"Iraqi civilian deaths avoidable"

Yeah, but it's a war. We have to sacrifice innocent lives to ensure Saddam <strike>doesn't use WMD's against America</strike>
<strike>doesn't support Al Qaeda</strike>
doesn't stand in the way of democracy for all those cute little Iraqis.
 
Leif Roar said:
According to a report by Humans Right Watch, two particular military tactics, the use of cluster munitions in populated areas and attacks on Iraqi leaders, caused hundreds of civilian deaths which could have been avoided:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3311705.stm
Click to expand...

Indeed. And if you use 0 weapons at all then only Saddam's regime will be causing the death of hundreds, thousands of civilians. But that's ok, right?
 
"Iraqi civilian deaths avoidable"
Click to expand...

Perhaps the person who claims this should go for the million dollars as no death is "avoidable."

Maybe "delayable" but death is certain.
 
c0rbin said:


Perhaps the person who claims this should go for the million dollars as no death is "avoidable."

Maybe "delayable" but death is certain.
Click to expand...

I think we all know what he meant, dimwit.
 
 
 
Re: Re: "Iraqi civilian deaths avoidable"

Grammatron said:


Indeed. And if you use 0 weapons at all then only Saddam's regime will be causing the death of hundreds, thousands of civilians. But that's ok, right?
Click to expand...

That's not the argument that's raised in the article.

It is clear that the Human Right Watch's argument is that the two tactics in question - targetted killings and the use of cluster munitions against urban areas - did not yield any real military benefits and that the civilian deaths that were caused by them could therefore have been avoided easily and without negative consequences for the US forces.
 
Re: Re: Re: "Iraqi civilian deaths avoidable"

Leif Roar said:


That's not the argument that's raised in the article.

It is clear that the Human Right Watch's argument is that the two tactics in question - targetted killings and the use of cluster munitions against urban areas - did not yield any real military benefits and that the civilian deaths that were caused by them could therefore have been avoided easily and without negative consequences for the US forces.
Click to expand...

Are you honestly saying that targeting leaders has no military benefits?
 
Grammatron said:


Are you honestly saying that targeting leaders has no military benefits?
Click to expand...

It looks like that is what Human Rights Watch is saying. One wonders why anyone would take HRW's suggestions on how wars should be fought seriously.
 
Leif Roar said:
According to a report by Humans Right Watch, two particular military tactics, the use of cluster munitions in populated areas and attacks on Iraqi leaders, caused hundreds of civilian deaths which could have been avoided:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3311705.stm
Click to expand...

I'd agree with the use of cluster bombs and other munitions of the sort not being the best thing to use in a populated area. I'd also agree that hiding troops and military targets in populated areas violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

But I still contend that removing Saddam saves far more lives in Iraq than could have been saved had the entire thing been down in the fashion of a pillow fight. Someone would have choked of a feather, gotten a tetanus from a rusty zipper, gotten suffocated, etc...
 
Honestly,
As far as wars go, has any war in recent memory been fought with the idea of saving the opposing side's civilians more?

If the US forces had such bloodlust, as some think on this board, they could have easily pulled up a few miles from Baghdad and unlimbered their heavy artilliary and turned the city to dust.

Does anyone recall the carpet bombing of Grozny a few years ago by the Russians in which thousands of civilians died?

Where were the contingents of useful idiots around the world then?
 
Mike B. said:
Honestly,
As far as wars go, has any war in recent memory been fought with the idea of saving the opposing side's civilians more?

If the US forces had such bloodlust, as some think on this board, they could have easily pulled up a few miles from Baghdad and unlimbered their heavy artilliary and turned the city to dust.

Does anyone recall the carpet bombing of Grozny a few years ago by the Russians in which thousands of civilians died?

Where were the contingents of useful idiots around the world then?
Click to expand...

Probably out looking for ways to link the US to it.;)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Iraqi civilian deaths avoidable"

Grammatron said:


Are you honestly saying that targeting leaders has no military benefits?
Click to expand...

I am not saying anything - I don't have the knowledge and skills to make worthwile statements on military tactics. I found the statements made in the article of interest, and wanted to draw attention to it and perhaps open a debate about them.

Human's Right Watch has not said that targeting leaders does not have any military benefits - but it is (as I read it) pretty close to saying that the coalition's attempts at targetted strikes in Iraq did not have any military benefits. To quote from the article:

"The report also condemns the policy of so-called precision attacks against Iraqi leadership targets.

In 50 such strikes it says no Iraqi leaders were killed but dozens of civilians were."
 
Mike B. said:
Honestly,
As far as wars go, has any war in recent memory been fought with the idea of saving the opposing side's civilians more?

If the US forces had such bloodlust, as some think on this board, they could have easily pulled up a few miles from Baghdad and unlimbered their heavy artilliary and turned the city to dust.
Click to expand...

The reason why I found this particular report interesting is because it doesn't engage in any wholesale condemnation of the US or their military operations, but rather had specific criticism against specific military tactics.

I would hope it might be possible to discuss that particular criticism, rather than jumping into the familiar "us versus them" trenches.
 
Leif Roar said:


The reason why I found this particular report interesting is because it doesn't engage in any wholesale condemnation of the US or their military operations, but rather had specific criticism against specific military tactics.

I would hope it might be possible to discuss that particular criticism, rather than jumping into the familiar "us versus them" trenches.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I misjudged your basis for this thread and I apologize.

While it would be ideal to have wars with no civilian casualties I think that is impossible. Everything has a failure rate and all sides don't play "fair" when it comes to war. I believe USA tries its hardest to bring civilians death rate to 0 and that is enough for me. As some have already stated when USA fights wars the civilians’ death rate is far below when compared to other countries. Targeting leaders is a one of the best military tactics. The less leadership the opposing force has the easier it becomes to fight.
 
Leif Roar said:


The reason why I found this particular report interesting is because it doesn't engage in any wholesale condemnation of the US or their military operations, but rather had specific criticism against specific military tactics.
Click to expand...

I believe, for example, that their criticism of targetted attacks on leadership is clearly flawed.

Only the most simplistic analysis would say "The decapitation strategy was an utter failure on military grounds, since it didn´t kill a single Iraqi leader in 50 attempts."

Keeping the opposing leadership ducking and afraid to contact their armies can have multiple benefits, from confusing the opposing armies to encouraging military units without significant Iraqi leadership oversight to surrender.

MattJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom