# 2000 and counting...



## bignick

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

over a thousand now dead...and i don't seen any signs of slowing down in this "never ending war on terror"


----------



## AaronLucia

How many people die in car accidents a year?


----------



## hardheadjarhead

AaronLucia said:
			
		

> How many people die in car accidents a year?




That, sir, is totally irrelevant.  It is a fallacious argument to intimate that the casaulties are trivial in comparison to deaths attributable to car accidents.  One might as well ask "how many people starved in Sudan this year?"  Or "how many people died of heart disease this year?"  

You could come up with ANY number greater than the 1,000 casualty figure.  The one oft quoted is the first day of the invasion of Normandy, where we lost over 6,000 dead.  It is a false analogy.  Iraq was not the world power Germany was, nor was there any question as to our mission on June 6, 1944.  There are questions about this war today that didn't exist sixty years ago, and a current loss of confidence in our President not seen since the 1970's.

Your rhetorical question only serves to do the following:

1.  It distracts from the issue with a rhetorical "sleight of hand" or legerdemain.  By doing so you ignore the relevant political issues at hand.

2.  It flippantly minimizes the deaths of those men and women who have died in Iraq.  Every one of those thousand people had a family.  I don't think any one of those ruined families would appreciate you coming up and callously telling them that the significance of their child's death is lessened somehow by comparing it the deaths on the highways here in America.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## kenpo tiger

Aaron, Now you've gone and gotten HHJH upset. Not good, believe me.

As to your remark about car accidents, and HHJH's response, there are many many incidents which can and should be remembered, the most cogent of which in relation to the war in Iraq has an anniversary this Saturday.  

Whether you agree with Mr. Bush or not, to trivialize the deaths of those willingly serving their country is abhorrent.  

Never forgive, never forget.


----------



## bignick

AaronLucia said:
			
		

> How many people die in car accidents a year?


You know what, they're all a tragedy too...not only are you dismissing the deaths of the soldiers in Iraq, you're dismissing the deaths of the people in the car crashes...I've had no less than 5 friends/family members die in car accidents within the last two years...


----------



## kenpo tiger

bignick said:
			
		

> You know what, they're all a tragedy too...not only are you dismissing the deaths of the soldiers in Iraq, you're dismissing the deaths of the people in the car crashes...I've had no less than 5 friends/family members die in car accidents within the last two years...


I think we tend to be a bit jaded when it comes to considering the gravity of each due to the media blaring so much bad news.  And, we all have our priorities and 'druthers'.

Our community is a small school district and there are annually two to three deaths of teens/young adults in cars.  No one in Iraq - yet.

When I was in high school, a lot of my classmates volunteered to go to Vietnam.  A good friend joined the Navy and served a couple tours of duty there.  He was lucky enough to come back - and in one piece.  There are a few of my classmates who didn't, and some who did who are not whole, not to mention the psychological effects.  That was a war which was considered 'dirty' and it wasn't considered morally responsible to support our troops because war was wrong.  The thinking has changed somewhat in recent years, but it doesn't diminish the sacrifice made voluntarily (in most cases).  I think that's the point here.


----------



## JPR

People die in wars. That is why you dont really want to fight them because no matter how well you do, you still have dead young men and women. Not only that, but you usually tear up the battle field so drastically that in order for the people there to survive you will have to rebuild their world for them (think Marshall Plan). When I consider the soldier I dont think it matters if a war is right or moral or just. You can hate the war, but dont hate the solider. The solider on the ground doing the fighting, bleeding and dying doesnt choose to go to war, he / she chooses to follow their oath to obey the Commander-n-Chief and go where they are told. That is why I admire them and appreciated them and why their loss is different. 



To compare the death of a soldier to a car wreck does the soldier an injustice. A car wreck is an accident. When you leave your driveway you dont expect to be in a wreck. The soldiers death isnt nearly the same. When you go out to war, you know / expect people to shoot at you. And when they shoot at you, some of you tend to die. It isnt an accident. The enemy is trying to kill you and you are trying to kill them. You are trading your life for a purpose.



Oh, and another point, some people have said that all the deaths in Vietnam were a waste. Not to me. The war may well have been a bad choice, but each of those soldiers that died there did so with honor, because they were living up to the oath to serve this country. It will be the same in this war in Iraq. Perhaps this is the wrong thing to do, and perhaps we are in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the troops that are there are showing us what is best in the human race, the ability to make the ultimate sacrifice for others even if you dont agree or understand with what you are sacrificing for. 

JPR


----------



## Feisty Mouse

JPR - I agree with you about respecting the soldiers who go to war, even if you disagree with the war itself.

I think sometimes people say "it's such a waste" not because they think it was stupid of the soldiers to fight, but because the loss of human life should have been prevented, and loyal people are/were being sent to their deaths for a reason some consider poor.  That disgraces our troops even more.


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Speaking as a sailor, I can tell you that a good number of us go to serve in this sqirmish in Iraq, and a good many of us do not agree with the reasons we are there (maybe we aren't in a majority, but we are here just the same).  Just the same, we did take an oath to protect our country and to obey the orders of our CinC.  Whether we agree with those orders or not, we will follow them. We knew what we were getting into when we volunteered to serve our Country.  Anyone thinking that they would serve without ever facing the possibility of fighting and dying is only fooling themselves.


----------



## bignick

i think it's understandable why sometimes people rail against the soldiers that return from an unpopular conflict/war...they are an easy representative of that situation...sure...they didn't make the call, they just do try to do their best for their country...but you don't see the politicians in the battlefield, so their responsibility and connection to the events aren't as readily seen as the person wearing the camo


----------



## AaronLucia

While i never intented to enflame emotions, it seems i did.

I never and will never diminish the sacrifice that the soldiers have given.

But, i always think its interesting how the media explodes everything!

It's also interesting how 1,000 is such a big number now. If memory serves me correctly many thousands died in earlier wars, and we are crying about 1,000.
This is war for heaven sakes!

And yes, i realize every single soldier has a family, but so do car-accident victims. Why isn't the tally of car-accident victims up on the front page? Because, we know its an everyday occurrence and its just an 'accident'.

We go crazy about 1,000 deaths in a WAR. Every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine knows this, they go with the knowledge they could die, its not accidental. 

Anyways, bleh.


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Aaron, the reason that people get upset about 1000 deaths in this war is that many don't agree with the reasons for the war, and many believe that we were lied to in starting this war.  Additionally, the majority of these combat deaths occurred after the declaration of "Mission Accomplished", and many have occured (my opinion only) due to the cavalier attitude of "Bring it on".

I speak only for myself, but you didn't enflame any emotions in me.  I mearly spoke my point of view regarding the committment that we make.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

I agree...we should never malign the troops for their service.  We should support the troops, even if we don't support the President or the war.  

Having said that, one of the knee jerk responses I've seen to anti-war sentiment involves a loudly voiced "Support our troops".  Its a guilt trip of sorts, suggesting that one isn't patriotic or supportive of the troops in taking an anti-war stance.  The assumption is that one can't be anti-war and pro-soldier at the same time.

I read an article three days ago of a Viet Vet and former Army Ranger who just buried his son after the lad had been killed in Iraq.  The grieving father was against the war.  Do we suggest he is unpatriotic?  Do we admonish him to "support our troops?"


Here's a poem concerning the treatment of soldiers by one of my favorite authors:

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
    O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
    But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
    The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
    O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
    But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
    The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
    O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
    But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
    While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
    But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
    There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
    O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
    But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
    An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
    An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

_Tommy, _ by Rudyard Kipling.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## bignick

thanks for sharing the poem...yes it's unfortunate that the "support the troops"...is used to often to try to silence people that disagree with the current agenda and reasons for this war


----------



## PeachMonkey

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Having said that, one of the knee jerk responses I've seen to anti-war sentiment involves a loudly voiced "Support our troops". Its a guilt trip of sorts, suggesting that one isn't patriotic or supportive of the troops in taking an anti-war stance. The assumption is that one can't be anti-war and pro-soldier at the same time.


 A lot of this comes from the urban myth about Vietnam soldiers having been "spit upon" by war protesters upon their return to the States.  See:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1548/is_n2_v12/ai_19549100
http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215

 In the end, these myths propagate because of a mixture of psychological factors and deliberate manipulation by the government.  It's always far, far easier to paint your opponents as traitors and monsters than it is to debate them.


----------



## bignick

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> A lot of this comes from the urban myth about Vietnam soldiers having been "spit upon" by war protesters upon their return to the States.


ahem...somebody wanna reply to this....

a lot soldiers from vietnam were not treated well when returning...


----------



## PeachMonkey

bignick said:
			
		

> a lot soldiers from vietnam were not treated well when returning...


 Did you actually read either of those articles?  Can you show documented evidence?  I'm perfectly willing to believe that there were instances of this sort of treatment, but the idea that it was widespread has been clearly shown to be myth.


----------



## bignick

i did read them...and honestly...it shows no actual documented incidents where someone said they had been spit on and there was direct evidence that shows they weren't...they mainly relied on other counts of distortion of actual combat experience and the like...nor did i say that spitting was widespread, but they were not well treated...which you one article does state....also, the fact that a lot of former veterans were later opposed to the war doesn't discredit other's account of mistreatment


----------



## kenpo tiger

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> A lot of this comes from the urban myth about Vietnam soldiers having been "spit upon" by war protesters upon their return to the States. See:
> 
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1548/is_n2_v12/ai_19549100
> http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215
> 
> In the end, these myths propagate because of a mixture of psychological factors and deliberate manipulation by the government. It's always far, far easier to paint your opponents as traitors and monsters than it is to debate them.


Peach,

All I can say to you is, those of us who lived through the Vietnam conflict know what was and what wasn't. I personally never saw anyone spit upon a solider, but to bombard that same soldier with invective is equally as bad.

Ask your master instructor what it was like to be a Marine coming home from that war. KT


----------



## AaronLucia

So why are today's soldiers being treated better then they were in Vietnam?


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Possibly learning from what happened in Vietnam, and what happened to the troops when they returned.  We saw examples of soldiers - like John Kerry, like other soldiers I know - returning from the conflict or war, disagreeing with it, wanting better treatment for the troops, but still having served admirably and to the best of their abilities.


----------



## bignick

shift in public opinion...times change...


----------



## rmcrobertson

Among the ways in which returning soldiers were--and unfortunately are--treated badly by a government and a citizenry that wishes they would Just Go Away so that no money will need to be put where mouth was, there was--and remains--lousy VA treatment, real enforcement of employment laws for returning soldiers, and counseling services.

Too often, we've talked about patriotism and honor, and basically said, "screw it," when it comes to paying the real costs of war, we ain't willin.' We ***** about taxes, we go off about government bureaucracy, whatever--and we launch into these little conflicts without real planning or appreciation of true costs. 

For example, we were nationally so frickin' in a rush to get into Iraq, that we never balanced needs against costs--so we sent in too few troops, we didn't spend the money and the time on little things like body armor and Kevlar for Humvee doors, and we sure as hell didn't plan for losing a few more guys every day for a few years.

I'd like to see the so-liberal media reporting seriously, for instance, on how wounded and permanently-crippled soldiers are being treated. I'd like to see coverage of psychiatric casualties. I'd like to see real looks into job prospects...

No, I don't think so either.


----------



## PeachMonkey

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> All I can say to you is, those of us who lived through the Vietnam conflict know what was and what wasn't. I personally never saw anyone spit upon a solider, but to bombard that same soldier with invective is equally as bad.


 I'm sure many, many veterans of Vietnam were treated very poorly upon their return. Tons. Hell, I was harassed in college simply for *studying* military history... those same selfish, snotty personalities probably would have been happy to scream at a vet.

 Regardless, the harassment of vets by fellow citizens has been blown out of proportion. Far worse has been the abandonment of vets from Vietnam and later conflicts by their own government.

 The same scoundrels who wrap themselves in the flag and try to pave their way to four more years in the White House with the corpses of those who died on 9/11, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and countless other conflicts have gone out of their way to screw the soldiers who did the hard work. 

 While we've argued about how many self-satisfied protesters may or may not have yelled at, harassed, spit on, or discriminated against veterans these past three decades, the real bastards from Nixon onward have gotten away with worse than murder.


----------



## PeachMonkey

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'd like to see the so-liberal media reporting seriously, for instance, on how wounded and permanently-crippled soldiers are being treated. I'd like to see coverage of psychiatric casualties. I'd like to see real looks into job prospects...


 Robert, let me be the first to point out how your desire for the media to treat in facts, to deal with actual costs and consequences, and to actually act as something more than a cheerleader for the administration...

 ... proves how much you hate America.


----------



## bignick

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Robert, let me be the first to point out how your desire for the media to treat in facts, to deal with actual costs and consequences, and to actually act as something more than a cheerleader for the administration...
> 
> ... proves how much you hate America.


what is this supposed to mean?


----------



## hardheadjarhead

What I believe Peachmonkey is saying, Nick, is that many Americans have been labled "un-American" for having questioned the President, the administration, the war and the Republican party.  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> What I believe Peachmonkey is saying, Nick, is that many Americans have been labled "un-American" for having questioned the President, the administration, the war and the Republican party.


 Precisely.  The classic argument of the scoundrel is to accuse their opponents of being un-American, of being traitors, of supporting the enemy, etc.  It's a technique that governments have used throughout history.


----------



## bignick

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Precisely. The classic argument of the scoundrel is to accuse their opponents of being un-American, of being traitors, of supporting the enemy, etc. It's a technique that governments have used throughout history.


that's what i thought...but you can never be sure...you lose so many aspects of communication when all you get is the text


----------



## Chronuss

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> is that many Americans have been labled "un-American" for having questioned the President, the administration, the war and the Republican party.


well, then, damn...I guess I'm un-American...lemme go throw out my apple pie.

before the three year anniversary this saturday, Bush was an isolationist...now he seems a bit more open minded about foreign affairs...that still doesn't change my opinion that I think he smoked himself retarded in college...I feel that the whole Iraq thing was Bush trying to one-up his daddy for the SNAFU that was caused when Saddam was appointed during Regan and Bush Sr. used some sway in favor for Saddam, then Sr. couldn't get him Desert Storm and now we have more soldiers that completely and whole heartedly standing behind their country and for what they believe in.  just because I support soldiers of our military for the services they render and the duties placed before them does _not_ mean I support the reasoning for being there in the first place or the President's "strategery."


----------



## bignick

well...i don't really like baseball, either...so i'm doubly un-American....


----------



## Chronuss

bignick said:
			
		

> well...i don't really like baseball, either...so i'm doubly un-American....


that is a rather boring sport...


----------



## kenpo tiger

Chronuss - spending a little time in the arcade, are we?  [I've tried two games and given up.]

I just hate to see the waste of young (and not so young) lives.  I do agree with Robertson - ulp! - that we, as a country, rushed in quite unprepared to this war and that is the primary cause for the unconscionable number killed.  Depends upon how you want to interpret it as to whether it was a waste of time.


----------



## AaronLucia

baseball or the arcade...its a no brainer!

Arcade it is!


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Although this is a very serious thread, one thing did make me laugh.....




