>Oh, don't you wish! Why not go for 50,000,
>Charles? Hell, 75! All those
>corpses, real and imagined, must help you get
>through the day. Why scrimp?
>Indulge yourself! DP
Think about it. Let's suppose the civilian dead is the lowest figure--like 1000. What are you going to tell me? That the US precision bombing killed 1000 civilians and no combatants? That it killed 1 civilian for every combatant? That it killed 1 civilian for every 10 combatants? Even if we said it killed 1 civilian for every 20 combatants, what sort of precision bombing are we talking about? Either the US forces killed more civilians than they did combatants. Or they killed as many civilians as they did combatants. Which hardly means precision bombing. Or it killed more combatants that it did civilians. Even at 20:1 combatants to civilians dead, this means (1) very little precision bombing or (2) it means the US more or less knew it was targetting civilians most of the time it bombed. So let's just take the US at its word. This was the most precise bombing they've ever done (actually slaughtering 20,000 fleeing Iraqis south of Basra was precise, it just wasn't actual warfare, merely slaughter). So if they killed even 1000 civilians, it means a ratio of what? 10:1--10,000 combatants dead. 20:1--20,000 combatants dead. 30:1--30,000 combatants dead. And so on. How many people did the Taliban and Al Qaeda actually field to take the pummeling? How would I know based on information provided by the US government? I wouldn't know anything. We've only got limited information and our power of reasoning. Why don't you use yours occasionally , Dennis P.?
Charles Jannuzi
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com