Posted: Jun 14, 2011 9:25 am
by Weaver
HomerJay wrote:
The question here is about how war is conducted, accepting that the military can act without oversight and on their own grounds is fruit loop stuff.

This is serious bullshit and needs to be challenged very robustly indeed. It's not whether it is right or wrong, Weaver wants to take away the ability of people to challenge the facts, that's why it makes children of us (well, those that accept it, anyway!).

I have never said or implied that the military should act without civilian oversight - in fact, one of my points above is that civilian oversight finds our current levels of collateral damage to not be excessive, and approves of the measures we take to avoid it.

Nor have I said that people shouldn't be able to challenge facts - but I have said that opinion which is NOT based on facts is pretty much worthless. Speculation that civilian casualties exceed legitimate target casualties is one example of this - it's uninformed (due to lack of released "body count" to make a comparison), and it's simply absurd (open source information and reporting in major media would make it quite easy to estimate the number of strikes performed annually, and compare the number of strikes in which reports of civilian casualties occurred. This wouldn't be a very accurate ratio of civilian:insurgent deaths, but it would be in the ballpark - and even uncritical reporting of insurgent CLAIMS of civilian casualties generates a ratio well below 0.10.)