> that still doesn't change my opinion that I think he smoked himself retarded in college...


:boing2:


----------



## Makalakumu

Guys, I think we need to get it straight.  This war in Iraq is a Neo-Conservative policy and is only loosely tied to the War on Terror.  You all need to look at the Plan for the New American Century.  This war has been planned for a long time.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## AaronLucia

Do what now?


----------



## Chronuss

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Chronuss - spending a little time in the arcade, are we? [I've tried two games and given up.]


gotta remember...I'm a youngin'...Nintendo generation.


----------



## FUZZYJ692000

1000?  isn't that about the number that was lost on 9/11?  or at least roughly.  1000?  it is a large number no matter how you look at it.  i'm gonna play devils advocate a little bit here cause needless to say this thread is highly liberal, nothing wrong with that though  .  any how i have been seeing refrences on here as to attacking Bush and his decision to engage in this "war on terror".  Now if my memory serves me right i remember many American people coming together after 9/11 and they wanted answers, they wanted retribution, but most of all most Americans wanted revenge for those lives lost on that.  i guess my question would have to be what would have happened if Bush didn't react?  would if have been another episode like that which happened with Jimmy Carter, where Americans were captured and held hostage?  Carter really didn't act on this and many of the American people saw this as a sign of him being weak and some believed that he failed the American public as a president due to this.  i guess what i'm saying is that either way that Bush went he'd have opposing forces at each end.  he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.  
as for the soldiers, i've grown up a military brat and have a high regard and respect for each man and woman serving their country and thank them for their services.   :asian:


----------



## Tkang_TKD

FUZZYJ692000 said:
			
		

> any how i have been seeing refrences on here as to attacking Bush and his decision to engage in this "war on terror". Now if my memory serves me right i remember many American people coming together after 9/11 and they wanted answers, they wanted retribution, but most of all most Americans wanted revenge for those lives lost on that. i guess my question would have to be what would have happened if Bush didn't react?


And they did get retribution and revenge against both Al Qaida, and the Taliban which supported them.  I personally have carried out those orders.

One mustn't confuse the "war on terror" as being the same as the War in Iraq.  As much as anyone wants to believe it, Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks on America. The administration likes to put a play on words that leaves the average person thinking just that.



> i guess what i'm saying is that either way that Bush went he'd have opposing forces at each end. he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.


He wouldn't have been damned at all if his administration didn't choose to feed the American public lie after lie about what Iraq is really about.  Taking care of Al Qaida and Taliban would have been fine.  Iraq was planned before 9/11/01. 9/11 was merely a way to justify invading Iraq.



> as for the soldiers, i've grown up a military brat and have a high regard and respect for each man and woman serving their country and thank them for their services. :asian:


If you really respect us, elect a man that will send us hunting after Osama, instead of wasting billions on Iraq.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

The Official Death Toll for 9/11 is 2,976

The Official Death Toll for the Iraq War is :1,129 (as of 9/8/2004)
Seriously Wounded: 3,840

The Official Death Toll for the Afghanistan occupation is 133 (as of 8/2004)
Seriously Wounded: 504

These are US figures only.
Additional info at http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html



On 9/11, the US wanted revenge, blood and payback.
Now, in the midst of it, after seeing a few coffins, they suddenly change their minds.
Each life lost, each body mutilated is a tragedy. I have friends over there now, fighting.  I like so many others am afraid of that call...and the empty chair.
But, I know that they have some of the finest training, finest equipment, and commanders who will not spend their lives needlessly.

We fought a war.
We won.
We now must stabilyze and rebuild the country.
We did it in Germany.
We did it in Japan.
In both cases, we continued to lose troops for a while after the 'official' end of the war.  Just because someone says "Its over" doesn't mean the fighting stops, and the killing ends. Sometimes, it takes a very long time for real peace.

Right now, Iraq is in the middle of a civil war.  Additionally, major offensive operations are being undertaken by US troops.  Several cities have been the scene of intense battles...with minimal US losses. Much of the fighting is being done by the Iraqis.They are aiming for Democratic elections in January 2005.  All hospitals are open, fully stocked and staffed.  Electricity and Water are above pre-war levels.  Food distribution is also at near pre-war levels.  Telephone service, internet access, satalite, etc are all now reported to be better than pre-war levels.  In addition, new businesses have been opening regularly, as local Iraqis try out this 'free enterprise' system.

Yes, it's still rough over there, but it is getting better. 
CNN is only 1 side to the truth.

(and no, I won't debate the WMD, etc stuff, as thats pretty much a given, and anyone whose read enough has seen my opinions on that already)

Each loss is bad.
But, keep things in perspective:
Vietnam had 47,378 KIA   10,799 KNIA   153,303 Wounded

It could be alot worse.....a whole lot worse indeed.

peace.


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Kaith, 

I won't argue the necessity of the actions in Afghanistan. I served there, and I've volunteered to go back 3 separate times this last year.

I don't believe in what we are doing in Iraq. It seems to me that there are so many better ways that situation could have been handled.

I do not discount the deaths in Vietnam in the least. 4 names on that wall are my direct relatives.  I try to keep it in perspective as much as I can.


----------



## FUZZYJ692000

Tkang_TKD said:
			
		

> If you really respect us, elect a man that will send us hunting after Osama, instead of wasting billions on Iraq.



Let's see, i do believe i do that when i actually drag my butt off to the polls, considering that we are privledged enough to be able to have a say in such things as elections.  Too bad many other Americans don't because the US has a very low voter turn out and if we're lucky we may reach 50% in a presidental election, oh wow ..you may actually get that leader that you want if more people actually took the time out of that 1 day and actually tried to make a change.  not only in presidental or in smaller elections too, cause those make just as much of a difference.  

And no I wasn't getting the two "war on terror" and 9/11 confused.  it's just that i wasn't the only one referencing back to this either and many people do intertwine the 2 together.  can i say i agree with why we went over there? no.  i honestly don't believe there was enough concrete evidence for us to make such a drastic leap.  however, it's a little late for what if's and what not's.  what the people and government have to figure out is what now?  and as much as they would like for US troops to come out of there, i don't see that happening any time soon.  but then again i'm not behind those closed doors making those decisions either.  the rest of the world frowned upon us when we went against the UN, however i think they'd frown even more on us because we bit off more than we can chew and now want to kick ourselves in the butt.  going in taking down a countries government and then just leaving it to fall apart even more, to me seems to look even worse than if we really, i mean really put forth effort and try and help them back on their feet and able to run their country efficiently.  

Kaith all i can say is well said.   :asian:


----------



## AaronLucia

Kaith, thanks for that post, that's basically what i was trying to mean in the beginning!


----------



## hardheadjarhead

FUZZYJ692000 said:
			
		

> i guess what i'm saying is that either way that Bush went he'd have opposing forces at each end.  he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.




Not really.  Most of the members of the UN and people throughout the US supported the invasion of Afghanistan.  Iraq was another matter altogether.

Fuzzy, I'd suggest you'd check some of the other threads like "Did we have justification?"  That thread and others hash out the issue quite well, and there are a number of links that will provide you with some background to these debates.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The Official Death Toll for 9/11 is 2,976
> 
> The Official Death Toll for the Iraq War is :1,129 (as of 9/8/2004)
> Seriously Wounded: 3,840
> 
> The Official Death Toll for the Afghanistan occupation is 133 (as of 8/2004)
> Seriously Wounded: 504
> 
> These are US figures only.
> Additional info at http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/11, the US wanted revenge, blood and payback.
> Now, in the midst of it, after seeing a few coffins, they suddenly change their minds.
> Each life lost, each body mutilated is a tragedy. I have friends over there now, fighting. I like so many others am afraid of that call...and the empty chair.
> But, I know that they have some of the finest training, finest equipment, and commanders who will not spend their lives needlessly.
> 
> We fought a war.
> We won.
> We now must stabilyze and rebuild the country.
> We did it in Germany.
> We did it in Japan.
> In both cases, we continued to lose troops for a while after the 'official' end of the war. Just because someone says "Its over" doesn't mean the fighting stops, and the killing ends. Sometimes, it takes a very long time for real peace.
> 
> Right now, Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. Additionally, major offensive operations are being undertaken by US troops. Several cities have been the scene of intense battles...with minimal US losses. Much of the fighting is being done by the Iraqis.They are aiming for Democratic elections in January 2005. All hospitals are open, fully stocked and staffed. Electricity and Water are above pre-war levels. Food distribution is also at near pre-war levels. Telephone service, internet access, satalite, etc are all now reported to be better than pre-war levels. In addition, new businesses have been opening regularly, as local Iraqis try out this 'free enterprise' system.
> 
> Yes, it's still rough over there, but it is getting better.
> CNN is only 1 side to the truth.
> 
> (and no, I won't debate the WMD, etc stuff, as thats pretty much a given, and anyone whose read enough has seen my opinions on that already)
> 
> Each loss is bad.
> But, keep things in perspective:
> Vietnam had 47,378 KIA 10,799 KNIA 153,303 Wounded
> 
> It could be alot worse.....a whole lot worse indeed.
> 
> peace.


Excellent post Bob. :asian:

IMHO were at a point now where we have to "get over" this War, we fought it, we're there and we have to at least leave things better than before we came. If you beilieve Bush/Iraq were wrong. Vote him out. But as things stand, we have to begin to focus on not making those 1000 lives a waste....


----------



## Tkang_TKD

FUZZYJ692000 said:
			
		

> Let's see, i do believe i do that when i actually drag my butt off to the polls, considering that we are privledged enough to be able to have a say in such things as elections. Too bad many other Americans don't because the US has a very low voter turn out and if we're lucky we may reach 50% in a presidental election, oh wow ..you may actually get that leader that you want if more people actually took the time out of that 1 day and actually tried to make a change. not only in presidental or in smaller elections too, cause those make just as much of a difference.


Sadly, this is true.  I can tell you though, that from what I've seen, there will be a lot more voters turning out this time around.  I don't think the majority of American people (who voted against President Bush the first time) are willing to let come down to a 5 to 4 vote again.



> And no I wasn't getting the two "war on terror" and 9/11 confused. it's just that i wasn't the only one referencing back to this either and many people do intertwine the 2 together.


Why is it that so many people believe there is a connection?  Could it be that the administration aludes to it in the SOTU Address, or in various other sound bites?   It's good to see that you are in the 44% instead of the 56%.



> can i say i agree with why we went over there? no. i honestly don't believe there was enough concrete evidence for us to make such a drastic leap. however, it's a little late for what if's and what not's. what the people and government have to figure out is what now? and as much as they would like for US troops to come out of there, i don't see that happening any time soon. but then again i'm not behind those closed doors making those decisions either. the rest of the world frowned upon us when we went against the UN, however i think they'd frown even more on us because we bit off more than we can chew and now want to kick ourselves in the butt. going in taking down a countries government and then just leaving it to fall apart even more, to me seems to look even worse than if we really, i mean really put forth effort and try and help them back on their feet and able to run their country efficiently.


It's never too late.  We don't need the what if's and what nots.  We need to hold the Administration accountable.

We shouldn't have to help Iraq get back on thier feet.  We should not have invaded at all.  Our Administration lied to the American people, and lied to the UN trying to garner support for our unjust occupation. The sheep are all to willing to forgive the WMD claim, simply because "Saddam was a bad man and he needed to get got..."   Iraq isn't the only country that was committing atrocities to it's own people. It was just the only country that was rich in oil.

We impeached President Clinton over far less lies, but yet we give the current administration a free pass.  I guess it's ok to start wars and kill people as long as nobody gets a blowjob.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Thomas - Thank you. :asian:

My uncle served in Vietnam.  He made it back...some of his friends didn't. 


Tom - Thank you also.  "focus on not making those 1000 lives a waste...."
I think they deserve it. 


I don't agree with the Iraq excuses either, but, now it's too late.  We're there, and we need to do 2 things.
1- Make certain that these sources of 'disinformation' etc. are removed so we don't fight our corporations or 'allies' wars for them.
2- We bring our troops back as soon as possible, and in the mean time continue to ensure that all possible means are in place for their safety while engaged.


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Kaith,

I would have to also say Thank You!

Now, on the two points you make, Number 1 I think will be a much easier task. We have the power to do that November 2nd.

Number 2 will be much harder. Truthfully, we've been patroling the Gulf since the end of the 1st Gulf War, and I don't think that we'll ever truly pull all the way out. I do think however, that by re-establishing ties with our allies, we can at least get the nation building back into the hands that know what they're doing. We are not equipped, nor manned up with enough personnel to continue with these peace keeping missions. It's only going to get worse in the future. Right now, as we speak, the government is looking at drawing down our military numbers again. In the Navy, we are looking at losing somewhere around 70,000 personnel between now and 2011. My figures might be a little off, but not by much.

I've never been a praying man, but lately I'm really starting to consider it. I've got two tours left in the Gulf before I retire in 2010, and I'd really hope that they won't have to be combat tours like the first 3 of 4 that I served.

Edit: Changed Raith to Kaith


----------



## bignick

like it or not...the minute we started blowing up buildings in Iraq, we took on a responsibility...

i think we are walking a fine line right now...we want our troops out of there, but pulling out and let Iraq collapse would probably do a lot more to damage America's image in the world...not to mention the fuel it will give the terrorists for their recruiting drives


----------



## kenpo tiger

bignick said:
			
		

> like it or not...the minute we started blowing up buildings in Iraq, we took on a responsibility...
> 
> i think we are walking a fine line right now...we want our troops out of there, but pulling out and let Iraq collapse would probably do a lot more to damage America's image in the world...not to mention the fuel it will give the terrorists for their recruiting drives


Biggie,

Terrorists don't need more fuel for recruiting, although you make a great point.  The lives of many Arabs in the mid-East are lived at poverty level and there is really nothing for them to look forward to, other than the virgins promised to the men in the afterlife.  As for woman terrorists, I have absolutely no clue as to why a woman would willingly participate.  Islamic society is very male-oriented and I would tend to doubt that there will be the same number of men waiting for these women in the afterlife.  So what compels them to strap on explosives?  A number of them are well-educated, so maybe it's politics -- but if they're THAT well-educated, I would think they'd reason that their energies would be better engaged in changing their society and the politics of their countries through other means.  KT


----------



## FUZZYJ692000

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Not really.  Most of the members of the UN and people throughout the US supported the invasion of Afghanistan.  Iraq was another matter altogether.
> 
> Fuzzy, I'd suggest you'd check some of the other threads like "Did we have justification?"  That thread and others hash out the issue quite well, and there are a number of links that will provide you with some background to these debates.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Steve



Thanks Steve, I will go exploring into those other threads.  I know that the UN was in backing of Afghanistan but not in Iraq.  I guess I was just trying to open up a different perspective so maybe not everything was so one sided.  I'm the type of person I like to get many different views and look at them and not just 1 because that unfortunately is how mistakes are made, by looking at things 1 sided.  But thank you for the extra threads to read.  Along with my Political Science HW and Sociology HW, these threads are very informative to how the American public is reacting to all these issues and great for me to refrence back to for class.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Kaith,

Its not often I disagree with you.  But I have to here...

