Off-topic posts removed from view. Please keep it civil.

Most official accounts of the kill ratio in the Viet Nam war at slightly better than 50-1 and the side with the 50 did not win.

I read recently that in armed conflict a quite common ratio of belligerents killed relative to civilians was 1 to 10, now great play is made by some of words such as 'suspected'. However when the bearded warriors routinely hide behind the dresses of their womenfolk or use children as walking explosive devices then 'suspected' is about as good as you are likely to get, though for some reason I can't quite fathom the cries of indignation over the use of suicide bombers or human shields never seems to reach the pitch that it does with drones, which as oppose to carpet bombing the place is almost certain to reduce the ratio of civilian deaths versus armed militants.

Most official accounts of the kill ratio in the Viet Nam war at slightly better than 50-1 and the side with the 50 did not win.

I didn't think anybody won ( Just teasing but yes I understand the point )

I read recently that in armed conflict a quite common ratio of belligerents killed relative to civilians was 1 to 10, now great play is made by some of words such as 'suspected'. However when the bearded warriors routinely hide behind the dresses of their womenfolk or use children as walking explosive devices then 'suspected' is about as good as you are likely to get, though for some reason I can't quite fathom the cries of indignation over the use of suicide bombers or human shields never seems to reach the pitch that it does with drones, which as oppose to carpet bombing the place is almost certain to reduce the ratio of civilian deaths versus armed militants.

The U.S. bashers are going to object to any tactic that effectively kills Islamic terrorists and might eventually drive them out of business.

I read recently that in armed conflict a quite common ratio of belligerents killed relative to civilians was 1 to 10, now great play is made by some of words such as 'suspected'. However when the bearded warriors routinely hide behind the dresses of their womenfolk or use children as walking explosive devices then 'suspected' is about as good as you are likely to get, though for some reason I can't quite fathom the cries of indignation over the use of suicide bombers or human shields never seems to reach the pitch that it does with drones, which as oppose to carpet bombing the place is almost certain to reduce the ratio of civilian deaths versus armed militants.

I pretty much agree with your logic. I do not agree however, that civilians should be a part of the combat process whereby these civilians actually fire the rocket at the opponent and I know this is what is happening. Regardless of the party line about the Air Force pilots operating the drones we are stepping over the line and using CIA handlers. Whatever the rules of warfare happen to be, that is what I favor. Currently, civilians doing the shooting is a criminal offense.

Yes, I beleive the current exchange rate is 24 Pakistani Border guards for annoying one US Special Forces patrol. The goat herders are tough. It's like trying to convert Nigerian money. You need scientific notation to cut down the zeros

As for taking out the leaders, we keep trying but they refuse to hold up the big orange marker signs like we asked them too.

But surely they do, that's why the drones are so succesful isn't it? Otherwise they would just be killing suspects and innocents with the occasional lucky hit........oh wait....

We are spending millions of dollars on smart weapons to try to minimize unintended casualties. In fact the unintended casualties in this type of war are probably lower than any time in all of human history. The simple fact is, unless you have combatants that are kind enough to clearly distinguish themselves from noncombatants (which is why combatants from CIVILIZED nations wear uniforms) and Seperate themselves from civilian populations by building bases like we do, then a zero rate of unintended casualties is impossible. The enemy wears the same clothes as his innocent counterpart, and lives among them. He attacks our bases, then runs and hides behind his women SPECIFICALLY so women and children WILL be killed when we attack him, then he wails and crys from the camera and the bleeding hearts cry for his loss. Don't be Naiive. We do what we can to prevent this, but it is impossible to eliminate it. The only other option is to stop caring at all and just wipe out entire villages, leaving nobody to cry for the cameras. While I personally don't see the issue with this, America doesn't behave that way. Our enemy routinely targets civilians and civilian population centers in the most cowardly ways, but we are the bad guys. So be it.

We are spending millions of dollars on smart weapons to try to minimize unintended casualties. In fact the unintended casualties in this type of war are probably lower than any time in all of human history. The simple fact is, unless you have combatants that are kind enough to clearly distinguish themselves from noncombatants (which is why combatants from CIVILIZED nations wear uniforms) and Seperate themselves from civilian populations by building bases like we do, then a zero rate of unintended casualties is impossible.

