(Firstly I would like to apologise if I bring things into this discussion that I read in an alternate post upon this forum, as two long pages of posts
and it being 0520 are not a good, logical combination.)
The underlying topic is an interesting one and the commentary delivered would be just as such if it wasn't for the fact that people seem more
interested in name calling. Accusing someone of being 'for' a terrorist state simply because they advocate a solution other than the use of force
is, to be blunt, foolish. (Enter the hypocrisy)
To return to the topic; the use of such calculations, as given in the first post, are, at least as I see it, an attempt at ironically (perhaps a
little humourously, although, there is nothing funny about civilian casualties) examing the effect of weaponary. Deploying massive amounts of even the
smartest weapons will eventually result in civilian deaths. It is perhaps this that is the greatest cause for concern, civilians are an acceptable
loss; this isn't to say that they've become targets but rather that governments are willing to trade the lives of the 'innocent' for the deaths of
Does this make the government (used generally) a heartless entity that kills, and lies about non-military damage, simply for the sake of it? No. There
are generally acceptable reasons for the deaths of civilians, even if these situations are regretable. Why does the government attempt to 'cover up'
such incidents? One cannot be sure, yet we can assume that those which makes such decisions are privy to a substantially higher degree of information
than the majority (Hell, I'll go out on a limb and say all) of us. (Us used in reference to those that post here, including the guy that strips for a
photographer every day.)
This raises yet another question; are these deaths truly justifiable? The answer to this question is one that every person really has to find for
themselves. Personally I believe that there are situations in which the sacrifice of innocents is necessary for the greater good. Would I sacrifice
those that I know and love to save the lives of people that I don't? To this question, in all honesty, I would answer no, for most situations.
The death of civilians can very easily be turned into propaganda, particularly to groups which are held under the sway of powerful, politically, or
for that matter religiously, aligned entities. Taking an exam that will perhaps make me unpopular with some, is the American (I guess most Western
countries in which the news media constitutes the majority of information) public. The death of one American is many times the loss compared to that
of a Somali man. By playing upon the association that the American has with other Americans it can easily be 'blown out of proportion.' It is likely
that those which control the nations we're trying to "help" can use a similar form of propaganda to portray 'us' as an evil entity.
I think I'll leave it there for now, I should probably go to sleep but I'm simply not tired.
(A final thought MT69: Were the American news networks the ones that told you about their unbiased reporting or was it an external source?)