*On 9/11, the US wanted revenge, blood and payback.
Now, in the midst of it, after seeing a few coffins, they suddenly change their minds.*

The number we've had killed in Iraq stands at a third of those killed in the WTC.  We've seen more than a few coffins.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.   

*We fought a war.
We won.*

_We're fighting a war.  _  We're losing fifty to sixty soldiers a month.  Colin Powell recently said he saw no end to the insurgency taking place.

*We now must stabilyze and rebuild the country.
We did it in Germany.
We did it in Japan.*

Neither nation had radical Islamic factions or ethnic strife.  Neither had the same geo-political problems or the meddling of neighboring theocracies thrown into the mix.  

*In both cases, we continued to lose troops for a while after the 'official' end of the war.  Just because someone says "Its over" doesn't mean the fighting stops, and the killing ends. Sometimes, it takes a very long time for real peace.*

Please tell me the casulty figures following the surrender of Japan and Germany.  I am unaware of any post-war insurgencies in those two countries.

*Right now, Iraq is in the middle of a civil war.  Additionally, major offensive operations are being undertaken by US troops.  Several cities have been the scene of intense battles...with minimal US losses. * 

And significant Iraqi civilian losses.  Did you see the footage of the kids smashed up after a bombing raid last week?  They were about four years old.  How about last night's footage of an Al-Arabia newscaster getting killed along with 20 Iraqis when a Bradley was blown up by US forces?  Pretty nasty.  Blood spatter on the camera lense...the reporters final words, "I'm dying, I'm dying."  A child was killed in that attack, too.

*All hospitals are open, fully stocked and staffed.  * 

WRONG.  ABC reports that in Basra there is no morphine or I.V. fluids.  Check the following:

http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20040905-010419-7025r.htm
*
Electricity and Water are above pre-war levels.  * 

According to the Government Accounting Office's report released this summer, in 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.  Lack of power has caused sewage pumps to fail, and one can find pictures of streets flooded with raw human sewage.

_Khudair Fadhil Abbas, Iraq's minister of health, blames contaminated water for many children's health problems, including a recent outbreak of typhoid fever that affected more than 1,000 Iraqis who live around the capital. Some 40 percent of hospital visits by children are due to gastrointestinal problems from the water, he said. _ 

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/contract/2004/0227experts.htm

and

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ment+Accounting+Office+rebuilding+report+Iraq

*Telephone service, internet access, satalite, etc are all now reported to be better than pre-war levels.  * 

I can find nothing to support that. Please reference sources.  I found this Salon article from last year indicating that Iraq was "offline":

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/31/iraq_offline/

*In addition, new businesses have been opening regularly, as local Iraqis try out this 'free enterprise' system.*

Kaith, unemployment is currently at 70% in Iraq.  Who is going to buy what?


*But, keep things in perspective:
Vietnam had 47,378 KIA   10,799 KNIA   153,303 Wounded

It could be alot worse.....a whole lot worse indeed.*

It could be a whole lot better, too.

Let's keep this in perspective...Iraq didn't need to happen at all.  Saddam was no threat.  Condi Rice and Colin Powell said as much prior to 9-11.  After that, they were told to change their tune.  

I edit this to point out one other thing:  To the grieving parent, the comparison of casualty statistics mean nothing.  For them it can't get any worse.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=272293#post272293

http://www.export.gov/iraq/



Bob is right, power is up over pre-war levels, problem is it isnt enough. This LA Times story explains how expansion and more demands on the grid have been a problem.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091304K.shtml


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Steve,

When I said 'a few' I was refering to comparing this war, with previous ones, not seeking to minimize things.  In my mind, 1 is too much.

And, you've seen my posts on the 9/11-Iraq tie issue, and my calls that the Bush administration as well as the entire Congress should be tried as traitors over this and several other issues. The amount of BS tosses at us by the government to justify their illegal acts would make a cow farm the size of China blush.


President Bush declared combat over.  It is not his fault that some folks there just don't know it yet. The "War" is over, but the "mopping up and stabilization" continues.
Of course, a 'war'-bullet and a 'peace'-bullet will kill you all the same.

There were no large organized insergancies (sp) like we're seeing in Iraq. Those countries however had both been pretty well disarmed and especially in the case of Germany, flattened.  I am however unable to locate the casulty counts for the post-war occupations at this time.


Concerning the civilian losses, yes they happen.  Right now the Iraqis are doing a very good job blowing each other to hell. But let us now forget the 60,000+ in England alone killed during WW2, or the 30 MILLION+ killed by Stalin.  Etc. IN a war, especially a Civil War, people die.  It's tragic yes.

Hospitals, etc - I said it was getting better...I didn't say it was perfect...and, I do admit that I may be wrong.  Note: Pre-War doesn't mean it was all working.  Iraq has been under an embargo that has left the country woefully behind, obsolete and in disrepair. It needs -ALOT- of modernization before it can again be the jewel the ABC article recalls.
ABC, CNN, etc all give certain sides.  I read http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp for a different view.
Here is another article on the phone network: http://www.dailyherald.com/special/iraq/wwi_paststory.asp?intID=3778828


Unemployment - Can't find my info at the moment....I know I saw a positive report, just can't locate it right now..I'll dig.  It's possible my memorys off.

Ans, Steve, I agree.
It didn't have to happen.

:asian:

===

(Side note: http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20030826/FP_005.htm  and http://www.newsday.com/news/printed...3sep08,0,118574.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print and 
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=122 and
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm
have some more info on losses, how, etc)


----------



## Tgace

Very interesting study by the Rand Group about the Post WWII reconstruction effort.

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/MR1753.ch3.pdf

Anyway. I think the point many of us are trying to make is... What do we do now? We ALL have heard the pro/con arguements. How about ideas for how we deal with the reality of where we are right now?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Very interesting read.

:asian:


----------



## Tgace

> Nearly all parties involved have deemed the U.S. occupation of Japan
> a success, as do those who today enjoy the fruits of those efforts.
> However, the positive results were not evident overnight, and the
> immediate effects struck many as chaotic. The occupation, which
> was presided over by an autocratic U.S. general, arguably had more
> success at demilitarization and democratization than it did at fostering
> a truly open and vibrant economic system. Yet, it also turned a
> former enemy into a reliable ally.


I find that interesting. Not that it necessarily applies to our current situation. They didnt have insurgents blowing up their efforts left and right. Just interesting how time changes reality.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

A key point is also that while we were rebuilding Germany and Japan, that there weren't a few thousand Russian troops shooting back, bombing, and destroying repairs we made.

In Iraq, there are sevral thousand foriegn fighters busy doing just that.  The Iraqis don't want them there any more than we do.  Part of this most recent wave of combat is to shut off the Syrian sources for there non-Iraqi combatants.

In comparison, the Southern part of Iraq is much more peaceful than the area considered to be Saddams 'power base'. The Brits have lost only a few men over the last few months.  Where the country is at peace, the repairs are going well.  Where it isn't, well, I wouldn't want to be up on a pole with my *** hanging out either, not even for the $500,000+ some of those jobs are getting.

I might also add that this targeting of civilians, taking of hostages, etc, is a violation of international military law.
As is torture, abuse, etc.


----------



## rmcrobertson

We were also responding to direct attacks or threats by the countries we opposed, we declared war formally, we had national consensus--and oh yes, the President and his Cabinet hadn't got themselves caught lying right and left about the nature of our enemies and the threats they posed.

Then too--and not withstanding the fact that we carried out trade before the War in ways that helped create what we ended up fighting--our Government hadn't helped create, maintain and train the likes of Hussein and the mujahaddin.

And oh yes--the "charity," had more than a little enlightened self-interest to it, inasmuch as the explicit purposes of the Marshall Plan included a) thwarting Communism, b) building trading partners.

A thousand is the biggest number in the world if you're one of the thousand, or you kid is. It would've been nice if Bush's government hadn't helped screw up, lie and exaggerate our way into getting so many young men and women killed. Or if this country hadn't pissed away so much of its moral advantage, and world support, since the War.


----------



## Tgace

We apparently are in the "expect miracles overnight" generation. How long of a timeframe should we be looking at in a time spent/reconstruction completed aspect?


----------



## rmcrobertson

My objection isn't that things aren't getting done with a flick of the remote.

My objections are that the guys who got us into Iraq, on very flaky grounds, with an ill-defined mission, apparently in order to nation-build, are also the guys:

...who endlessly bitched about Clinton getting us into Somalia and Bosnia, on the grounds that we hadn't defined our mission and we shouldn't be nation-building.


...who lied about our data and our evaluations of data, after years of attacking Clinton because he lied about sex.


...who hacked away at the military, cutting budgets and pushing more and more fancy technology, then got us into Iraq with inadequate troops, poor long-term planning, and a considerable shortage of basic necessities like armor.


...who endlessly impugn other people's patriotism and lack of support for the military, but who ducked out on military service themselves.

...who themselves seem to think that everything can be done with a flick of a wand, and who haven't got the guts to tell the country that if they're serious about the, "War on terror," we need to declare war, raise taxes to pay for it, probably re-institute the draft, and get with the program.


----------



## GAB

Hi

If you consider the numbers (dead,our side) it is very small considering the amount of money spent to get rid of the old and try the new weapons out on our enemies. Money made by the various companies, and the lack of support by other major powers.

We will see in the next election just how devoted we are to this, (war) it has been pretty deceitful. We are in the middle of it, we need to change the direction.

We do need a draft 2 yrs mandatory, sorry, but that is the truth, men and women. 

Right now, it is hard to see the truth, because it is so close to election time, what is true and what is politics. 

I just finished a book by Michael Moore, title is, Dude, Where's my Country.
Interesting to say the least. 

Regards, Gary


----------



## Flatlander

GAB said:
			
		

> We do need a draft 2 yrs mandatory, sorry, but that is the truth, men and women.


What makes this the 'truth', Gary?  I think that you might find you are one of a very few who holds this opinion.....


----------



## Tgace

Alright. Should we just pull out and leave them to their own designs at this point?


----------



## rmcrobertson

All right. Should we just commit ourselves to doing this same stupid crap over and over at this point?

Well, why not? Our government can't even bring itself to admit that past administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, have sown the whirlwind.


----------



## Tkang_TKD

GAB said:
			
		

> We do need a draft 2 yrs mandatory, sorry, but that is the truth, men and women.


I would beg to differ.  In the 15 years I have been in, I've seen tons of drawbacks, base-closures, military spending cutbacks etc... under both Democrats and Republicans.

We don't need a draft per se, we need to quit living under the misguided assumption that we can make do with what we have with our ever changing mission.  We need to quit sending good soldiers, sailors, and airmen back home with their walking papers while we up the tempo of our operations.

Even with all that our military is doing right now, can you believe we are looking at cutting about 70,000 sailors between now and 2011?

The reservists and national guardsmen are getting called to to active duty not to agument our numbers, but instead to replace those we've decided we didn't need.


----------



## FUZZYJ692000

GAB said:
			
		

> We do need a draft 2 yrs mandatory, sorry, but that is the truth, men and women.



I know that many countries, for example Switzerland make it mandatory that every male serves in some form of the military in their life.  do i think that'd work for us?  no.  unfortunately not every person is made to be a soldier and not every person is mentally or physically equiped to be put into such situations, like that of war.  you also can't force someone to join the military and expect them to put all their effort into it.  you get people that don't support the cause and sabotage things, giving out information, or just plain out not caring, and in a war situation i would think that the person you want there to cover your butt when needed that you want to know that they're there cause they believe in the "cause" or at least that they chose to be there and they're not being forced to be there.  i know i'd feel better knowing that.   :idunno: 
and i must agree with Tkang_TKD that there are already many cutbacks within the military today.  when i was growing up we moved around alot, well heck i'm still growing up but i lived on military bases practically my entire childhood and a lot of those bases are now closed.  and those are bases both in the states and internationally have been closed because there are just not the fundings to keep them open.  there is also a lot less people on those bases which makes them hard to run.


----------



## Chronuss

Tkang_TKD said:
			
		

> We impeached President Clinton over far less lies, but yet we give the current administration a free pass. I guess it's ok to start wars and kill people as long as nobody gets a blowjob.


...I truly don't think GW can spell impeach...


----------



## hardheadjarhead

*Bob is right, power is up over pre-war levels, problem is it isnt enough. This LA Times story explains how expansion and more demands on the grid have been a problem.*

TGace,

Here is the recent GAO report that outlines the problem.  It says "As of late May 2004, average daily electrical service since the immediate postwar period had not signicantly improved in the country as a whole and was worse in some areas."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04902r.pdf

Another article that looks at the problem from the Iraqi point of view and suggests that things are really not all that rosey:

http://www.baghdadbulletin.com/pageArticle.php?article_id=18&cat_id=7


The letter you referenced that is attributed to Scot Seitz is dealt with at Snopes.com:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/combatend.asp

The article has been sent across the internet time and again and attributed to several authors.

The points in the letter are answered by an Iraqi citizen:

http://vitw.us/weblog/archives/000485.html#more

In lieu of referencing an e-mail, here is an article published by the Council on Foreign Relations:

_The economic revival of Iraq has been stunted by several American failures that should be addressed quickly. The first is the failure to provide security for the Iraqi people, which makes the ordinary flow of goods and personnel across the country difficult, raises production costs, and cripples investment. The second is the failure to provide basic services. Here the Coalition has done much better than it has on security, but it still has not corrected shortages of electricity, clean water, and gasoline, to name only the most pressing. _ 

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040...dam-assessing-the-reconstruction-of-iraq.html




Bottom line, folks...does it matter what WE think?  Or does it matter what the discontent and unemployed Iraqi thinks?  I'm talking about the one who stews and talks with his equally discontented and unemployed friends.  

We aren't killing Americans...they are.  We don't seem to be winning their hearts and minds.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## GAB

Hi Flatlander.

Yes, you are correct, I should have said, IMO I feel this is a true solution to the situation that we have gotten ourselves into because of bad decisions in the past and present.

The persons being in the military would be there for a limited time and would always be freshly trained and ready for action, Better weight control better training, not just hanging on. 

If they don't submit to the idea that we need this for the sake of our country, then we need to hire more jailers and find an Island to put the lackeys on. 

They can be there for the duration of the time they should be in, helping their country. If they don't want to be a part of the country then they should not, they should be second class citizens, every abled body should help. No free lunch for freedom.

When they get out, or stay in if they qualify, they will feel they have had a part of protecting their country and feel good about themselves.

Is that better? Regards, Gary


----------



## Flatlander

GAB said:
			
		

> No free lunch for freedom.


 I think that freedom means the freedom to choose a peaceful life.  

There is a thread on conscription here, should anyone want to further explore the topic.


----------



## GAB

Hi Flatlander,

I agree, a peaceful life is nice, I have had one for a few years now, it is still not peacful.
For alot of people that is the reason they are into martial arts. I went into them, as a way of life, to protect my keester.
We have more terroist's on the streets of your local cities, causing harm to the citizens,  killing, robbing, burglarizing, raping, shooting, and maiming, everyday in the USA then what is happening in the country of Iraq.

Just read the local papers and then read the news on the net.

Pretty bad, for what we would call a civilized country.