Seems the unintended casualties are all on one side though?

So by minimize I think most has said & agree it is so as to not send US soldiers into the fray

Yet the reality in Pakistan is that the drone program is run 100% by the CIA no US military

As many have said this is a problem not becoming of a Constitutional Republic such as our (USA)

There are no checks & balances....None...Yet historically we were the ones to point out war crimes.

Now it seems we turn a blind eye to them or deny any & all claims....Easy as there is no trace to begin with.

As for uniforms & the reasons you would like to attribute to the none use of the.....

This is a classic guerrilla warfare example.

Those that are defending their turf from occupiers do what they need to do in trying to level the field a bit.

It is not like they are 100% organized as would be expected in a tribal lands such as Afghanistan & Pakistan

Which is ultimately why no invading forces have ever had success there & all know how they have tried.

Look at history Persians, Greeks, Alexander the Great, British, Soviets

The prize at the end will be the same as always

As such it is a waste of lives....again on both side

Flying stated: " Seems the unintended casualties are all on one side though?"

I don't recall the other side ever caring about unintended casualties. As a general rule they don't mind killing many of their own just to get a few of ours.

The CIA, probably has the best and most reliable intelligence to make a strike. Time is of the essence, the targets don't hang around long and if they do, then a drone strike wouldn't be necessary. Case in point Osama Bin Laden.

Flying stated: " Seems the unintended casualties are all on one side though?"

I don't recall the other side ever caring about unintended casualties. As a general rule they don't mind killing many of their own just to get a few of ours.

The CIA, probably has the best and most reliable intelligence to make a strike. Time is of the essence, the targets don't hang around long and if they do, then a drone strike wouldn't be necessary. Case in point Osama Bin Laden.

Of course I agree about the other side but feel I have a say in how our government acts out.

I do not have a say in how barbarians act out nor do I compare our country to theirs.

As for the CIA having the best...I cannot agree & facts or tallies support the same.

I know it is not easy to tally since the CIA has adopted a Gestapo like stance against America with no admissions of who or how many they have killed there. As such yes I have relied on various world organizations & of course the majority come from outside America as America has not a tally.

Yet other western countries & groups have reported as best they could & the numbers have not been good.

This I have a problem with.

As for OBL............no real comment on the claimed response/action except I will say this........

The night Obama was going to announce the feather in his cap event...It was leaked before he could make his announcement.

I had friends calling me asking me if I heard the claimed news. I asked each to please bet with me...The bet being once ounce of gold in the form of a Gold Eagle.

The bet I proposed is that we will never see the body nor will there be any independent proof/DNA etc.

Sadly none would take my bet....Then again they are not stupid.

Edited January 25, 201214 yr by flying

The bet I proposed is that we will never see the body nor will there be any independent proof/DNA etc.

Sadly none would take my bet....

Too bad for them as they would have won the bet.

The Obama Administration used several methods, including DNA testing, to confirm that U.S. Navy Seals did in fact kill Osama bin Laden in a weekend raid in Pakistan, U.S. officials said on Monday.

Read more: http://healthland.ti.../#ixzz1kRbF3wwe

Edited January 25, 201214 yr by Ulysses G.

The bet I proposed is that we will never see the body nor will there be any independent proof/DNA etc.

Sadly none would take my bet....

Too bad for them as they would have won the bet.

The Obama Administration used several methods, including DNA testing, to confirm that U.S. Navy Seals did in fact kill Osama bin Laden in a weekend raid in Pakistan, U

.S. officials said on Monday.

Read more: http://healthland.ti.../#ixzz1kRbF3wwe

As I said...Independent proof........Nice to hear you believe everything the Obama administration says though I cannot share your faith

Edited January 25, 201214 yr by flying

Yes, I beleive the current exchange rate is 24 Pakistani Border guards for annoying one US Special Forces patrol. The goat herders are tough. It's like trying to convert Nigerian money. You need scientific notation to cut down the zeros

As for taking out the leaders, we keep trying but they refuse to hold up the big orange marker signs like we asked them too.

