I’m not trying to start a fight here and I’m not trolling with a rhetorical question, but how many civilian casualties resulted from the use of military weaponry ordered by the Clinton administration during its 8 years? This would include Kosovo, the aspirin factory in Sudan, the Chinese embassy in Belgrade(?), Somolia, Waco, the cruise missile attacks on Baghdad, and others?
The reason I ask is certainly motivated by political contention, but and I’d really like to know.
The number you are asking for is:
impossible to determine exactly because of many factors, including definitions. Are you counting civilian casualties caused by allies in a war? or only caused by agents whose tax form says they work directly for the U.S. Governement?
Almost certainly less than similar Republicans. When Dole was running against Clinton, he paid several conservative think tanks to investigate Clinton’s stand - they wanted to see if he was soft. They reported that Clinton was in fact very strong on foreign policy, and had appointed people that did a better anti-terrorism policy than Reagan and Bush had. He was considered to have saved many lives by quick intervention. For this reason Dole never tried to play up the fact that Clinton was “Soft”
Not really relevant because the times are dramatically different. Bush ruled through the very end of the Soviet Union, so Clinton had it easy in many ways because the major bad guy was gone and all the lesser bad guys needed a decade or so to reorganize themselves to live in a world without the Evil Empire supporting them.
The numbers, whichever definiton you use, are probably going to be HEAVILY in favor of Clinton, and the huge expense of Bush and Reagan.
Well, ok, I’m not really aiming for this to get into an ‘us vs. them’ arguement. Nor a Clinton vs. Dole debate. In fact I’ve tried to avoid any implication about “who was/is worse than who” or indeed even my own political leanings. Nor was I asking for opinion on “Softness” I’m merely asking for reasonably accurate statistical data.
Indignation has been expressed by the Iraqi government officials as well as people in this and other countries about the number of civilian casualties that the present conflict in Iraq has produced. My interpretation of these protestations and news reports is that a civilian casualty is defined as the death or serious injury of a non-combatant, and that is the definition I am using.
I refer to a number of incidents that happened on Clinton’s watch and that involved U.S. military strikes resulting in serious injury and death of non-combatants. For example, a number of persons were injured and killed in an errant U.S. missile attack on a Chinese embassy (I can’t remember, but I think it was in Belgrade - doesn’t matter), and presumably this U.S. missile was fired by U.S. military personnel fom a U.S. platform on orders at least approved by U.S. executive branch officials.
It’s a good question, and I do hope this thread gets some sort of answer before it devolves into (at best) a GD.
Here’s a start: http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato207.htm claims about 500 civilian casualties due to the NATO campaign. Human Rights Watch AFAIK has a reasonably solid reputation. Not all of those casualties are properly attributed to the U.S., of course. I also think it is important to note that life in Kosovo before the campaign was, I believe, a lot riskier than life in Iraq before this war started. Note that riskier does not necessarily mean harder or less pleasant – it just means riskier.
–Cliffy
Sorry I don’t have any numbers for you, but in regards to the apparent difference in sensitivity towards civilian casualties, you don’t have to go back as far as Clinton. Estimates of civilian deaths from the Afghanistan war bombings start at 1000 and go up to just under 4000. Why was there not such widespread indignation expressed then?
Loss of civilian life is tragic enough during wars that are deemed justified but it’s accepted or minimized because of the particular cause that the war was fought for. The Iraq war is widely thought to be unjustified and the cause suspect, so civilian death is seen as unnecessary and therefore more tragic, and people on both sides are more sensitized to it.
Then stay out of GQ until you do.
Hmm. How do you define riskier? I understand that there were many snipers hiding out. But I just saw an interview with some 20-something Iraqis who escaped and they made an interesting point.
They said that in Iraqi homes, children are made to understand early on that if they say something outside of the house that could be interpreted as the family’s true feelings towards the Ba’ath party, the family could be in a world of trouble.
Children had this incredible burden to watch their tongue – not for swear words – but for words that could get their father killed.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that there are many kids of “risk.” Some aren’t as evident as others but just as deadly.
I agree – obviously, the analysis of how “bad” any given risk is or the importantce thereof is a matter for a different forum.
–Cliffy