Thanks for the conscription link. Are we to think that the Democrats, aren't playing the military card this time, how about the Republicans against Clinton. 

It is getting and has been a very sad state of affairs regarding the way we take this thing we call freedom for granted. 

When they played the military card both of the military men failed to make it into the office. The ones that had fuzzy backgrounds did though. That say's something for the way we are thinking as a country.  

About 30 to 35 % of the country votes, 15 to 18 % vote in the new candidate, neat huh? 
Regards, Gary


----------



## Tkang_TKD

GAB said:
			
		

> No free lunch for freedom.


This is a cost I will gladly bear.


----------



## Tkang_TKD

GAB said:
			
		

> The persons being in the military would be there for a limited time and would always be freshly trained and ready for action, Better weight control better training, not just hanging on.


Contrary to belief, we train all the time, and as technology evolves, we evolve with it. 



> They can be there for the duration of the time they should be in, helping their country. If they don't want to be a part of the country then they should not, they should be second class citizens, every abled body should help. No free lunch for freedom.


So, how many years have you served, or how many are you enlisting or accepting a commission for?  If you haven't served, should I regard you as beneath me because I made a concientious choice to serve 15 years ago?


----------



## PeachMonkey

GAB said:
			
		

> We have more terroist's on the streets of your local cities, causing harm to the citizens,  killing, robbing, burglarizing, raping, shooting, and maiming, everyday in the USA then what is happening in the country of Iraq.



Are you *really* convinced that more violence is taking place on the streets of the United States than in the towns and cities of Iraq?  Can you give some statistics or facts to support this point of view?

Why is participation in the military your particular choice of acts that shows that someone "deserves freedom"?  Why isn't it feeding the poor, trying to foster peace, or something like that?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Actually, I've got stats on that somewhere....

1 set:


> http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Buff_070703,00.html
> But we as a nation, and our coalition partners, need a sense of proportion, now more than ever. Twelve KIAs a month, the death toll in the first two months of the Battle of Saddam's Return, is about 150 troops killed per year. With about 150,000 U.S. armed forces deployed in Iraq at present, that's an annual death rate of a tenth of a percent: one person in a thousand.
> 
> Department of Transportation highway safety statistics indicate a roughly equivalent annual level of mortality among avid motorcyclists. That's right. If those 150,000 troops all came home and were discharged and became bikers instead, they'd die at about the same rate. This is not to criticize bikers or motorcycle manufacturers -- it's just to establish perspective. Each of us, as we age, will face increasing exposure to mortality, eventually far exceeding one in a thousand annually.
> 
> And at the rate of about 150 troops killed per year, in a hypothetical ongoing "quagmire" in Iraq of that intensity, it would take a full two decades to equal the 3,000 people killed in one day on 9/11/01. Think about that. War is indeed a risky business, but freedom truly doesn't come for free.





> http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A267_0_2_0_C/
> The Federalist, a conservative Internet news service, claims that the streets of Baghdad, Iraq, are safer than those of Washington, D.C.





> http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/009269.html
> Baghdad has lower murder rate than New York City, Chicago, L.A., or D.C.
> 
> According to the Army, there were 92 murders in Baghdad, a city of 5 million people, in July. The number dropped to 75 in August, 54 in September and 24 in October.
> 
> In New York, a city of 8 million people, there were 52 murders in July, 51 in August, 52 in September and 45 in October.
> 
> John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, who recently published an extensive analysis on Iraqi crime figures, says the numbers indicate that Baghdad's murder rate dropped from 19.5 per 100,000 people in July to a rate of five killings per 100,000 people in October.
> 
> By contrast, New York's murder rate is seven murders per 100,000 people, Los Angeles' murder rate is 17 per 100,000, and Chicago's is 22, Lott said, citing FBI crime statistics.



And before anyone asks...no, I aint going.  I don't care to visit any of those cities....I'm looking for somethign rural, away from civilization.  Just me, a mansion and a T3. 

To add to the above:


> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/28/214849.shtml
> Statistics on Progress Made in Iraq
> NewsMax Wires
> Tuesday, June 29, 2004
> A look at progress in Iraq reported by the Bush administration:
> 
> - Electricity production has reached 4,100 megawatts, short of the coalition's goal of 6,000 megawatts by June 30. Estimates of Iraq's prewar production have varied wildly - from 300 megawatts to 4,400 megawatts.
> 
> - Electricity is now spread evenly across the country. Baghdad, which used to be favored under Saddam Hussein's regime, now gets 8-12 hours of electricity a day compared to 20 hours before the war.
> - The overall number of telephones in Iraq, including cell phones, is up nearly 46 percent since before the war. Cellular phone usage has soared with more than 429,300 subscribers nationwide. More than 201,000 subscribers have had their land telephone lines reinstated, but there are still only 784,200 land lines, compared to 833,000 before the war.
> 
> - More than 2,200 schools and 240 hospitals have been "rehabilitated," the coalition said - though the amount of work performed has varied.
> 
> - As of January 2004, 860 secondary school master trainers, and 31,772 secondary teachers and administrative staff, were trained in programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
> 
> - School supply kits have been distributed to 1.5 million secondary school students, 808,000 primary school students and 81,735 primary school teachers.
> 
> - About 8.7 million new math and science textbooks have been distributed. The World Bank has issued a grant for $40 million for new textbooks for 6 million primary and secondary students.
> 
> - Twenty Iraqis have received Fulbright grants to study abroad, and six are women.
> 
> - More than 77,000 public works jobs have been created through the National Employment Program.
> 
> - Sixteen provincial councils have been established, along with 78 district councils, 192 city or sub-district councils, and 392 neighborhood councils.
> 
> - Health-care spending in Iraq has increased some 30 times over prewar levels. Between June 2003 and April 2004, more than 3 million children under five were vaccinated against diseases. A U.S. grant to the Iraqi Nursing Association will go toward training more nurses and buying uniforms, bed linens and nurses' kits.
> 
> - The new Iraqi dinar has been stable, and its value has risen by 25 percent over last fall, when the conversion was under way.



Aside: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Iraq_Coalition_Casualty_Statistics/Soldier_Suicides
Lots of info on various casulties.


----------



## Chronuss

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> And before anyone asks...no, I aint going. I don't care to visit any of those cities....I'm looking for somethign rural, away from civilization. Just me, a mansion and a T3.


when you do get that T3...do let us lowly peons know so we can have a massive LAN party...hell, I'll supply beer and pizza.


----------



## GAB

Hi Tommy,

I have an opinion I stated it, now you want to attack me personally.

I served, my family on both sides have been in America since the early 1700's, fought in every war, my Dad was born on property that his grandad got for fighting in the war of 1812.

I have several of my relative's that are stats and victims of the wars. I spent 4 years in the Marine Corps. Way before you were born. 

I served in the streets of Los Angeles and am retired from there.

So big deal, it is not about me and you as a personal contest, it is about an opinion that everyone has a right to.

Take Care, Regards, Gary


----------



## Tkang_TKD

GAB said:
			
		

> Hi Tommy,
> 
> I have an opinion I stated it, now you want to attack me personally.


How have I attacked you? By asking if I should see you as below me?  I think that's a legitimate question.  By asking of your personal military background it gives me the ability to ascertain where your opinion is derived.



> I served, my family on both sides have been in America since the early 1700's, fought in every war, my Dad was born on property that his grandad got for fighting in the war of 1812.
> 
> I have several of my relative's that are stats and victims of the wars. I spent 4 years in the Marine Corps. Way before you were born.


Ok. You served 4 years. That is the question I posed.  Family history is kind of irrelevant to that.  I never brought family history into it, but thank you for sharing. We have a strong military history that runs in both our families.

I was born in 1970, so I'm guessing you served sometime in Vietnam? or was would it have been Korea, or WWII?  If it was Vietnam, were you drafted or were you a volunteer?  The reason I ask, is that it would shed some light on me as to why you support conscription.



> I served in the streets of Los Angeles and am retired from there.


Retired Police Officer by chance?



> So big deal, it is not about me and you as a personal contest, it is about an opinion that everyone has a right to.
> 
> Take Care, Regards, Gary


I didn't see it as a personal contest, merely a difference of opinion on whether or not conscription is a good idea, or what constitutes a second class citizen. Please do not take a difference of opinion as an attack, or my voicing of mine be regarded as hindering you.  I'm glad to hear your opinions, and If I agree or disagree, I can't take them away from you, nor would I want to.


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Ok, some of my questions are answered by your your profile. Retired LAPD, USMC '59-'63.

Not sure about this, but did you get out of the Corps at the early onset of the Vietnam War?


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Bob,

How do you reconcile the Newsmax's electricity output claims with that of the Government Accounting Office and the other links I provided?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Steve,
  Time frames.  

Bob


----------



## GAB

Hi Tomas,

Yes, I went into the USMC at a ripe age of 17, parents signed only after I begged them and said give me your blessing or I will join when I am 18 and there will be hard feelings etc. They were grief stricken.

I joined the Marine Corps because at the time I felt I would be drafted in my later years, I felt I would go in get out, use GI benifits and go on with my life I did so and it paid off.

I was young, was lucky, saw the world (sea going 2 years) in a rubber raft off the coast of cuba, and back to Pendelton. Got out in 1963. I married in June of 63, I got out in August and went back to civilian life. (much smarter, wiser and well traveled). Still married 41 years.

I spent the Vietnam years fighting in the Streets of L.A.

I just believe it is (conscription) better then what is happening to the youth of today, we have lost a lot more of our young to drugs, gang wars and other various criminal activities, get them at an early age in the service and head um down the right road. 

Loyalty and serving your country is not much to pay for freedom. Death is not a biggie for the one who dies, it is for the rest who have got to go on.

Regards, Gary


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Steve,
> Time frames.
> 
> Bob




Fair enough...here's the time frame.

The Newsmax article and the spurious letter from Lt. Col. Scot Seitz you provided were both based upon figures used in a Forbes magazine article by Caspar Weinberger* dated 8 Dec. of 2003 and a briefing by Paul Bremer of 9 October of 2003.  

The Government Accounting Office report I provided was from early this summer...2004.



Here's an article from THIS week:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5898089/

A snippet:

_"People are now basically drinking raw sewage anywhere downstream from Baghdad, which is much of the population," said William Fellows, a senior program officer for UNICEF who also works with the United Nations Development Program.  _ 


*Bechtel, Inc. was awarded the contract for reconstruction.  Weinberger was a vice president and legal counsel for Bechtel in the eighties.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bechtel


Regards,



Steve


----------



## loki09789

Even during the First Gulf War, I remember the 'college mentallity' that came from students that barely understood the actual war or political situation.  I don't know exactly why (other than a well intentioned motive of "war sucks" which I can agree with) but it regularly translated to a criticism and bashing of troops and service in general (similar to the tone of Vietnam protest in some cases).

My one Buddy (Medic with a Mechanized Infantry company) was back on leave and we were all out at a local bar when he was trying to talk up this college aged girl who made the mistake of tactlessly saying that she didn't think it was all that bad over there and that "you guys didn't really have to do anything but lay around and get sun tans"...

Well, he had a few in him already and proceeded to give her graphic details of crawling into Iraqi tanks to offer medical treatment to enemy troops (per Laws of land warfare) and shared the gruesome images that he saw as well as the first hand contact in the course of humanitarian services (medical and such)...

He wasn't anymore tactful than she was, but at least he was speaking from experience.

I think it is the developmental age and environment of college that creates a 'know it' attitude (we all get it at different times).  But as my Dad use to tell me "Fine move out and do it on your own before you realize that you DON'T know everything.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Interesting.
Someone out there is lying.  I'm not sure who.

Heres my latest info on the situation:


> September 15, 2004: The U.S. is going to shift several billion dollars in reconstruction money to building up security forces in the Sunni Arab areas of central Iraq. While reconstruction efforts move ahead in the Kurdish north and the Shia Arab south, the continued violence by Baath Party supporters and al Qaeda supporters in central Iraq has delayed many reconstruction projects in Sunni Arab communities. The Sunni Arabs, who were favored during the long reign of Saddam Hussein (a Sunni Arab himself), are angry at losing power, and even more dismayed as they note the growing prosperity, and peace, among the Kurds and Shia they long ruled. Although a minority in the country (about 20 percent of the population), the Sunni Arab tribes control most of central and western Iraq. The way the media covers the Sunni Arab violence, you get the impression that the entire country is in flames. But in most of Iraq, American civil affairs teams, and civilian aid workers report no violence or unrest at all. That, however is not news. Sunni Arab terrorists are news, and it's mostly Sunni Arabs who are being called on to fight the violence. Despite the attacks on local police (who are recruited locally) and civilians who support the government, resistance to "the resistance" is everywhere. Most Iraqis don't want the 20th century tyranny of Saddam, or the 14th century lifestyle of al Qaeda.



Now, I've seen alot of conflicting information. 


old report from Fox : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92778,00.html

A recent report : http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/c7ca8360c1034ffd49256f0a00225e47?OpenDocument

Better and Worse: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0319/p01s03-woiq.html

DOD Info : http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/mar2004/tni-1yr0318042.html


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> Someone out there is lying.  I'm not sure who.




I tend to trust the gadfly in such instances, particularly when its a separate government agency.  


Here's an article on the GAO report and the now defunct Coalition Provisional Authority's Inspector General Report, which also listed problems:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0604/063004kp1.htm


Here's the CPA Inspector General's site...I can't get the reports to punch up:

http://www.cpa-ig.com/reports_congress.html



Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson

Personally, every time I see these rows of bright, chirrupy "statistics," coming out from governments that have been caught with their hand in the body bag, I think of either the bright, chirrupy body counts that came out of Vietnam, Nixon announcing that the FBI had gone through 1,257, 342 pages of documents and interviewed over 6, 247 witnesses and there was no evidence of White House  involvement in Watergate, or--my fave--some SF novel I read in which the hero hears the government radio announce, "That's just 10--TEN!!--ration points for a BIG, BIG, half-ounce bar of CHOCOLATE!!!"

Over a thousand US soldiers dead. How many wounded, how many crippled permanently? How many dead Iraqui kids, women, young men? How much did we spend, are we spending? How many houses, schools, mosques destroyed? How many new enemies? 

I'm afraid I tend to think it's worth a lot just to have gotten rid of Uday and Qusay...but to paraphrase Tom Clancy, "You want this man killed, we can do that, but I'm not going to help you kill 100,000 others." 

You think that's nasty? Try this, also from "The Sum of All Fears," page 897 in the paperback edition: "You're the one who ****ed up! You're the one who took us to the edge, and now the real reason you want to slaughter a whole city is because you're mad, your pride is hurt, and you want to get even! You want to show them that nobody can push YOU around! That's the reason, ISN'T IT?"

Might be nice if conservatives would, at least sometimes, pay attention to their own ideological statements.


----------



## kenpo tiger

This all makes me incredibly sad.

As a mother, for the mothers who've lost their children.

As an American, for the mistakes made in our collective name.