But surely they do, that's why the drones are so succesful isn't it? Otherwise they would just be killing suspects and innocents with the occasional lucky hit........oh wait....

We are spending millions of dollars on smart weapons to try to minimize unintended casualties. In fact the unintended casualties in this type of war are probably lower than any time in all of human history. The simple fact is, unless you have combatants that are kind enough to clearly distinguish themselves from noncombatants (which is why combatants from CIVILIZED nations wear uniforms) and Seperate themselves from civilian populations by building bases like we do, then a zero rate of unintended casualties is impossible. The enemy wears the same clothes as his innocent counterpart, and lives among them. He attacks our bases, then runs and hides behind his women SPECIFICALLY so women and children WILL be killed when we attack him, then he wails and crys from the camera and the bleeding hearts cry for his loss. Don't be Naiive. We do what we can to prevent this, but it is impossible to eliminate it. The only other option is to stop caring at all and just wipe out entire villages, leaving nobody to cry for the cameras. While I personally don't see the issue with this, America doesn't behave that way. Our enemy routinely targets civilians and civilian population centers in the most cowardly ways, but we are the bad guys. So be it.

I do not have a problem with carpet bombing the entire country as long as a legal government action to properly declare a war is first taken. If you don't declare war, why would the enemy, who we really can't identity individually with any degree of accuracy, stop living his normal life and sit in a fire free zone so we can shoot at him? They are not hiding, they are simply not fighing a war, they are terrorists. They take their kids to school and go shoping in the stores with their family just like any other person. You seem to be advocating that they all paint targets on their backs and remain detached from their homes and families so that it is easier to kill them with little or no collateral damage. If only it were that simple.

It helps dehumanize the enemy to declare that he does not love his children. That is a fool's notion.

To me, it is very understandable why a terrorist would not live his life in a manner in which we approve. If they were actually able to do that, there probably would not be a problem at all.

The bet I proposed is that we will never see the body nor will there be any independent proof/DNA etc.

Sadly none would take my bet....

Too bad for them as they would have won the bet.

The Obama Administration used several methods, including DNA testing, to confirm that U.S. Navy Seals did in fact kill Osama bin Laden in a weekend raid in Pakistan, U

.S. officials said on Monday.

Read more: http://healthland.ti.../#ixzz1kRbF3wwe

As I said...Independent proof........Nice to hear you believe everything the Obama administration says though I cannot share your faith

Al Queda admitted that he is dead, but I guess that that is not enough either.

Al Queda admitted that he is dead, but I guess that that is not enough either.

I also admitted .....myself...years earlier.

Not that anyone telling you I admitted it would be taken seriously by you.

Same goes for me hearing a third party say someone said xyz

Let us return to topic then as this is an old tale & I only was responding to Credo's case in point sidebar

Edited January 25, 201214 yr by flying

Yes, I beleive the current exchange rate is 24 Pakistani Border guards for annoying one US Special Forces patrol. The goat herders are tough. It's like trying to convert Nigerian money. You need scientific notation to cut down the zeros

As for taking out the leaders, we keep trying but they refuse to hold up the big orange marker signs like we asked them too.

But surely they do, that's why the drones are so succesful isn't it? Otherwise they would just be killing suspects and innocents with the occasional lucky hit........oh wait....

We are spending millions of dollars on smart weapons to try to minimize unintended casualties. In fact the unintended casualties in this type of war are probably lower than any time in all of human history. The simple fact is, unless you have combatants that are kind enough to clearly distinguish themselves from noncombatants (which is why combatants from CIVILIZED nations wear uniforms) and Seperate themselves from civilian populations by building bases like we do, then a zero rate of unintended casualties is impossible. The enemy wears the same clothes as his innocent counterpart, and lives among them. He attacks our bases, then runs and hides behind his women SPECIFICALLY so women and children WILL be killed when we attack him, then he wails and crys from the camera and the bleeding hearts cry for his loss. Don't be Naiive. We do what we can to prevent this, but it is impossible to eliminate it. The only other option is to stop caring at all and just wipe out entire villages, leaving nobody to cry for the cameras. While I personally don't see the issue with this, America doesn't behave that way. Our enemy routinely targets civilians and civilian population centers in the most cowardly ways, but we are the bad guys. So be it.

