Forum: F-22A Raptor

You know, some of you guys in this forum really need a reality check or you need to put on a uniform, be trained, get yourself into a real combat environment and see just how a battle is being fought these days and the consideration and great pains taken to try and avoid civilian casualties.

There is no "clean battles or gun fights anymore", it is only the stuff movies are made of (a pipe dream). Try paying attention to what is happening globally, I mean it...really, look around for a minute with a clear vision.

Terrorists go all out for maximum damage. death and destruction. They don't wear uniforms and look for surgical strikes in combat, they blend in with the general public, get women and children to blow themselves up, build hospitals then hide or store "arms and explosives there" knowing full well that is against the very fabric of cilivizaed mankind and rules against armed conflict but do it anyway. That now becomes a military target and when hit, many of you bitch about it. They bring it on themselves, they are cowards and plan murders, no real nation pride because they fight like animals hiding within their own populations.

So yes, where the hell is the clean war many of you think should be fought, it is NOT POSSIBLE and your either too stupid or don't care to really look and see what is happening. It is a war against terror globally...get used to the idea, then stop these SOB's from operating and maybe, just maybe, we can save innocent life's and try and get along, until then, if I had my way...I kill ever goddamned terrorists I could to make the world a better place and "if: a few civilians die that shielded them or let them hide among them, screw them too.

Some of you are living and arguing about a world that does not exist, it will never exist until this reign of terror is stopped at all costs.. For crying out loud, just pay attention to the world as a whole, crazies are everywhere and there is no signs of it getting better. Damn, some of you people are very stupid and are living in cyberspace...better wake up and smell the coffee and take a stance while you still can.

Oh yes, the US and UK armed forces automatic assumption that we are the best. We thought that on previous occasions too BTW, but events proved otherwise... Never allow patriotism or propaganda to lead you to under-estimate your potential enemy, nor to over-estimate yourself. (IMO the US and UK are amongst the best trained, and the US is certainly the best equipped, but no nation's armed forces, however well trained are infallible, neither are they invincible).

Only recent conflicts are truely worthy of comparison - accurate delivery of weapons on pinpoint targets was still in it's infancy while Vietnam was drawing to a close, and the nature of conflict and air warfare has changed considerably since the days of the bi-polar cold war (let alone anti-insurgency warfare of the type experienced in the last few years).


FYI the number of 'true' civilians (rather than a dead terrorist without a gun) killed by NATO in Kosovo is far more than even the highest casualty claims in Lebanon; and the IDF/AF appear to have flown a similar ammount of strike missions than in '99. In Kosovo, along with every other conflict the west has fought since 1974, our pilots were instrusted not to drop if in doubt. That is purely a political decision as the 'other side' would gain an enormous media victory from the following carnage - in short it was deemed acceptable to increase the risk to our assets at the expense of winning the media battle. Kosovo, like previous low level conflicts was not 'total war' and you would see very different ROE should we experience the latter any time soon.
If a target is deliberately concealed in amongst civilian area, then the threat posed by that target has to be taken into account, weighed against the political/media backlash of collateral damage and civilian casualties. In Kosovo, NATO decided 'no' in most occasions - the Israeli government have obviously decided that the threat is sufficient. I will mention again, that considering the number of air strikes the IDF/AF have launched the number of civilian caualties is very low, and I really wonder if any other nation could have performed any better...


My background, like many others on this forum, is something I am not comfortable to discuss merely to prove a point to another poster. I am former military, from the UK to be exact, and originally trained as a photographic interpreter in the days of the Soviet 'threat'. Those were the days of 'total war', and I can assure you that the primary concern was to keep your forces intact and you would certainly 'pull the trigger' if the alternative was to increase the risk to yourself or your colleagues. (<activating facetious mode> "oh look, I'm tracking a Scarab next to that farmhouse - I won't instigate a paveway enema as I may kill Babe in his sty and I do hope the Scarab doesn't launch with a VX warhead...")

If I encounter a topic where I feel I am in a position to add details, or to correct the errors of others, then I feel a certain obligation - I do not often enter into the 'who' or 'what' is best' discussions for exactly the reasons shown by some people in this post!

BTW, don't forget both Hizbollah and Hamas were both elected by these 'civilians', specifically with a mandate to use violence against Israel, including direct threats to Israeli civilians (not to mention frequent calls for Israeel's complete annihilation) - both groups also run 'summer camps' where children are taught how to use weapons, along with the usual political/religous indoctrination (the youngest suicide bomber confirmed in the Gaza Strip was just 9 years old, and an 8 year old was turned over to Palestinian police in 2003 by his parents after he came home wearing a bomb-belt given to him and his friend!!!).

Now, shall we try to get this back on topic, and try to keep the personal 'slanging match' to a minimum?

Pffffttttt..... Must control myself while typing educational responses... (and apologies for the double post)

Vietnam, yes it was a bit of a mess... I notice you do not mention the number of Vietnamese executed by the North: before, during and after the war? Figures of between 650,000 to 2.4 mil are often fielded.

Iraq in '91- how about the 25,000 Kuwaitis killed in the occupation. A war they didn't start nor provoke (BTW, it is likely more Iraqi civilians died by AA fire and SAM's returning to earth than by Coalition weapons - the Iraqis deliberately removed the self-destruct on numerous missiles in the hope of a proximity kill on it's return to earth - after all, a hit is a hit, even if it was the result of luck).
Any mentions of the number of Iraqis killed by Mr Hussein while were on the subject...? It is likely he is directly responsible for more muslim deaths than any other person in modern history (Stalin may compete but estimates of his tally vary wildly).

Kosovo/Balkans - less than 0.5% of civilian fatalities in the Balkans were the result of NATO action - where were the protests while Serb forces were 'ethnic clensing', or shooting hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians. The entire death toll since 1993 was around the 700,000 mark!

Afghanistan - very few 'true' civilians killed by 'NATO' (<1000) in this round of operations. Again, the existing regime actively supported Al Qaeda and when you are faced with an entire nation supporting a fanatical terrorist organisation the results can be catastrophic if you sit by and do nothing
(For those of you who want to be depressed, just imagine what 9/11 would have been like if there was a few kg's of VX on each plane, or a dirty bomb, etc. A crazy with a bomb can appear anywhere, and he/she may kill a few hundred people - a well funded group of crazies with support from a nation can kill tens of millions and cause the entire world economy to collapse. Anyone still want to see Iran develop uranium enrichment? ).

Japan, 1945. 180,000 deaths (possibly up to 250,000 if you allow for longer term effects) compared to the predicted loss of 2-3 million allied service personnel, and 7-15 million dead Japanese if the war had continued, almost all of which would have been civilians under your definition of the term. I also notice you did not mention the Japanese toll of Chinese civilians.

And lastly, I hear this civilian argument far too often. For those of you who don't know what a civilian is, here's a little conundrum for you: Who is a valid target in time of 'total war', ie World War 2? I'll keep it with an aviation theme:

The person piloting the bomber flying over your city?
The person aiming the bombs in the bomber flying over your city?
The person who loaded the bombs onto the bomber flying over your city?
The person who fuelled the bomber flying over your city?
The person who delivered the bombs to the airfield?
The person who maintains the bomb at the distribution depot?
The person who delivered the bombs to the distribution depot?
The person in the factory who made the chemicals for the bombs?
The person in the mines who made the raw materials?
The person in the farms who planted the food to feed the pilot and all the others?

Who really is a civilian under these circumstances? Except for very young children, just how many people are really NOT involved with that very messy business of making war...?

Right, that's the last post for me for today, someone else take over please...