Conscription isn't the answer.  As someone else pointed out, serving in the military is now a choice people make and is viewed by some as their duty.  (I'll also add that even when the draft was in place, it was STILL a choice some made to enlist.)  Maybe a system similar to that of the Israeli army - you go to training at 16 and then serve in some capacity, such as serving on the police force [in Israel it's a branch of the military.]

As a mother of sons, I breathe a sigh of relief that the draft no longer exists.  I support our troops, but to our government:  don't take mine if you won't send yours.


----------



## Tgace

The US Army War College has an interesting paper regarding the new trends regarding war casualties and "acceptable losses".

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96summer/eiken.htm


----------



## GAB

Kenpo Tiger,

Yes it is sad, the idea is just not male but female also. 

Remember all who go in the service are not on the front line, it takes alot more in the rear to take care of the fighting force.

There could be some rules set up that would help to determine who would fight. We would still want someone who can do the job out there doing it.

I still think you can not allow fear to be the factor for not going in and serving ones country.

You have nothing to fear, but fear itself. Turns people into victims and other things to bad to mention.

Regards, Gary


----------



## kenpo tiger

I agree with Peach in that there should be more aggressive recruiting for the 'peaceful' endeavors - like making sure there are enough qualified teachers to go around, education supplies, food for those in low income areas, many many more counselors for street gangs so that those who participate in them can lead a different, less violent life.  Also more participation in programs like Habitat for Humanity.  Another aspect of this same idea would be to aggressively recruit for the Peace Corps - if it still exists - or other programs which have outreach in Third World countries.

Participation in these types of positive, humanitarian programs would go an awfully long way, in my opinion, toward the cessation of hostilities toward the US.  It probably would never eradicate the hatred of some toward our country, but maybe, just maybe, it could change the minds and hearts of enough people to make a difference.

I sound like a tree-hugging liberal, don't I?  Well, I'm a child of the 60s and 70s and I still believe in peace, love, and understanding.  Maybe I'm unrealistic, but I'd like to believe that there's still hope for us all.


----------



## GAB

Hi Kenpo Tiger,

I guess we can all pray for peace, kindness, charity, good programs for the reaching out of the havers to the have nots. Sometimes that works and sometimes it only makes the have-nots resentful for your concerns.

The idea I am going on, is very old and wise, to avoid war, you must prepare for it. I think it goes back to the Articles of Amendment #1 and #2 . They were the most important then and now.

What is a better way then having the citizens of the country being involved and taking on the responsibility for the protection of the freedom, they have come to expect, unless they are involved, will someday possibility lose it.

I look at it like the right to vote, the powers to be should take some active steps to try and get more of our citizens out to vote, look at the last election, if we have another situation like that it could lead to drastic results, in a country that is very proud of our right to vote policy.

In most other countries it would have been much more violent. I am not sure if you let it go, then you let the idea of the war, we are in go, and then what is next? 

We have already seen a couple of things that send shivers up and down your spine as far as abuse of power. 

If the President is voted out, and people vote in a different Senate and House, he may be up for grabs, for many crimes that quite a few persons have been talking about of late...

This election is very important, regarding American's values. It will be a message sent loud and clear, one way or the other.
Regards, Gary


----------



## rmcrobertson

I raised the issue of the draft here, so let me just mention my point--if this war or terror is really the Big Emergency (19 guys with box cutters?), then the Prez has the responsibility to get serious: declare war, call up troops, and go after 'em. To my mind, even if Bush is right (and I don't think he is), he's taken a lazy, irresponsible, politician's approach to the matter.

Then there's this--ya know, we have been piling up armies and weapons since forever. This country is clearly the strongest on earth, with weapons out the old kazoo--and where's it getting us? None of it  so much as slows down wars, none of it brings security--so, maybe, it's about damn time to start trying something else.

Like, for example, real support for the UN, and real international aid, and real honoring of the principles Americans are supposed to honor--for starters, we could quit futzing around with democratically-elected governments that we don't happen to approve of. We could quit training terrorists and drug lords, as we've done throughout Latin America.


----------



## Phoenix44

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> As a mother of sons, I breathe a sigh of relief that the draft no longer exists. I support our troops, but to our government: don't take mine if you won't send yours.


The draft is coming, KT.  There are twin bills in Congressional committee RIGHT NOW which, if passed, would re-institute the draft.  Look them up:  S.89 and H.R.163.  And by the way, it won't involve just your sons, but your daughters, too.

Will everybody please just WAKE UP!


----------



## Feisty Mouse

...and being enrolled in high school or college will not "protect" them, according to those bills, either.  Kids will be pulled out of high school and college for the draft.

These are my friends. These are my students.  They are others' children.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Should'nt the title of this post be "3500 and counting..."


----------



## bignick

i think...unfortunately...that it will get there soon enough, without adding in any other casualties to the iraq number


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

I meant the 2500 killed September 11, 2001.:angry:


----------



## bignick

i understand what you meant...i was just saying that with the "never-ending war" on terror...it seems like the death toll in iraq alone could reach that many...


----------



## RandomPhantom700

This thread is about the, by now, over 1000 American soldiers lost in the current war in Iraq, not the civilian losses of the September 11 terrorists attacks.  Any connection between the two have been, to say the least, contested.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

I just hope the death toll in America does'nt get reach that many again!  I just wonder how many American lives have been saved by killing as many of those sorry sub-humans as we have?


----------



## bignick

and how many decent people have we killed by invading iraq...not everyone in the middle east is a terrorist nor are the majority of people in the middle east terrorists...i won't debate the necessity of trying to shut down al qaeda...but there is no connection between iraq and al-qaeda as has been addressed in many a thread here...

September 11, 2001 was a horrible tragedy for this country and i'll never forget how i felt that day...but by calling the people of the middle east sub-humans you begin to rationalize our killing of them...certainly some people in the world are deserving of that classification but to say something like "by killing as many of those sorry sub-humans as we have.." stereotypes them all together...and it lets you forget that there are plain, innocent civilians on both sides...an iraqi civilian death is no more or less tragic than an innocent american death...we're all people, despite where we were born...

in afghanistan there were members of an organization that attacked the united states...this was our justification, along with ousting the taliban, of invading afghanistan...and i believe it was sound enough to go to war...our invasion of iraq had no such pretext...they wanted us to believe the links between al qaeda and iraq...and they wanted us to believe the wmd's....both of which have since proven to be false...showing that there was little to no justification for this war...making every death...no matter who it was and what side they're on even more tragic...because it was preventable...


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Forgive me!  But hate clouds my reason.:asian:


----------



## bignick

Yes, it does...and there are probably a lot of people that agree with your statment....it's a knee jerk reaction...

being in the martial arts...i believe force is a viable option to use...otherwise i wouldn't be training all the time to use it...but its at the bottom of the list as far as i'm concerned...

if violence is the only option you've got left...it's the only option and certainly there are times when violence is appropriate...some people will never listen to reason and will insist on hurting others and themselves no matter what...when someone is a danger and you've got no choice...take them out...fast and hard...but make sure you think before you do...cause there will be consequences...and you'll need to live with them....this applies to situations involving personal self-defense as well as large scale conflicts like war...violence is very scalable...it works in the small situations and the big ones...as long as there are rational justifications for any situations...i have no problem with use of force


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Well said Bignick!  But I think they hate us more than we could ever hate them.  This is not a kneejerk reaction for me.  They will kill me for their God, but I will kill them for my grandchildren.


----------



## FUZZYJ692000

"sub-human" or not they are still human!  however, with that aside, it's very hard to go into a country that has such strong views of their own and tell them that they have to change.  i'm not sure on which war, i believe it was WW II when the US tried to put soldiers in Iraq so that they could move into Western Europe and even then the Iraq people made it very clear that they didn't want us there and that we were not welcomed to stay.  

it is really hard going into another country that does have strong religious beliefs too and tell them we're going to rebuild your government and oh by the way you can not have anyone in government that is a strong muslim believer.  i stumbled across an article from the washington post...it's kind of contradictory to what they're trying to do in Iraq, i just found it interesting http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24634-2004Sep15.html 

plus, it is only natural that people would rebell against change.  nobody likes change and that's why there were things in this country like the revolutinary war, civil war, civil rights movements (and some of the chaos that came with that), revolts and rebellions, there's always that 1 group that isn't going to go with the flow.  it's just some handle things differently than others and this 1 particular group, not all of Iraq but a group of people within Iraq are the ones that don't want "us" to change it.  it doesn't mean that all of those people in Iraq are these "sub-humans" that a lot of the media has them made out to be


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

I did'nt mean the the Iraqis were sub-human. I meant the God fearing terrorists were! There is a difference. Anyone who kills for God is sub-human! That's all I meant to say. People like them have killed in the name of God for too long.:angry:


----------



## FUZZYJ692000

unfortunately people have been killing people in God's name for many many years and i'm sure it's not going to stop any time soon.  the Crusades being just one of the many wars fought because of religious beliefs. as long as we have different religions there will always be someone or some group that will try to justify their actions by saying it was in the name of God


----------



## rmcrobertson

Strain of Iraq war showing on Bush, those who know him say
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY


...Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day. His history degree from Yale makes him mindful of the importance of the moment. He knows he's making "history-changing decisions," Evans says. But Bush doesn't keep a diary or other personal record of the events that will form his legacy. Aides take notes, but there's no stenographer in most meetings, nor are they videotaped or recorded.

It's widely assumed that one reason Bush wants to rid the world of Saddam Hussein is to complete the mission his father, former president George Bush, began in 1991. The senior Bush led a coalition to eject Iraqi troops that had invaded Kuwait, but knowing that the U.N.-backed alliance was formed solely to liberate the country, he decided against going on to Baghdad to remove Saddam from power. People who know both men say this war isn't about vengeance. "It's not personal," one Bush aide says.

Rather, the president's passion is motivated by his loathing for Saddam's brutality, aides say. He talks often about his revulsion for Saddam's use of torture, rape and executions. He is convinced that the Iraqi leader is literally insane and would gladly give terrorists weapons to use to launch another attack on the United States.

The thought of another assault on the United States horrifies Bush. Aides say he believes history and heaven will judge him by his ability to prevent one....


...Bush copes with anxiety as he always has. He prays and exercises. Evans says his friend has a placid acceptance of challenges that comes from his Christian faith.

"He knows that we're all here to serve a calling greater than self," Evans says. "That's what he's committed his life to do. He understands that he is the one person in the country, in this case really the one person in the world, who has a responsibility to protect and defend freedom."



Lovely. Personally, I'm particularly appalled by the fact that this stuff is so easy to find, and nobody seems to give a hoot.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I just hope the death toll in America does'nt get reach that many again!  I just wonder how many American lives have been saved by killing as many of those sorry sub-humans as we have?




Sub-humans?

Okay, uber-mensch.  Will Halliburton or Bechtel be building the ovens?  Who has the contract?




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Anyone who kills for God is sub-human! That's all I meant to say. People like them have killed in the name of God for too long.:angry:


Does this include our Commander in Chief?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

I mean everyone! 

Uber-mensch?  How dare you!  You can coddle the terrorists if you choose.  But I say we hunt them down and kill them all while we still have the muscle.  The wolves are at the door, and this sheepdog can smell them!


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I mean everyone!
> 
> Uber-mensch? How dare you! You can coddle the terrorists if you choose. But I say we hunt them down and kill them all while we still have the muscle. The wolves are at the door, and this sheepdog can smell them!


I'm glad you think that way (in regards to meaning everyone).  Just a question (not attacking you, actually just curious), do you think that fighting a war in Iraq has to do with fighting terrorism, or do you think that the terrorist factions showing up in Iraq are as a result of our occupation?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Both!  They were there before September 11, 2001, and they are going there now.


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Both! They were there before September 11, 2001, and they are going there now.


Interesting perspective.  I know they are going there now, but I can only agree with before Sept. 11th if you are referring to Saddam and Sons.  I don't particularly see Osama and Saddam seeing eye to eye.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

They saw eye to eye alright!  They hated Americans.  In America you have the right to worship any invisible being you choose.  Radical Islam will never accept that sort of freedom!


----------



## bignick

neither will radical christianity


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Quite right guitarzan!


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> They saw eye to eye alright! They hated Americans. In America you have the right to worship any invisible being you choose. Radical Islam will never accept that sort of freedom!


So do you think that Iraq (or any other middle eastern country) will ever embrace Democracy?  Personally, I don't think they can, because there is just so much about Democracy, and freedom that those people are not willing to embrace right now.

But then again, once the Taliban was no longer in power in Afhghanistan, some freedoms were enjoyed (particularly by women), that were previously not in place.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

They should become a Constitutional Republic!  The hell with democracy! If you don't agree, ask the founding fathers & mothers of America!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Heck, lets send them our Constitution.  It's worked for about 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

That is a very astute observation Kaith!


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Heck, lets send them our Constitution. It's worked for about 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.


Touche'


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

I would not count out our Constitution yet!  Nor the American people.  There are those who think Americans are just sheep and cannot smell the wolf!  In a way they may be correct!  But there are too many sheepdogs and we have the watch!


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Ronald!  Is it impossible for you to post without exclamation marks and smiley faces?  You really ought to try something different!  Its getting old!  Smiley faces and exhortations to kill people are incongruous!   

We are a _democratic republic_.  To say we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy is inaccurate.  In modern lexicons "republic" and "democracy" are generally considered synonymous.  The first time I heard that "we're a republic, not a democracy" line was at a John Birch meeting (and no...most of you can guess I'm not a Bircher nor have I been). 

Spouting this is a meaningless distraction meant to give people a false sense they actually know something about our government.  It also minimizes the word "democrat" and elevates the word "republican".  Those that buy into it tend to have a pretty dismal knowledge of American history.

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Function: noun

1 a : _government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections_

2 : a political unit that has a democratic government dem·o·crat·ic /"de-m&-'kra-tik/ adjective dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly adverb 


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Forgive me. I mean no offense.  I am not a Republican. Nor am I a Democrat.  I am a Democratic Republican.

I was using the emoticons for the fun of it.  I did not mean to displease anyone.  I just think that the minority should be protected from the majority. I think that is why a Constitutional Republic was invented.   I will not argue semantics.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Ronald,
 I tend to agree.  Unfortunately, I don't believe thats been true since the 1860's.
Different thread however, for that debate.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

You are quite right Kaith.  But how many people know what a Democratic Republican truly is?


----------



## hardheadjarhead

*I just think that the minority should be protected from the majority. 
I think that is why a Constitutional Republic was invented.*

Well, I look forward to seeing you weigh in on the sides of gays and other minorities in other threads.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Hardheadjarhead,  What ever do you mean?


----------



## Phoenix44

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> They saw eye to eye alright! They hated Americans. In America you have the right to worship any invisible being you choose. Radical Islam will never accept that sort of freedom!


Actually, Saddam and Bin Laden did not see eye to eye.  Bin Laden hated Saddam's secular government, and Saddam would never allow an ego like Bin Laden to operate under his dictatorship.  They could not co-exist.  And there was no Iraq-originated anti-American terrorism since the early 90s.  Now Iraq is in total chaos, and it's Terror Central.

In fact, right about now, EVERYONE hates America.  What's your suggestion?  Invade the entire world?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Phoenix44,  They hate us because we are free!  I suggest to hold on until their society aborts.  Just like the Soviet Union.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Phoenix44,  They hate us because we are free!



