Oh good myhand finally posted.
Why did you select those specific wars to evidence your point? I think your selection is biased.
- the selection was random. There were many conflicts to chose from, making my point.
Also i could have simply quoted various International Red Cross Comitee studies, proving that the civilian to combatant death ratios have constantly risen throughout the 20th century warfare.
The IRCC claims the total ratio for the second half of the 20th century to be around 10 civilians for 1 combatant.
Didnt the Mongols wipe out entire cities? Baghdad etc.
- Yes they did. And I admit that the Mongols seem to be the foremost exception to this rule. Since their death toll reaches up to 60 million people, they have been an all time high menace for mankind. But their vicitims didnt necessary die in "war" or conflict, but generally were slaughtered after the fighting. So the mongol conflicts should be considered genocide much more than war.
The chechen war is not in any way a typical example of modern war,...
- why is the chechen war no typical example of a modern war? A superpowers warmachine invading a small country is as modern as the vietnam war and the various afghanistan wars by russia or the "coalition" forces.
..., why did you choose not to quote the ratio in the gulf wars?
- Because the gulf war is more difficult to put into numbers.
Even though the terrain in which the fighting occured very much favored the superior state of the art US warmachine (being all flat open desert and wasteland) against 1960s to 70s russian wargear deployed by the iraqis, which obviously should lead to a more favorable combatant to civilian death ratio, it did not.
Estimates claim around 35.000 iraqi soldier deaths to about 100.000 civilians.
The problem with this war: Due to the ammuntion used it left a tremendous ecological catastrophe as heritage which still claims many deaths decades after the actual fighting.
So US veterans did still die after the war on its effects as much as the iraq civilian population still continues to suffer and die on its effects.
For instance the the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital, Iraq rose from 1.37 per 1000 life births in October 1994 to October 1995, to 23 per 1000 lifebirths in 2003.
US Veteran Initiatives or other independent sources claim the US soldier death toll in the Gulf war to have reached more than 70.000 by now.
Why didnt you expand by explaining the reason this ratio is shifting? It is relevant to your point.
Why are you fixating on the ratio of human beings killed? Isnt 800 civilians killed in years of military presence much better than most wars? Isnt the strategic importance of killing 22 leaders extremely high? Much higher than of killing ~800 combatants.
-You touch various topics that would demand more explanation than I am willing to give for the time being. It could easily be a topic for an own thread. But let me ask you this? What is Al Qaeda? Do you know anything about it? Did you read into it? Do you know how it functions or what is summarized under its banner?
Who is a leader of an organization that is split into countless cells that operate independently from each other. Al Qaeda is an idea or ideology more than a stiff organization. So everyone operating under its lose idea can be considered an Al Qaeda leader.
So killing an Al Qaeda "leader" is no different from killing an Al Qaeda combatant.
It seems like youre pushing an agenda with your post.
-Yes I am pushing an agenda with my post. Everybody is pushing an agenda of some sort. My agenda is to inform you and enlighten you beyond the information that is given you by jingoistic, propagandistic mainstream media. In fact, I am doing what you should do by yourself.
But what is your agenda? Produce yourself in yet another forum thread? Or are you seriously interested in filling gaps of knowledge or trading superficial information with solid facts?
On the surface youre anti-drones, why?
-I thought i gave you some good reasons why in my previous post. If that wasnt clear to you, let me elaborate it some more.
Drones can easily be operated out of any democratic control. It is not much needed to deploy a drone and commence a drone strike.
The foremost goal of all people all over the world will be to realize that they are on the same side. That their true fight is forcing their governments into accepting international law and making people in charge accountable for all their actions before international courts of justice. This will be the challenge of the 21st century and the only way to enforce permanent peace and justice all over the world.
The pluto- and autocratic governments realized that already and they will do whatever they can to prevent this from happening. Misinformation and propaganda being their favored tools of action.
Furthermore drones cause more collateral murder than most other forms of engagement. How could i possibly sanction this? How could anybody else?
There seems to be a big backlash against drones, and I dont think its justified.
-Maybe thats because no rocket killed your brother/sister/lover/mother/father/child yet, claiming to have hit a terrorist as well. Why it is so difficult for some to apply the same basic human rights to every living being really does elude me.
Did you research these numbers and examples yourself or are you parroting another website?
-Thats a pretty pretentious assumption. You have contributed nothing substantial to this discussion yet yourself, but you accuse me of parroting other webstites. My knowledge comes from countless various sources and i can provide you with links for every to direct sources for every claim i make.
That is far more than you do by having a superficial "feeling" of things not being quiet right.
Start arguing piggy, or listen and learn.