• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Having done something before should make it easier for you to find sources this time to support your minimizations. And to be clear 50-50 is TERRIBLE and means any more serious operation we initiate is likely to kill a lot of innocent people. We’re not Israel, we only kill one innocent person for every enemy fighter, is not the reassuring statement you think it is.

    The idea of “Power is big boom” is horribly antiquated WW2 style thinking.

    You have a fantasy where precision guided bombs dropped from 10,000 feet punch cleanly through buildings to destroy terrorist heads and terrorist heads alone with no collateral damage to nearby people or buildings. Power is also having the ability to just shoot up a car because it might be getting too close to your check point, knowing that your overriding priority is maintaining control and protecting your allies and you’ll never suffer consequences for being a little overeager and making an oopsie.

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Having done something before should make it easier for you to find sources this time to support your minimizations. And to be clear 50-50 is TERRIBLE and means any more serious operation we initiate is likely to kill a lot of innocent people. We’re not Israel, we only kill one innocent person for every enemy fighter, is not the reassuring statement you think it is.

      Are you going to answer the question or not? Is your claim that Coalition forces were responsible for 80%+ of the civilian casualties in the Iraq War, and that anti-government insurgents and pro-government security forces combined were only responsible for ~20%? Because that’s the only way the math works out in favor of 50-50 (and not the 77%-23% you initially claimed)

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Your math is wrong because if you’re not looking at overall civilian casualty rate then you need to remove the allied combatants from the denominator. The Pentagon leaks have a break down that has both civilian casualty numbers and enemy forces. 66,081 civilians were killed compared to 23,984 enemy forces. If the US killed 36% of all the civilians they’d be at 1-1. Which is roughly the rate the Iraq Body Count attributes to them.

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Your math is wrong because if you’re not looking at overall civilian casualty rate then you need to remove the allied combatants from the denominator.

          I am looking at the overall civilian casualty rate for deaths by violence.

          The Iraq Body Count project puts Coalition forces as responsible for ~40% of civilian deaths during the invasion and the immediate aftermath, when Coalition civilian casualties were highest. After '03, by the Iraqi Body Count Project’s own estimates, Coalition-inflicted civilian casualties drop sharply both as an absolute number and as a proportion.

          All of this is a fucking insane detour from what started this - that America is more interested in preventing civilian casualties than Israel is, which is pretty fucking apparent from the outset and the attempt to dispute it with claims of 77% Coalition-inflicted casualties in Iraq is fucking nonsense.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I am looking at the overall civilian casualty rate for deaths by violence.

            Then it’s the original numbers you’ve been falling all over yourself to deny. You’re trying to pick apart these statistics to divide blame, but that’s an entirely different statistic, and that one very much cares who is dying. We don’t get an extra buffer on civilian deaths because one of our allies died as well.

            When deciding to start a war, the overall CCR rate is the appropriate statistic. It doesn’t matter to the civilians which side kills them, just that they’re dead because we started a war. And Israel being extremely bad doesn’t make war by less bad actors no big deal. You’ve been minimizing the cost of war throughout this, picking at a percentage here or there based on some unsupported faith in the restraint of the US war machine.

            This all started from you claiming “Our civilian casualty ratios were far from Israel’s currently claimed 50-50 (as opposed to what it actually probably is, ie 80%+ civilians).” CCRs are general measures for combats as a whole, but if you wanted to calculate a civilians killed divided by enemy killed, the US ratio in Iraq was right at that 50-50 ratio you thought was far beyond what the US would ever do.

            • PugJesus@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              When deciding to start a war, the overall CCR rate is the appropriate statistic. It doesn’t matter to the civilians which side kills them, just that they’re dead because we started a war.

              So when I explicitly noted that I was making that distinction and that the broader moral issue of being responsible for deaths as part of starting the war was a different discussion, you ignored it. Great. Good to know you wasted both of our time with this. Fucking fantastic.