I do hope you're being sarcastic.

I was under the notion that no one actually believed this particular load of crap.


----------



## Flatlander

Likely because American foreign policy in the middle east has been all about destabilizing, undermining, and talking out both sides of the mouth, all while doing everything under the sun to prop up Israel, who they percieve as being land thieves.  They could care less if you're free.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Reasons why they (arabs in the mid east) hate the US?

Different values (the whole christian/islam thing)
US military bases in the Holy Land (sacrilige)
US continued backing of Israel (Who is a police state, and regularly engages in it's own atrocities, as well as defys UN and international laws)
US two facedness (we flip flop on who we support.  Remember, we sold Sadamn those WMD we now can't find...)
Just plain spoiling for a fight.

It's not about Freedom.  They like their own versions well enough. We, to them are the corrupt ones.


----------



## Tkang_TKD

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Phoenix44, They hate us because we are free! I suggest to hold on until their society aborts. Just like the Soviet Union.


 
If we continue to dump money into "Liberating and Rebuilding" Iraq, I could see a future very similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union.


----------



## PeachMonkey

More exciting reasons why the US is hated:

-- The fact that we support repressive regimes while claiming to support "democracy"
-- The imposition of "democracy" only on our own terms
-- Oh, and there's that little matter of a long history of Western imperialism in the region.  Nearly every nation in the region was arbitrarily created by Westerners when they pulled out after milking the region as a series of colonies, inherited from the Turks after the First World War.

Let's not let any of the history, or facts, get in our way of self-righteousness, though.  Saying "They hate us cause we're free" is a great way to distract people from the actual issues, and contributes to continuing the cycles of bloodshed, mistrust, and hatred (and profit!).


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

You are right PeachMonkey and I am wrong.  I think I was looking at this with a shallow point of view.  Thanks to all of you.

A new perspective is what I've gained.  I should have known about Western Culture.

I also promise never to use the emoticons again.  Or an exclamation point.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I did some "Number Crunching", the findings are below.  I'd appreciate it if folks would check my numbers anf if you have more current figures, please update where appropriate.

I also found this:
U.S. Deaths in Iraq: A Historical Perspective
By James J. Na
Foreign Policy Fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think-tank. 
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/deaths/intro.html


===========

US Numbers based on http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
US Population (estimated) 294,338,558
Iraq Population (estimated) 24,001,816 (July 2002 est.) 

Iraq population death rate: 5.66 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
http://www.indexmundi.com/iraq/death_rate.html

US population Death rate: 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/death_rate.html


US Troop strength in Iraq: Aprox. 140,000
Deaths to date : 1,034
% strength killed : .74%  
Death Rate: 7.39/1,000


Normal Non-Combat death rates (by Navy)
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/statistics/ashore/recreation/default.htm
Military Fatalities and Rates
Navy  5.73/100,000
Marine Corps 6.46/100,000
Navy/Marine 5.96/100,000

British Forces:
During the 10-year period 1994 to 2003, the Tri-Service standardised mortality rate has fluctuated between a high of 94 per 100,000 strength in 1995 and a low of 64 in 1996. In 2003, the rate. at 82 per 100,000 strength was the highest since 1995, primarily dur to the conflict in Iraq
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/deaths/intro.html




Resource:
U. S. ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY DEATHS PER 100,000 SERVING - 1980 through 2002
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates1.pdf
See also : http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/castop.htm

WAR ON TERRORISM - OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
As of September 4, 2004
BY CASUALTY CATEGORY WITHIN TYPE
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/OIF-Total.pdf

See Also: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html


----------



## Flatlander

Couple of things, here. First, Kaith, the reference you quoted for the Iraqi death rate does not detail where they get their info from, but did call the figure an estimate. I'm curious as to whether those figures take into account what's going on there right now, or if they deal only with 'natural causes'.

Second, let's spin the argument a bit. If one is of the mindset that the Iraqis are generally seeing too many unecessary deaths due to the current occupation, how do we think that those figures would change had Iraq never been invaded? Saddam killed a LOT of people, though I speculate that finding an accurate source for those numbers would be next to impossible, given the context. I imagine many of those executions went unreported. However, there is a possibility for a peace in Iraq because of the occupation that *should* eventually come to bear fruit, with time, whereas there was no likelihood of Saddam or his heirs ever slowing down their murderous ways.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

The US Deaths to Date figure I pulled from an earlier post of mine, which also contained a breakdown to hostile/nonhostile, and I believe provided links to more indepth details.

For the Iraqi data, at the bottom it states the info came from the CIA
2 additional sources are below:

Iraq : Death rate  6.21 deaths/1,000 population  
http://www.mapzones.com/world/middle_east/iraq/dataindex.php

Iraq : 9 deaths per 1000 people (2000 figure)
http://www.worldata.org/Y/2000/1 VP/General/Demography/Deaths/%/V/Total Population/vp_ok.htm


----------



## kenpo tiger

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Reasons why they (arabs in the mid east) hate the US?
> 
> Different values (the whole christian/islam thing)
> US military bases in the Holy Land (sacrilige)
> US continued backing of Israel (Who is a police state, and regularly engages in it's own atrocities, as well as defys UN and international laws)
> US two facedness (we flip flop on who we support. Remember, we sold Sadamn those WMD we now can't find...)
> Just plain spoiling for a fight.
> 
> It's not about Freedom. They like their own versions well enough. We, to them are the corrupt ones.


Facts please.  And don't forget the treatment of Israelis captured by the Syrians during the 73 War - chopped into small pieces while still alive and tossed back across the border.  My proof of that?  My friends in the Israeli army who retrieved the remains.


----------



## Phoenix44

They hate us because we are free?  Thanks for enlightening me.  

I thought maybe they hate us because we have a President who doesn't care about what the rest of the world thinks.  Or maybe because we invaded a sovereign nation after our administration lied to the world about a "rationale."  Or maybe they hate us because our President is a friend of dictators like the Sauds.  Or maybe they hate us because we talk about freedom while imprisoning, without charging, our own citizens who try to exercise their freedom of peaceful assembly in New York City.  Or because our President insists on loyalty oaths from us free Americans who want to attend his speeches.  Or because we're free, but one of the first things we did in Iraq, after "liberating" it, was to shut down a newspaper.  Or because we insist on monitoring elections in other supposedly less free countries while refusing to accept international monitoring of our own elections, which many of our own people suspect are being tampered with.  Silly me, in reality it's just as simplistic as "they hate us because we are free."

Funny, the entire world didn't hate us because we were free on 9/11/01.  In fact, most of the rest of the world was very supportive of us, even though we were free on 9/11/01.  There must be something else to it.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Again I apologize for my simplistic view earlier yesterday.


----------



## Makalakumu

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I did some "Number Crunching", the findings are below.  I'd appreciate it if folks would check my numbers anf if you have more current figures, please update where appropriate.
> 
> I also found this:
> U.S. Deaths in Iraq: A Historical Perspective
> By James J. Na
> Foreign Policy Fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think-tank.
> http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/deaths/intro.html
> 
> 
> ===========
> 
> US Numbers based on http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
> US Population (estimated) 294,338,558
> Iraq Population (estimated) 24,001,816 (July 2002 est.)
> 
> Iraq population death rate: 5.66 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
> http://www.indexmundi.com/iraq/death_rate.html
> 
> US population Death rate: 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)
> http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/death_rate.html
> 
> 
> US Troop strength in Iraq: Aprox. 140,000
> Deaths to date : 1,034
> % strength killed : .74%
> Death Rate: 7.39/1,000
> 
> 
> Normal Non-Combat death rates (by Navy)
> http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/statistics/ashore/recreation/default.htm
> Military Fatalities and Rates
> Navy  5.73/100,000
> Marine Corps 6.46/100,000
> Navy/Marine 5.96/100,000
> 
> British Forces:
> During the 10-year period 1994 to 2003, the Tri-Service standardised mortality rate has fluctuated between a high of 94 per 100,000 strength in 1995 and a low of 64 in 1996. In 2003, the rate. at 82 per 100,000 strength was the highest since 1995, primarily dur to the conflict in Iraq
> http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/deaths/intro.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resource:
> U. S. ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY DEATHS PER 100,000 SERVING - 1980 through 2002
> http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates1.pdf
> See also : http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/castop.htm
> 
> WAR ON TERRORISM - OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
> As of September 4, 2004
> BY CASUALTY CATEGORY WITHIN TYPE
> http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/OIF-Total.pdf
> 
> See Also: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html



Good Post.  This will take me some time to go through.  Do you feel like these numbers support a postion that Iraq is not as dangerous as we think?  I have suspected something similar, so it is interesting to actually crunch the numbers and do something I was trained to do.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Facts please.  And don't forget the treatment of Israelis captured by the Syrians during the 73 War - chopped into small pieces while still alive and tossed back across the border.  My proof of that?  My friends in the Israeli army who retrieved the remains.


 I'll dig up my notes on the Israelis and post the short summary.
Please note, I never said the Palestinians were saints either. Both sides are engaged in some pretty disgusting stuff.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

My take on the number is that it's not as bad as certain media and alarmists make it out to be.  That said, I won't be vacationing there anytime soon either.


----------



## Phoenix44

Funny thing about Israelis:  They don't target school buses and dance clubs.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Funny thing about Israelis:  They don't target school buses and dance clubs.



They do, however, shoot children who throw rocks.

I don't think you can attach perfect moral equivalency to the acts of Palestinian terror groups and the IDF, but Israel's behavior is not faultless.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Don't forget driving over peaceful protestors with construction equipment as well.
Maybe thats only bad when you use tanks?

Anyway, heres the info and link to the whole brewhaha. Theres more in there...this as the gas on that fire.



> *Originally posted 4-14-2004*
> 
> 
> 
> wisdomstrikes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaith Rustaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You point at the Chinese....what about the Israeli?
> Right now their leader is being applauded by W, despite having a record as vile as Saddam. Towns raized, populations slaughtered to the last, the Red Cross denied access, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> How can you compare Sadam to Israel's Leadership? Get educated before you make remarks like that!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israeli issues:
> http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/480/480_07_PalestinianLives.shtml
> 
> 
> 
> What the U.S. media ignored is that since the last Palestinian suicide bombing in Haifa on October 4, Israeli forces have carried out dozens of raids and attacks. These assaults have killed 117 Palestinians, injured hundreds more and destroyed enough houses to leave thousands of Palestinians without shelter, according to a tally by Palestinian commentator Ali Abunimah.
> 
> But for the U.S. corporate media--its horizons defined by loyalty to the U.S. agenda in the Middle East--a period of intense Israeli violence still counts as a "lull" in the conflict. In fact, just two days before the suicide bombing, more than 40 Israeli military vehicles--supported by Apache helicopters--staged an assault on the densely populated Rafah refugee camp in southern Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Media Blackout Over Israeli Atrocities in Nablus
> Monday, 5 January 2004, 12:19 pm
> Press Release: Palestine Media Center - PMC
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0401/S00014.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian witnesses said Amjad Bilal Al-Masri, 15, was shot in the chest by an IOF sniper as he threw stones at an Israeli armored vehicle from a rooftop in the Old City of Nablus.
> 
> Al-Masri and Rawhi Shuman - a 19-year-old shot in the chest in a separate incident - died of their injuries in the citys Rafidya hospital, medics said. Amer Arafat, 25, was shot in the back and pronounced dead upon his arrival to hospital. During the funeral of the three, IOF shot and wounded another teenager, 17-year-old Mohammed el-Masri. Hospital officials later pronounced him dead. Witnesses said he was helping to carry the coffin of his cousin Amjad el-Masri when he was shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Press Release from the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS)
> Oct 18 2000
> Emergency Medical Services (EMS) of the Red Crescent
> 
> 
> 
> To-date 24 of our ambulances have been hit by live ammunition by Israelis in 42 separate attacks. 27 Emergency Medical Technicians have been injured, and one killed. PRCS has logged 47 incidents of denial of access to ambulances at roadblocks. EMS continues to utilize vehicles now in desperate need of repair due to lack of replacements and personnel. The 8 ambulances received from the Norwegian Red Cross are already working in the field.
> 
> Total Attacks on Ambulances by Israelis: 42
> 
> Total Ambulances Damaged (some vehicles attacked more than once): 24
> 
> Total EMT Personnel Injured: 27
> 
> EMT Killed: 1
> 
> Violations & Restrictions of Ambulance Access: 47
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from: http://www.hoffman-info.com/palestine31.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rumors tell of dozens of Palestinian prisoners arbitrarily executed by the Israeli forces. Israeli army spokespersons allege that only gunmen have been killed in gun battles. But medics of the International Red Cross and United Nations officials have proven that the weapons of the executed Palestinians showed no signs of being fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From : http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/401/1/42/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most notorious and controversial events of current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was the April, 2002 Israeli invasion of Jenin Refugee Camp. For weeks, the Israeli army assaulted the camp with helicopters, tanks, bulldozers, and troops. Almost immediately, reports began to trickle out of Jenin about massive human rights violations occurring in the camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.jenininquiry.org/
> 
> 
> So...you were saying?
> 
> I know....they didn't drop folks into mulching machines while they were alive, and such.. so you're right, they aren't quite the same.
> 
> Terroism, barbarism, etc takes many forms. Here are a few.
> 
> Now, before someone starts screaming the 'anti-semitic' crap....(and I know someone will), I'm not. I look at the actions of a nation, not a religion here. I can easily fill a couple of hard drives with the crap done to Israel by arabsm nazis and others as well. This is to simply say "I have compared, and there it is. Go refute it if you can. I hope you can do so."
> 
> That is of course my point in many of these things.... "Here is what I found...please prove me otherwise."
Click to expand...


----------



## PeachMonkey

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> And don't forget the treatment of Israelis captured by the Syrians during the 73 War - chopped into small pieces while still alive and tossed back across the border.



Disgusting, but one set of atrocities doesn't excuse another.

The Arab and Jewish settlers in the pre-Israeli state period committed countless tit-for-tat atrocities against one another... Ariel Sharon cut his teeth with this sort of brutality during the early days of the Haganah.

There's also the genocidal acts of the IDF and Christian Phalangist militia during the 1982 Lebanon invasion -- again, under Ariel Sharon.

Part of the IDF's own doctrine is a focus on "Purity of Arms" -- the concept that the IDF will use armed force only when necessary, only to the extent necessary, and always retain their humanity, never using force against non-combatants.  

The common betrayal of this ethic in recent years has caused a great deal of internal strife within the IDF and Israeli society as a whole, and led to refusals to serve in the Occupied Territories.


----------



## kenpo tiger

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Disgusting, but one set of atrocities doesn't excuse another.
> 
> The Arab and Jewish settlers in the pre-Israeli state period committed countless tit-for-tat atrocities against one another... Ariel Sharon cut his teeth with this sort of brutality during the early days of the Haganah.
> 
> There's also the genocidal acts of the IDF and Christian Phalangist militia during the 1982 Lebanon invasion -- again, under Ariel Sharon.
> 
> Part of the IDF's own doctrine is a focus on "Purity of Arms" -- the concept that the IDF will use armed force only when necessary, only to the extent necessary, and always retain their humanity, never using force against non-combatants.
> 
> The common betrayal of this ethic in recent years has caused a great deal of internal strife within the IDF and Israeli society as a whole, and led to refusals to serve in the Occupied Territories.