You personally don't see the issue with this?

From your statement it is apparent you are just as extremist as you have no issue if the US acted as terrorists. You show the same qualities as the terrorists you wish to kill.

Enough said really.

They are not hiding, they are simply not fighing a war, they are terrorists.

Yes, they target innocent civilians and do not wear uniform so are not covered by the Geneva Convention and can be killed at will. Yet, some keep harping about their "rights" being violated by the military

Al Queda admitted that he is dead, but I guess that that is not enough either.

Since when have you believed what anyone in Al Queda says?

Must remember that next time you ask for a reliable source.

Drones are cowardly weapons. Something un manned thing smashing into a place they "suspect" a "suspected" "terrorist" is. Who cares about the innocent people that might be around the " suspected" "terrorist"

Cowardly? Guns are cowardly. We need to bring back the days of swords, clubs and knives. Anything that isn't up close and personal is just the coward's way of fighting. Is that what you're getting at?

They are not hiding, they are simply not fighing a war, they are terrorists.

Yes, they target innocent civilians and do not wear uniform so are not covered by the Geneva Convention and can be killed at will. Yet, some keep harping about their "rights" being violated by the military

Who targets innocent civilians?

In case you haven't noticed, nearly all the reports of drone attacks are those on SUSPECTED terrorists. So they could actually just be people going about their normal business without causing harm to anyone.

Yes they have rights, the US is not at war with Pakistan. Why shouldn't they have rights in their own country.

From what you say then the people who died in the 911 attacks had no rights either.

Oh Pulease!

We are spending millions of dollars on smart weapons to try to minimize unintended casualties. In fact the unintended casualties in this type of war are probably lower than any time in all of human history. The simple fact is, unless you have combatants that are kind enough to clearly distinguish themselves from noncombatants (which is why combatants from CIVILIZED nations wear uniforms) and Seperate themselves from civilian populations by building bases like we do, then a zero rate of unintended casualties is impossible.

Seems the unintended casualties are all on one side though?

Is there a problem with that? That's a serious question. Do you believe that unless each side has a relatively equal number of unintended casualties then somehow war isn't fair?

They are not hiding, they are simply not fighing a war, they are terrorists.

Yes, they target innocent civilians and do not wear uniform so are not covered by the Geneva Convention and can be killed at will. Yet, some keep harping about their "rights" being violated by the military

Who targets innocent civilians?

Terrorists. It's what they do.

Yes, I beleive the current exchange rate is 24 Pakistani Border guards for annoying one US Special Forces patrol. The goat herders are tough. It's like trying to convert Nigerian money. You need scientific notation to cut down the zeros

As for taking out the leaders, we keep trying but they refuse to hold up the big orange marker signs like we asked them too.

But surely they do, that's why the drones are so succesful isn't it? Otherwise they would just be killing suspects and innocents with the occasional lucky hit........oh wait....

We are spending millions of dollars on smart weapons to try to minimize unintended casualties. In fact the unintended casualties in this type of war are probably lower than any time in all of human history. The simple fact is, unless you have combatants that are kind enough to clearly distinguish themselves from noncombatants (which is why combatants from CIVILIZED nations wear uniforms) and Seperate themselves from civilian populations by building bases like we do, then a zero rate of unintended casualties is impossible. The enemy wears the same clothes as his innocent counterpart, and lives among them. He attacks our bases, then runs and hides behind his women SPECIFICALLY so women and children WILL be killed when we attack him, then he wails and crys from the camera and the bleeding hearts cry for his loss. Don't be Naiive. We do what we can to prevent this, but it is impossible to eliminate it. The only other option is to stop caring at all and just wipe out entire villages, leaving nobody to cry for the cameras. While I personally don't see the issue with this, America doesn't behave that way. Our enemy routinely targets civilians and civilian population centers in the most cowardly ways, but we are the bad guys. So be it.

