Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (161306)	5/2/2005 9:56:09 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Perceptions can be important but I'm talking about the reality not perception. I think you're talking about your perception of reality. What is the ratio of civilians killed to enemy combatants in Iraq? The US government keeps no official numbers for enemy combatants killed let alone civilians killed. Any outside estimates are quickly dismissed by the Administration. You most likely hold the perception that the ratio is better because of a general statement that are weapons are more "precise". The ratio of civilians killed to "enemy combatants" killed was worse in WWII than it was in Vietnam. I could try to google that up, but since you made the statement ... What were the ratios for WWII and Vietnam? jttmab

To: TimF who wrote (161306)	5/2/2005 4:06:57 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<In Vietnam we didn't send "fleets of B-52 s" or any other type of aircraft to level Hanoi.> In a country where 75% of the population lived in rural areas, the use of carpet bombing, "defoliation" and fire bombing of non-urban areas was devastating. The civilian death toll ran in the vicinity of 2 million people, with another 3 million soldiers killed. That would make the civilian death rate 40% of the 5 million killed -- not exactly an attractive result -- unless of course wiping out ten percent of the total population is your idea of "saving" the country. The same ratio in the US would yield a total of 30 million dead, with 12 million of those from the civilian population. Hopefully, nobody will ever seek to invade and "save" our country in this manner.

To: TimF who wrote (161306)	5/3/2005 1:11:46 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<Perceptions can be important but I'm talking about the reality not perception.> The reality is that many USA soldiers are trigger-happy gun nuts. They are trained to be like that. They don't mess around. If somebody goes near an American, such as the escaping Italian hostage, it's a fusillade of ammunition. That includes their own star football players and other "friendly" fire. No doubt Iraqis have learned now to avoid Americans or risk instant corporeal disassociation. As I wrote, a lot of Iraqis see Americans as wanton killers. When you are a child and you see your family shredded, that's reality, whether the press releases agree or not. Telling the child that their parents should have stopped sooner or driven on or something won't change the perception. Telling people that their perceptions are awry isn't normally very convincing. I'm pretty sure that the USA military suffers enough friendly-fire incidents that they spend quite a bit of time in trying to get the troops to identify actual threats before letting rip. "Come on you guys. At least look for a USA military helmet before shooting their brains out." I hasten to add that the USA is probably one of the better military forces in controlling arbitrary carnage, though the British seem to be better. Mqurice