Peach, 
You make a good point or two here.  I am a little to the right of Attila the Hun when it comes to Israel and the Middle East and I freely admit it's a purely emotional rx borne of living there during the Yom Kippur War (aka the 1973 War) and serving in a civilian capacity aiding the Israeli Army.  Many of my friends went into the service because they felt it was their duty.  Many of them were returned in boxes -- and they were about your age.  

There is probably no "correct" answer to the situation.  In my mind it's similar to many of the other places where there are innocent casualties in the name of G-d, Freedom, or anything else extremists want to put forward.  Make no mistake.  There are extremists on ALL sides, including those pro and con for the war.


----------



## PeachMonkey

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Many of my friends went into the service because they felt it was their duty.  Many of them were returned in boxes -- and they were about your age.



I can definitely understand that.  I have a similar response when people lecture Israel about withdrawing from the occupied territories, and when they refer to Israeli imperialism -- all forgetting, of course, that Israel occupied those territories in 1967 in order to protect themselves from an impending invasion by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia -- an invasion designed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Not unlike the invasions of 1948-49, 1956, 1973 (which you witnessed), the War of Attrition from 67-70, and the near-constant guerilla warfare between Israel and various Palestinian groups.

I fully blame Israel for their acts when it's called for, and I think many of their policies of late have exacerbated problems rather than helping to solve them, but I can't exactly blame them for not trusting their neighbors.


----------



## kenpo tiger

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I can definitely understand that. I have a similar response when people lecture Israel about withdrawing from the occupied territories, and when they refer to Israeli imperialism -- all forgetting, of course, that Israel occupied those territories in 1967 in order to protect themselves from an impending invasion by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia -- an invasion designed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
> 
> Not unlike the invasions of 1948-49, 1956, 1973 (which you witnessed), the War of Attrition from 67-70, and the near-constant guerilla warfare between Israel and various Palestinian groups.
> 
> I fully blame Israel for their acts when it's called for, and I think many of their policies of late have exacerbated problems rather than helping to solve them, but I can't exactly blame them for not trusting their neighbors.


I am compelled to agree with you on both counts.  However, one must keep in mind that politics abroad are vastly different than ours, and sometimes the leadership makes decisions it deems best for the greater good.  In the long run, Israelis just want to live peacefully and not have to wonder if the man or woman sitting next to them on the bus is wired for more than his or her MP3.


----------



## PeachMonkey

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> However, one must keep in mind that politics abroad are vastly different than ours, and sometimes the leadership makes decisions it deems best for the greater good.


 KT, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm also quite sure (to invoke Godwin's Law) that Hitler made decisions that he felt best for the greater good, too.

 Regardless of whether they think their decisions are best, Israel's powers-that-be have made some poor choices over the past few years.  

 Ariel Sharon's decision to appear at the Temple Mount, thus igniting the latest _intifada_, was one.  

 The map of the Palestinian Authority presented by Barak's administration was designed so that no Palestinian leadership that wished to survive could accept it.  

 And the decision to build a wall to partition off the Occupied Territories will simply further starve the Palestinians into rage, along with turning world opinion even further against Israel.


----------



## kenpo tiger

I hardly think you can compare the Israeli government and its officials to Hitler and the Third Reich (I know you were using it as an example, but please - find someone else!)

The wall exists because it has to.  It will come down when no longer needed.

The newspaper said today that the US casualties in Iraq now stands at 1,043.  The five dead listed were all Marines, average age 20, average rank, Lance Corporal.


----------



## PeachMonkey

KT,

 My apologies for the choice of comparison -- it literally didn't occur to me how inappropriate it was until after I'd made it.

 As for the wall, are you really convinced that the wall will stop attacks, and won't make the situation in the Occupied Territories worse, thus exacerbating the situation?  Do you think perhaps terrorism could be combatted by Israel without punishing every civilian in the Territories?


----------



## Flatlander

Perhaps a new thread on that topic would be a good idea.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Good point.  Sorry for the thread gankage.


----------



## bignick

the worst part...when we had already had our "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" there were fewer than a 150 casualties..hmm...doesn't really sound like the job was done


----------



## kenpo tiger

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Do you think perhaps terrorism could be combatted by Israel without punishing every civilian in the Territories?


One might ask the same question with regard to Iraq and why we're there.


----------



## PeachMonkey

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> One might ask the same question with regard to Iraq and why we're there.



Yeah, and I think my opinion on that particular question is pretty clear.  I'll cut you slack for not actually answering my question since I ganked the thread.


----------



## kenpo tiger

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Yeah, and I think my opinion on that particular question is pretty clear. I'll cut you slack for not actually answering my question since I ganked the thread.


:supcool: 

Whyn't you start another on that topic?  I'm not feeling a question right now... but I'm sure you can come up with something to get the ball rolling.:boing1:


----------



## michaeledward

As of October 16, 2004, the website www.icasualties.org shows 1,100 United States service member fatalities in Iraq.


----------



## michaeledward

As of October 25, 2004, the website icasualties.org is reporting there have been 1106 US Fatalities in Iraq.

On May 1, 2003, President Bush declared the end of major combat operations on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in front of a banner that read 'Mission Accomplished'.

From that day forward, there have been 997 total fatalities in Iraq (all coalition), according to the same website.

On July 2, 2003, President Bush indicated that the United States resolve was unrelenting. He indicated this with the bravado phrase, "Bring 'em on". Since uttering that phrase, 900 United States soldiers have died in Iraq.


----------



## bignick

you know...I'm kind of upset that this thread has gone on so long.....cause every time I read this thread it's never good news....the arrogance of this administration is astounding..."Mission Accomplished"...."Bring 'em on"....

Yesterday Dick Cheney was at my university....the only people that even knew he was coming were the people that "were supposed to know"...aka college republicans, etc....

the only notice about it most of the students recieved from the university was that some parking lots would be closed...nothing in the school paper...no emails...no big signs....to see it you had to go and find tickets downtown and sign a pledge of loyalty...if more students had known about it...there would have been a lot more protesters than the few that had heard about it...


----------



## sifu Adams

The loss of our men is hard however, right or wrong we must support them.  I have always been told some time your best defence is to strike first.  If someone was threating me or my family it would not take over 2-3 times before I called them out.  Win or lose the threat would be over.


----------



## bignick

sifu Adams said:
			
		

> The loss of our men is hard however, right or wrong we must support them. I have always been told some time your best defence is to strike first. If someone was threating me or my family it would not take over 2-3 times before I called them out. Win or lose the threat would be over.


yes...but what was Iraq's threat to us...as has been shown in thread after thread....none...which makes each loss of life on boths sides...even more tragic...it's war and people die...but when what we went to war for was a lie...that's even worse...


----------



## Flatlander

sifu Adams said:
			
		

> I have always been told some time your best defence is to strike first. If someone was threating me or my family it would not take over 2-3 times before I called them out. Win or lose the threat would be over.


When you alone bear the burden of the consequences of that decision to strike pre-emptively, then that's fine with me. Because that clearly is not the case here, your analogy doesn't relate very well.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

It does, and it doesn't.  It's a a matter of definition IMO.

There are reasons why I would strike first.  Money, power are not 2.
To protect my friends and family, yes I would.

The reasons given for invading Iraq were:
- Sadamn has WMD (He didn't)
- Sadamn was helping Osama (He wasn't)
- Sadamn was not complying with UN requirements (He was, and wasn't)
- Sadamn was involved with the 9/11 attacks. (He wasn't)

Right now, the butchers bill is over 10,000 US and allied casulties, and upwards of 100,000 Iraqi casulties. A war started based on flawed intellegence, a non-existant exit plan, and without UN or majority support. Sympathy for the US that came out in the shadow of 9/11 has turned to open resentment, and a nation that had pulled together tighter than in the past 60 years is now more divided than any other time since the 1860's.

The true tragedy however isn't the tens of thousands of lives lost and disrupted, it is the loss of freedoms and security in a world that is now a darker and more dangerous place than it was before.  I hope everyone has a strong stomach, for the butcher is still hungry, and more will yet be spent to pay his grisley bill.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Are we not free born Americans?  I am a free born American and I will not submit to to such Tyranny.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Are we not free born Americans?  I am a free born American and I will not submit to to such Tyranny.



Which Tyranny are you talking about?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

George Bush's Amerika I think.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

The Tyranny of having our speech repressed!  The Tyranny of property taxes so I cannot live free and support my family!  The Tyranny of the Dummacrats and Republicrats as they conspire to suppress our opinions!  The Tyranny of the Whigs, who supported England, and became the Democrat Party!  Torys all!  Good Ole George Washington did not have the luxury of the draft!  Our Founding Fathers were Democratic Republicans!  Libertarians!  The Tyranny of Income Taxes,  our fathers would roll over in thier graves to know that we are that stupid!  How much Tyranny must I confess?


----------



## PeachMonkey

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> The Tyranny of having our speech repressed!  The Tyranny of property taxes so I cannot live free and support my family!  The Tyranny of the Dummacrats and Republicrats as they conspire to suppress our opinions!  The Tyranny of the Whigs, who supported England, and became the Democrat Party!  Torys all!  Good Ole George Washington did not have the luxury of the draft!  Our Founding Fathers were Democratic Republicans!  Libertarians!  The Tyranny of Income Taxes,  our fathers would roll over in thier graves to know that we are that stupid!  How much Tyranny must I confess?



Wow.  At least we know you can find the exclamation key.

So what does this particular set of John Birch Society tenets have to do with the topic of the thread?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

I do not know who John Birch is!


----------



## RandomPhantom700

> I do not know who John Birch is!



Google.com is out friend....


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Ronald, while you're Googling for "John Birch", add the following to your bookmarks...Dictionary.com.  There you'll find this definition for tyranny:

_The government or authority of a tyrant; a country governed by an absolute ruler; hence, arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government._

We don't quite yet have a tyrant in George Bush.  The Democrats and Republicans, being political parties, can not manifest tyranny as it is expressed via an individual.

You will also find this:

_Exclamation \Ex`cla*ma"tion\, n. [L. exclamatio: cf. F. exclamation.] 1. A loud calling or crying out; outcry; loud or emphatic utterance; vehement vociferation; clamor; that which is cried out, as an expression of feeling; sudden expression of sound or words indicative of emotion, as in surprise, pain, grief, joy, anger, etc._

Note that if this were a verbal discussion in a relaxed setting, we'd be encouraging you to calm down, lay off the caffeine, and take a Xanax before you got us all thrown out of the coffee house.  An exclamation mark is best used sparingly.  It loses emphasis with over-use, and frankly, it makes the writer look a bit histrionic.  

Now that I think of it, my mother used to talk like this.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard

:cheers:

I can relate to the excess of caffine....I'm a geek y'know.   We thrive on it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I've already been chastised for using emotocons.  Now I'm being chastised for using the exclamation mark.  What can I do to appease the Whiteman?  Who the hell is John Birch?  I do not use drugs.  What is Xanax anyway?  I do drink lots of coffee.  For that I give you a heads up.



I chastised you the first time for the emoticons AND the exclamation marks.  You did okay for awhile.

"Appease the Whiteman?"

John Birch was a missionary killed in China by communists.  A virulent anti-communist organization was named after him.  They've shifted their focus now to being anti-UN, now that the red tide has receded.

Google it.  Its really easy.  If you're using Explorer you can have a Google search engine added to your browser.  Makes research a dream.  I use it, and dictionary.com, faithfully.

FWIW...I use...the ellipses...far...too...much.  Improperly, too, I might add.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander

For an interesting discussion regarding the UN, click this link.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Is there something wrong with being against the UN?  All they are is a bunch of National Socialists.



Wow... are you actually comparing the UN to the Nazi party?  Or are you implying that all UN member nations are socialist?

Either answer is completely incorrect.

As for hardheadjarhead's suggestions, I would stay away from the Google toolbar -- it's spyware.  The main www.google.com site is still a great resource.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Leaving where?



The United States of America is a founding member of the United Nations.  I think his implication was that if you choose not to "submit to the UN", and you live in the US, you're in kind of a, well, contradictory position.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I'm not comparing the UN to the Nazi's.  I just saying they are all a bunch of Tyrants.  I will never submit to that.



So how does "submitting to the tyranny" of the UN mean that they are National Socialists?  Or is this just some kind of stream-of-consciousness thing that we're not really supposed to understand?


----------



## Bester

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Leaving where?


 Yes. Exactly. 

Government, like fire, is our most useful servant, if fully controlled by us, its
Citizens; and government, exactly like fire, becomes our most destructive master
if not fully controlled by the open majority of its productive working Citizens!
Only united-armed-vigilant & trained, Swiss 6000 year Peace & Freedom reigned!
Exception? None! from The Army of Principles by George Washington.


----------



## Bester

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> So how does "submitting to the tyranny" of the UN mean that they are National Socialists?  Or is this just some kind of stream-of-consciousness thing that we're not really supposed to understand?


 Actually, I think he's one of the three reincarnations of Dr. Bronner running loose on MartialTalk.  We may need the services of a qualified ghostbuster to keep things on target.

Ronbo, howsabout you try contributing to the topic rather than just busting in helter-skelter and disrupting things with random brain drippings, hmm?  If you can't contribute, lurk and learn, or move on.  This is an area for the more serious discussion and you are dangerously close to "Trolling".  Not good, my Precious.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Ronald,

A greater sage than I said it best:

"All swallows evolve united to perfect pilots by full-truth, hard work, Gods Law, trained brave! No slave! Brave! Always evolving-united, free in All-One-God-Faith! Hardworking, self-disciplined, no parasite-blackmail-welfare-slave! Therefore, brave we live to teach-work-love-inspireunite!
All-One! Win Victory! Help get it done! Teach to unite All-One! All-One! All-One! For these are the days my friend, we know theyll never end! Well work-sing-dance-love marching on! Marching on! Well teach how to Love Gods Way! Well fight for it, OK! For were young and sure to unite All-One! All-One!"


----------



## PeachMonkey

Bester said:
			
		

> Actually, I think he's one of the three reincarnations of Dr. Bronner running loose on MartialTalk.  We may need the services of a qualified ghostbuster to keep things on target.



I wonder if his soaps are as good as Bronner's.  

All-One,

PM


----------



## Flatlander

So, back to the discussion, then.....


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers

Who is Dr. Bronner, and how am I trolling?  I wish you guy's would talk coherently.  I just stated my opinions and asked questions.  By the way, I serve no God.  I respect the Gods, but I won't rely on them.  I am going to find out who this John Birch fellow is.  You seem to know.  Is he a facist?


----------



## Bester

Dr. Bronner used to make soap.

 His soap labels had incredible nonsence on them.

 They were very similar to most of what you write.

 two examples of his writings were posted.

 You were told who John Birch was.

 We are talking coherently.  

 You are just not able to understand us.