I do not have a problem with carpet bombing the entire country as long as a legal government action to properly declare a war is first taken. If you don't declare war, why would the enemy, who we really can't identity individually with any degree of accuracy, stop living his normal life and sit in a fire free zone so we can shoot at him? They are not hiding, they are simply not fighing a war, they are terrorists. They take their kids to school and go shoping in the stores with their family just like any other person. You seem to be advocating that they all paint targets on their backs and remain detached from their homes and families so that it is easier to kill them with little or no collateral damage. If only it were that simple.

It helps dehumanize the enemy to declare that he does not love his children. That is a fool's notion.

To me, it is very understandable why a terrorist would not live his life in a manner in which we approve. If they were actually able to do that, there probably would not be a problem at all.

So you both have no problem with carpet bombing and flying even "likes" this post? As long as we're getting extreme, why not just nuke them? We'd get rid of the terrorists and piss off the military-industrial complex at the same time.

Terrorists. It's what they do.

You may find these interesting...or not

http://blog.chron.com/texassparkle/2012/01/its-time-to-end-the-pakistan-drone-strikes/

Noor Behram, a photographer in Pakistan makes it his mission to go to the places that are bombed to photograph the reality.

Behram says his painstaking work has uncovered an important – and unreported – truth about the US drone campaign in Pakistan’s tribal region

“For every 10 to 15 people killed, maybe they get one militant,” he said. “I don’t go to count how many Taliban are killed. I go to count how many children, women, innocent people, are killed.”

http://www.cjr.org/feature/covering_obamas_secret_war.php?page=all

Rohde is one of the only Americans to see the drones up close: not, it turned out, as a reporter, but as a prisoner. His first-hand perspective on the strike is rare, and the novelty of his reporting underscores the difficulties of covering this new kind of war

So you both have no problem with carpet bombing and flying even "likes" this post? As long as we're getting extreme, why not just nuke them? We'd get rid of the terrorists and piss off the military-industrial complex at the same time.

You should try at least to comprehend what I like before twisting it.

Same goes for Pakboongs post which you twisted or did not comprehend as to what would be accepted.

As for Nukes.....I only know of one country that has ever used them ...& that was used on a civilian population.

Edited January 25, 201214 yr by flying

Is there a problem with that? That's a serious question. Do you believe that unless each side has a relatively equal number of unintended casualties then somehow war isn't fair?

Yes unless of course you agree with such?

I see you do & that is your prerogative

Is there a problem with that? That's a serious question. Do you believe that unless each side has a relatively equal number of unintended casualties then somehow war isn't fair?

Yes unless of course you agree with such?

I see you do & that is your prerogative

Though I'm not sure what that has to do with it as no one is at war with Pakistan.

Is there a problem with that? That's a serious question. Do you believe that unless each side has a relatively equal number of unintended casualties then somehow war isn't fair?

Yes unless of course you agree with such?

I see you do & that is your prerogative

OK, then, what is your best estimate of innocent people (collateral damage) killed? 100? 1000? 10000?

Is there a problem with that? That's a serious question. Do you believe that unless each side has a relatively equal number of unintended casualties then somehow war isn't fair?

Yes unless of course you agree with such?

I see you do & that is your prerogative

Though I'm not sure what that has to do with it as no one is at war with Pakistan.

Tell that to the families of the people being blown up by missile fire.

OK, then, what is your best estimate of innocent people (collateral damage) killed? 100? 1000? 10000?

People on the ground counting say for every one militant killed 10-15 innocents dead

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5004180

According to Noor Behram, the strikes not only kill the innocent but injure untold numbers and radicalise the population. “There are just pieces of flesh lying around after a strike. You can’t find bodies. So the locals pick up the flesh and curse America. They say that America is killing us inside our own country, inside our own homes, and only because we are Muslims.

“The youth in the area surrounding a strike gets crazed. Hatred builds up inside those who have seen a drone attack. The Americans think it is working, but the damage they’re doing is far greater.”

Pretty understandable.....The hatred I mean....If it were in your town I tend to think you would feel the same

Edited January 25, 201214 yr by flying