Acceptable Collateral Damage?
More aerial bombardment resulting in more civilian deaths, is 30% acceptable collateral damage?
US and Iraqi forces have killed 30 militants in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, the US military has said.
They said most had died in an air strike following a raid in the Shia district of Sadr City. Twelve people were also detained in the operation.
The US military said the dead were part of a network that was smuggling weapons from Iran, but witnesses said women and children were among those killed.
[.....]
Iraqi police in Sadr City said a bombardment by US helicopters and armoured vehicles killed nine civilians, including two women, the Associated Press has reported.
A 30% innocent men, women, and children, “ooops, we bad” kill rate.
As I’ve said before, there is little concern for the lives of ordinary Iraqi civilians in American kill ‘em all and let god sort them out bombing from the air, and it is why the Americans do not now, and never will, enjoy the backing of the Iraqi people.
Why the American people seem to find this reasonable remains a mystery.
———-
Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Republican National Convention Blog, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
I can understand your thoughts. I do not like it either. However, many of our men and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan following the ROE (rules of engagement). We most certainly are trying not to even hurt any civillians! I know it is sad and painful, but so is war. May I ask just one question? Would you rather the damage be done across seas or in your backyard? Hmm…tough one, eh?
You’re doing it backwards, Stageleft. You can’t start by setting a limit on what’s acceptable civilian death. That might mean you have change the way you do things.
“Acceptable Civilian Death” equals the number of civilians that get killed, plus a 10% margin, just in case.
“Would you rather the damage be done across seas or in your backyard? Hmm…tough one, eh?”
Nope, easy one. I would rather see damage not being done at all. Iraq posed no threat to my backyard.
Many of your men and women have died in Iraq because your president decided to unnecessarily invade and occupy a country that posed no threat to the United States of America, or any other country for that matter.
The United States military knows that the likelihood of killing innocent men, women, and children is very high when they engage in aerial bombardment in civilian areas, they know that Rosemary, yet they engage in the tactic anyway.
Tens of thousands of completely innocent men, women, and children have been killed in this way, tens of thousands of other completely innocent men, women, and children have been crippled, maimed, or turned into instant orphans and widows - what other inference is there other than the one that says the killing of civilians is acceptable collateral damage?
I am asking if 30% is acceptable, is it?
Not so tough at all, there was no threat that Iraq could or would come to North America, none, zip, zilch, squat, nada. They couldn’t drive here in the mobile chemical weapons laboratories the Bush administration tried to scare the world with but couldn’t find, they couldn’t reach North America with the (was it 3?) duct tape and haywire drones they did find, their pitiful air force was already buried in the sand, and the weapons of mass destruction gig sort of speaks for itself doesn’t it?
Interesting math. 30 terrorists killed; 9 non-combatants=39 total killed. That’s a 23% rate of “collateral damage†not 30% (and I know the 30% figure was derived by dividing 9/30, but that’s NOT honest math). Yes, that’s still too high, but I’ve noticed the tendency to use bad math and statistics to lie about Iraq, mostly–sadly–from the Left. (Sadly, because true liberals attempt to hear all sides and allow genuine free speech using as their primary “weapons†simple truthful statements, facts and reasonable arguments, as did the very prototype of Liberal, John Stuart Mills *sigh*)
Agree wholeheartedly that the Iraq adventure was ill-thought from the gitgo. Wrong place to invade and wreck if we want to put a serious crimp in Islamic terrorism. The place to wreck is Saudi Arabia, the chief financier of worldwide Islamic terrorism and violent jihad. That Fifi Mohammed Bush (”Fifi†because he’s been lapdog to successive Mexican presidents; “Mohammed†because he’s “prince†(of thieves) Abdullah’s fav boyfriend) lied when he said the supporters of terrorism would face U.S. wrath is evident in the simple fact that Saudi Arabia is still in the hands of Lawrence’s tribal buddies. Yeh, yeh, I know the Saudis are making some effort to squealch Al Qaeda in Arabia, but they continue to export and directly finance the bloodiest, most vicious, brutal and savage form of a bloody, vicious, brutal and savage cult.
Iraq? There may have been a brief for deposing Saddam (in fact, there were adequate grounds for doing do given his serial violations of the cease fire–a cease fire in a war that had not formally ended–lotsa other stuff ignored by the Left), BUT there was NO EXCUSE for the stupid effort at nation building, the Bremmer administration and the attendant destruction that ensued.
Again, 23% is not good. As in bad. Unacceptable. Wrong. But at least it’s good math.
“I’ve noticed the tendency to use bad math and statistics to lie about Iraq, mostly–sadly–from the Left. ”
Oh, really? Gosh. I kind of thought the quantifiable disparity between number of functional WMD found vs. predicted represented some pretty wretched math. Or the number of “last legs” remaining (as in…the insurgents are on their “last legs”.)
“The place to wreck is Saudi Arabia.”
Well, it’s good to know that America is learning, isn’t it?
Let’s see. By pulling in (and forgiving) debts, the US manages to pull together a coalition and invades a country on the verge of economic collapse, a country that has been under intense aerial and ground surveillance for years, a country despised by its Arab neighbours. They achieve a rapid military victory, then discover that they have created a flashpoint for insurgents, initiating a civil war and prompting them to desperately seek a face-saving strategy for withdrawal in the face of mounting American and Iraqi deaths, collapsing infrastructure, and a dissolving fig-leaf government.
Lesson learned? We shoulda attacked the wealthiest, best armed Arab country in the world instead…the one action absolutely guaranteed to unite the Arab world AND Muslim worlds immediately.
Good thinking. Are you, perchance, on the Bush strategy team?
No David, the article says 30 ‘militants’ were killed, the usual story out of the US military is that everybody who was killed was a militant - we then find out that that wasn’t necessarily the case.
If the article had said that
– your math would be correct, but it didn’t say that.
My assumption is that 30 people were killed, 9 of them (30% rounded) were innocent men, women, or children.
Whooee! A lotta quibblin’ over a few worthless non-Merkan lives. This week, nearly 2,000 Asians died in monsoon floods. 32 million people were made homeless. All week long, I’ve watched the US TV news report on
3085 Merkans killed when that bridge fell down. Little, if anything, on 2,000 dead Asians.JB
[...] Stageleft:. Life on the left side » Blog Archive » Acceptable Collateral Damage? [...]