rate of civilian deaths to troop deaths fell 3 times faster since the last gulf war. (and i do believe that modern warfare will skew those numbers over ww2 style fighting).
hell, how many civilians were lost in japan? you include them in those numbers?
this ratio you're talking about it bullshit. you're dealing with straight numbers when comparing hugely varying population sizes. that's so pointless it hurts.
as an example, that's like saying "7 kids in school A got a perfect score on their SAT's, while only 2 kids in school B got perfect scores, therefore school A is better" but school A has a 8,000 students while school B has 80. that type of comparision does not work in this that situation, and doesn't apply to the death tolls either.
Originally posted by alcimedes
did the US follow some rules of engagement that led to the systematic slaughter of civilians? no.
Does the U.S. follow some rules of engagement that lead to more civilian deaths because they're put at greater risk than necessary rather than putting troops in harm's way?
Does the U.S. follow some rules of engagement that lead to more civilian deaths because they're put at greater risk than necessary rather than putting troops in harm's way?
you seem to think so, so let's hear it.
Originally posted by alcimedes
you seem to think so, so let's hear it.
I think the circumstantial evidence supports that theory, yes.
Not for one minute have I ever believed that (aside from a kook with a gun) our military targets civilians. If it's ever happened (like a kook with a gun) it's not sanctioned. I'm sure it happened in Vietnam, but I don't equate our current military with those times. In my mind I'm looking at the present.
Realistically, when all is said and done, a war with 500 or 1000 civilian deaths is an amazing feat. Neither number is a lot in terms of war. I think because of that our military is willing to let that number rise in order to get our own casualties down to even more absurd levels. That's less headaches for the generals, less headaches for the politicians, less heartache for the American public.
Think of it in dollars: "If I spend $500, my neighbor will only have to spend $175. But if I make my neighbor spend $1000, I'll only have to pay $100." Most people would make their neighbor unwittingly pay $1000 if it meant that they themselves could save that extra $400.
I think it's a very 'normal' thing to do. They're worrying about their own first. I do think though that it's a violation of the Geneva Convention too.
This isn't about our guys shooting civilians, or targeting hotels. I think it's about a philosophy really.
i want you to show me where the US policy in this war increased civilian casualties from x amount to 1,000. i'm sure there are specific things you can point to (such as "this bomb did this, that shell did that) but i'm talking about policy. (the other incidents would fall squarly into the accidents category)
is there an example of US policy in this war that consistantly increased civilian casualities?
Originally posted by alcimedes
i want you to show me where the US policy in this war increased civilian casualties from x amount to 1,000.
This is silly. No one has access to US policy. We're discussing the civilian casualties of the war and I say the numbers bear my theory out. If we had access to the actual policy then there would be no discussion necessary.
History and precedent show military casualties to be higher than civilian casualties. Logic and rational though predict this as well. The public pressure and numbers support my case. The fact that we will target a restaurant with indiscriminate bombs support my point.
Is there proof? That's why I put this forth for discussion.
This is silly. No one has access to US policy. We're discussing the civilian casualties of the war and I say the numbers bear my theory out. If we had access to the actual policy then there would be no discussion necessary.
except we do in a sense. we're seeing what they do. they have embedded reporters with them.
for example, the Iraqi's using civilians as sheilds, that would be an example of military policy that greatly increases the odds of civilian casualties.
dressing military personal in civilian clothing, using civilian vehicles, again examples of military policy.
1. History and precedent show military casualties to be higher than civilian casualties.
2. Logic and rational though predict this as well.
3. The public pressure and numbers support my case.
to number 1, i'd say yes. however, times change, technology changes, and fighting styles change. should we expect the same death tolls and ratios in combat forever? no. as styles and technology change, so will these ratios.
2. that is just flat out wrong. i've shown half a dozen ways how you should not expect higher casualties in military forces than civilian forces when there is such a drastic difference in the population sizes.
3. public pressure from like minded people. that's not really very meaningful. i could say just as easily that public pressure agrees with me, as there are many folks who do. this is just a wash.
The fact that we will target a restaurant with indiscriminate bombs support my point.
actually, that's exactly what i mean. we don't make a habit of targeting resturants. we targeted this one place, one time, in a unique instance to kill a specific high value target. odds are if we killed saddam, it will save more lives in the long run, and i think you know that.
if we blew up every eatery we knew existed that would be an example of bad policy. but that isn't happening.
if we had a few million troops in Iraq our death toll would probably climb higher than the civilian death toll. would that make you happy? we have a low death toll because we don't have many soldiers over there to die, and we're fighting a shitty army that runs and hides in civilian locations, in civilian clothing.
"Until recently, there has never been a war where the civilian casualties are higher than military casualties. I think that's a horrible precedent for the U.S. to set."
and then continued to elucidate his lunacy, point by painful point, it becomes clear that there's no possibility of reasoning. No one is getting anywhere, and the ability to take this war and somehow find that the level of civilian deaths, which has been unbelivbaly low in ALL the reports I have seen, even on Al-Jazeera, is just the most foolish thing imaginable.
Bunge is now on my ignore list. I think I'll be able to follow the fireworks just fine from reading the responses. If there was something new, if there was some sign that his positions moved and evolved over time, it'd be different.
oooh, maybe he's been dating sammi jo lately. that would explain a lot......
5000 seems to be the current number. Seems way low to me, but one can hope.
Originally posted by alcimedes
weird thing is i don't remember bunge being nuts before. i'm trying to pull him back into the light.
James Brown: Do you see the light?
Elwood: What light?
You guys are paranoid, that's all. You look for people pushing conspiracy theories but that closes you off to actually thinking about certain ideas.
You start off with a principle, the U.S. Military does no wrong, then you have to protect it. Rather than entertain the idea that the U.S. Military might not be all pretty, you freak out as if I'm saying they should all be shot. I become a "U.S. hater" or whatever the new catch phrase is.
I speak about a hypothetical, and you conservatives freak out as if I'm satan. It's sad really, that you can't even consider this a possibility. It shows your dogma. You can't even reason through the possibility. To you it's not even possible that the U.S. is making a decision like this.
I think that's a flaw in your reasoning abilities, not mine.
if we blew up every eatery we knew existed that would be an example of bad policy. but that isn't happening.
Bad policy? That would be lunacy. But by saying this you're essentially saying that we would have to go overboard for you to think we've done something wrong. That anything less than targeting restaurants is OK. That is essentially what you're saying with this. That the bar is set so high, anything less we can just sweep under the table.
I'm saying the opposite. That it looks like we are doing things at a smaller level to be 'safe' for our troops, but it ends up reversing the mortality rate from 3 to 1 to 1 to 10. That's quite a reversal.
EDIT: Alclimedes, in a previous post I said "This is silly." I said that because I'm arguing a hypothetical point and you were asking for concrete evidence. I think you've been seeing me as a conspiracy theorist paranoid, when in fact I'm just hypothesizing a point. If then next. I used to program and I use the If then next statement in a lot of arguments. It's because I can acknowledge that I'm ignorant of most things, specifically what's going on behind the scenes like in the 'war room' where a decision like this would be made.