JB

If the article had said that

The military statement was issued after the Associated Press quoted Iraqi police as saying nine civilians, including two women, had also been killed in the US operation in Sadr City.

– 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.

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?

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.

We most certainly are trying not to even hurt any civillians!

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?

May I ask just one question? Would you rather the damage be done across seas or in your backyard? Hmm…tough one, eh?

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?

Nope, easy one. I would rather see damage not being done at all. Iraq posed no threat to my backyard.

“Acceptable Civilian Death” equals the number of civilians that get killed, plus a 10% margin, just in case.