 I have writen short sentences in hopes that you may understand.

 Do you understand the words that are coming out of my keyboard?

 If you do not I can help.

 Click  HERE


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Flatlander said:
			
		

> So, back to the discussion, then.....


Poor flatlander, I think it's a lost cause.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Not really. Have you or any of you ever been overseas? I've been around the world three times. I've visited every continent except Antartica. All I've ever seen is a third world shithole. The UN wants us to be just like them. A shithole. Take a look at the Pine Ridge Rez in South Dakota. That's the future.


Yeah, real third-world nations over there in...Europe. Not much money, no cultural centers, west side has terrible tourist trade. Yup, Europe...real shithole there. :idunno:


----------



## michaeledward

And in the 21 hours since my last post on this thread ...

or 

While you were bickering ...

The Department of Defense announced two more United States fatalities in Iraq. In the month of October, to date 50 US service members have died. 

In the 10 months and 14 days since the Coalition forces captured Saddam Hussien, some 704 Coalition forces have died.


(and I don't mind the bickering, but let's remember that this thread is really about those servicemen and women)


----------



## Flatlander

Thanks Mike.


----------



## michaeledward

October 28, 2004

1,111 US Fatalities

139 during invasion - March 20, 2003 through May 1, 2003 (Mission Accomplished)
715 during occupation - May 2, 2003 through June 28, 2004 (turnover of 'sovereignty'
257 in foreign lands - June 29, 2004 through today (after 'sovereignty' was returned to Iraqis)


----------



## raedyn

Right... because the US is no longer an occupying power ? I wonder what Iraqis would think of that statement....


----------



## kenpo tiger

michaeledward said:
			
		

> October 28, 2004
> 
> 1,111 US Fatalities
> 
> 139 during invasion - March 20, 2003 through May 1, 2003 (Mission Accomplished)
> 715 during occupation - May 2, 2003 through June 28, 2004 (turnover of 'sovereignty'
> 257 in foreign lands - June 29, 2004 through today (after 'sovereignty' was returned to Iraqis)


1,111 too many.


----------



## Flatlander

> London  A survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months after the U.S. invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war.


Complete article.


----------



## michaeledward

The 100,000 number is based on a 'Household Survey'. This method of counting fatalities is notoriously poor, as mentioned in the article. 

Iraq Body Count.Net shows the civilian fatalities in the range of 14,181 and 16,312. Of course, this report is also not completely credible. The numbers are based only on those fatalities that make the news reports. For instance, in April, there was extensive US military action in Fallujah. Many of the deaths were unreported. A new report shows this information:



			
				Iraq Body Count dot Net said:
			
		

> Today the Iraq Body Count (IBC) website has published its analysis of the civilian dealth toll in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. This analysis leads to the conclusion that betweeen 572 and 616 of the approximately 800 reported deaths were of civilians, with over 300 of these being women and children.


We will never have an accurate count of the number of Iraqi's killed during their liberation. But we can be certain that the deaths are not going to stop anytime soon. 

Continuing reports tell us of a planned 'decisive assualt' to suppress the insurgents in Fallujah after the United States election. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/29/uiraq.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/10/29/ixportaltop.html&sSheet=/portal/2004/10/29/ixportaltop.html


I guess we should all be glad that this is not going to be 'major combat' action. Those all ended a while back. 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html


----------



## michaeledward

As of November 1, 2004


*1,123 - United States service members have died in Iraq.*

*  143 - United States service members have died in Afghanistan*

*     70 - British service members have died in Iraq*

*     72 - Service members from the 'Coalition' have died in Iraq*

Hackworth's column this week was interesting. It concerns the efforts of the 'coalition'.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=89&rnd=385.66303572696284


----------



## michaeledward

With the assault on Fallujah, more soldiers are being killed. Today, TWICE as many United States Soldiers have died while Iraq was under the new Interim Authority than were killed during *'Major Combat Operations*'. 



139 US Fatalities from April 19, 2003 - May 1, 2003 

283 US Fatalities from June 29, 2003 - November 9, 2003


----------



## bignick

.


----------



## Rynocerous

> By PeachMonkey:
> 
> A lot of this comes from the urban myth about Vietnam soldiers having been "spit upon" by war protesters upon their return to the States. See:


After I got back from my tour we had to talk to "doctors", really just a way to say you are seeing a pchyciatrist. Many of the Vietnam vets didn't have a chance. My father got his orders to go home, when he stepped of the plane in LA he was a civilian. He was spit on called a baby killer, etc. and why? Because people are ignorant in the fact as it was said earlier that people take out their feelings about the war on the sodiers. It is not their fault they got sent over seas, its not thier fault the enemy is trying to kill them, they are just doing their "JOB" as a sodier. I see that many of you support the troops, which I really respect, and truly thank you. Although, there are a lot of people out there that still disrespect the soldiers when they come home. When I came home there were bars that would kick us out for being military. I personally have been spit at, and called a baby killer, but I just have to think that they are just mis-informed as to who exactly is making the call for we soldiers to be over there. I just shake my head at those poor fools, I, along with everyone else who serves is just fufilling their oath as an American Soldier. It was really hard not to just give in to my animal side and chew their arms off, but instead I became a better person by just shaking my head and walking away. I hope that through brilliant people like yourselves, the truth keeps getting spread.

Anyways I'm off work now so I'll talk to you all tomorrow!

Chow,

Ryan


----------



## michaeledward

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As of November 1, 2004
> *1,123 - United States service members have died in Iraq.*


As of November 13, 2004

*1,173 - United States service members have died in Iraq.*


----------



## michaeledward

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Strain of Iraq war showing on Bush, those who know him say
> By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
> 
> 
> ...Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day. His history degree from Yale makes him mindful of the importance of the moment. He knows he's making "history-changing decisions," Evans says. But Bush doesn't keep a diary or other personal record of the events that will form his legacy. Aides take notes, but there's no stenographer in most meetings, nor are they videotaped or recorded.
> 
> It's widely assumed that one reason Bush wants to rid the world of Saddam Hussein is to complete the mission his father, former president George Bush, began in 1991. The senior Bush led a coalition to eject Iraqi troops that had invaded Kuwait, but knowing that the U.N.-backed alliance was formed solely to liberate the country, he decided against going on to Baghdad to remove Saddam from power. People who know both men say this war isn't about vengeance. "It's not personal," one Bush aide says.
> 
> Rather, the president's passion is motivated by his loathing for Saddam's brutality, aides say. He talks often about his revulsion for Saddam's use of torture, rape and executions. He is convinced that the Iraqi leader is literally insane and would gladly give terrorists weapons to use to launch another attack on the United States.
> 
> The thought of another assault on the United States horrifies Bush. Aides say he believes history and heaven will judge him by his ability to prevent one....
> 
> 
> ...Bush copes with anxiety as he always has. He prays and exercises. Evans says his friend has a placid acceptance of challenges that comes from his Christian faith.
> 
> "He knows that we're all here to serve a calling greater than self," Evans says. "That's what he's committed his life to do. He understands that he is the one person in the country, in this case really the one person in the world, who has a responsibility to protect and defend freedom."


Last week Don Evans announced he was leaving his cabinet post. Hmmm ... Hindsight is interesting, eh?


----------



## michaeledward

According to this news report, Fallujah is now 100% secure.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1244655.htm



			
				exceprt said:
			
		

> *US commander says Fallujah is 100 per cent secure*
> 
> United States troops have secured control over the whole of rebellious Fallujah with more than 1,000 insurgents taken prisoner.
> 
> Colonel Michael Regner, operations officer for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Fallujah, says "somewhere over 1,000" insurgents have been killed in the offensive that began on November 8.
> 
> "A 100 per cent of the city is secure," he said, but added that Marines were still involved in fighting in portions of the city and were sweeping house to house.
> 
> He says 38 US troops had been killed and 320 wounded in the operation.
> 
> Six Iraqi government troops also have been killed and 28 wounded.
> 
> He added that no more than about 24 of the prisoners were from outside Iraq and a senior U.S. defence official says "a large fraction" of the Fallujah prisoners would very likely be released quickly.


Although the commander reports only 38 US troops have been killed, the total number of US Fatalities in Iraq for November is 72, according to icasualties.org. There seems to be a disconnect there. 

I am not willing to conceed that 100% secure means 100% safe. I fear there will be more soldiers returning on midnight flights from Fallujah.

Total US Fatalities in Iraq as of November 15, 2004 : 1193
Total US Fatalites in Iraq for the month of November : 72 (so far)


----------



## michaeledward

1,200


----------



## michaeledward

100 United States Fatalities in Iraq in the month of November.


Total US Fatalities in Iraq - 1,221


----------



## hardheadjarhead

A Marine killed in Iraq only hours after his son's birth.  He never learns about his child.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/20/soldier.killed.ap/index.html


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward

One year ago today, Saddam Hussein was captured by US military forces in Iraq.

Since that time, 895 coalition fatalities have occured in Iraq, 752 under hostile circumstances.


----------



## Rynocerous

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> A Marine killed in Iraq only hours after his son's birth. He never learns about his child.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/20/soldier.killed.ap/index.html
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Steve


This is a very sad truth that continues from day to day. We need to keep saying prayers for the soldiers, their families, and their friends.

Sincerely,

Ryan W Guthormsen


----------



## michaeledward

www.icasualties.org reports that American fatalities in Iraq now exceed 1,300.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

It just makes me want to cry.

And all this, for what - ?


----------



## INDYFIGHTER

...


----------



## MisterMike

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> It just makes me want to cry.
> 
> And all this, for what - ?



To help rebuild and bring democracy at this point.

I think the role of the U.S. military in Iraq ended after we bombed them and captured Saddam.

Time to leave.


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think the role of the U.S. military in Iraq ended after we bombed them and captured Saddam.


For those who are concerned, 906 Coalition fatalities since the capture of Saddam Hussein on 12/13/2003.


----------



## raedyn

MisterMike said:
			
		

> To help rebuild and bring democracy at this point.
> 
> I think the role of the U.S. military in Iraq ended after we bombed them and captured Saddam.
> 
> Time to leave.


That's sounds a little contradictory.
If the whole point was to remove Saddam and replace his dictatorship with a new democratic nation... the work has only begun. Yes, Saddam is gone. But there is hardly a stable democracy there. If the coalition ran away with their tail between their legs now, it would leave a fertile ground for another tyrannical dictator to pick up where Saddam left off. The US military damaged the infrastucture of that country during the invasion, and at a minimum they have a responsibility to help replace what was lost. If the aim of this war were really so noble, shouldn't we be leaving it a better place than we found it?


----------



## PeachMonkey

raedyn said:
			
		

> The US military damaged the infrastucture of that country during the invasion, and at a minimum they have a responsibility to help replace what was lost. If the aim of this war were really so noble, shouldn't we be leaving it a better place than we found it?


 Your point is well taken, but the US is:

 -- Failing to rebuild the infrastructure.  See earlier threads about how little of the recovery money is actually going to the Iraqi people and infrastructure, and how conditions have gotten worse, rather than better, for most Iraqis.
 -- Incapable of establishing peace on the ground.  Western forces are traditionally incapable of defeating insurgencies by nature, and the Iraqis simply do not want us there.  If our goal is to simply establish another Saddam-like "strongman", the only likely way we can get a clean break, then it casts even more aspersions on the motivations for the invasion.


----------



## michaeledward

raedyn said:
			
		

> MisterMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MisterMike*
> _To help rebuild and bring democracy *at this point.*
> 
> I think the role of the U.S. military in Iraq ended after we bombed them and captured Saddam.
> 
> Time to leave._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's sounds a little contradictory.
> If the *whole point* was to remove Saddam and replace his dictatorship with a new democratic nation... the work has only begun. Yes, Saddam is gone. But there is hardly a stable democracy there. If the coalition ran away with their tail between their legs now, it would leave a fertile ground for another tyrannical dictator to pick up where Saddam left off. The US military damaged the infrastucture of that country during the invasion, and at a minimum they have a responsibility to help replace what was lost. If the aim of this war were really so noble, shouldn't we be leaving it a better place than we found it?
Click to expand...

You missed the clause 'at this point.' in Mister Mike's entry.
The 'whole point' in your response does not line up with the goals of the American Adventure in the Middle East.

In this and in other threads, there are a variety of links to the actual words of the leaders in the Bush II Adminstration that explain what the original rational for invading Iraq was all about. Some have pointed out that those words are 'Out of Context', but you really should decide for yourself.

According to international laws (which some claim the United States need not bother following, even though by ratifying such treaties, we make those international laws, United States laws), once we invade a country, we have the obligation to stabalize the country we invaded. 

Of course, by turning over 'authority' to Iraq, and forcing an 'imperfect' election, the United States is trying to get out from under that obligation. 

Several have said that if the Iraqi's ask us to leave, we will. Look for that request to come from the victorious Shi'ite Muslems in early February. At which time, Iraq will become very similiar to Iran ... a religous country. 

Look for massive oppression of the Sunni's. And hope the ignore the Kurds.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward

Today's helicopter crash brings the total US fatalities in Iraq to 1,418.


michaeledward


----------



## Bester

Would it have mattered if that crash had happened in Germany, where 75,603 US servicemen are currently stationed, or Japan (40,045), or South Korea (40,258), etc?

Dead is dead, a tragedy regardless of where, or how.


----------



## michaeledward

You are correct that Geography does in some way highlight this tragedy. If this helicopter crashed in Europe or Southeast Asia, it would still be a tragedy. What makes it stand out as a cause for concern is that our servicemen and women are in Iraq because of statements like this.



> *Speaker:*  Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
> *Date:*  9/10/2002
> *Quote/Claim:*
> We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. [Source: Telegraph]
> *Fact:*
> We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03


 . . . and today, Ms. Rice was confirmed by the United States Senate to the post of Secretary of State. 

Should statements like that be disqualifiers?

m


----------



## Bob Hubbard

If we purged the government of liars and crooks, what would we do with all those empty peopleless buildings?


----------



## Tgace

What do the majority of people actually serving and giving their lives think of the sacrifice? Im shure there are many that dont want to be there, but Ive seen/met/heard from many who believe in what they are doing over there. Does it matter?


----------



## michaeledward

Tgace said:
			
		

> What do the majority of people actually serving and giving their lives think of the sacrifice? Im shure there are many that dont want to be there, but Ive seen/met/heard from many who believe in what they are doing over there. Does it matter?


This begs the question .. please define "what they are doing"?

Are they protecting us from the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were a grave and gathering threat to the United States?

Are they ridding the world of an evil tyrrant; Saddam Hussein?

Are they spreading freedom throughout the world?

Or are they just cannon fodder?

I don't wish to make light of the service these fine young men and women fulfill. But, the mission has been far from clear for a very long time. And that the reasons for the mission have shifted and shifted again over the past two and a half years is something we should all be constantly vigelent of.


----------



## Blind

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't wish to make light of the service these fine young men and women fulfill. But, the mission has been far from clear for a very long time. And that the reasons for the mission have shifted and shifted again over the past two and a half years is something we should all be constantly vigelent of.


This is a good point, as TGace said elsewhere it is to a degree it seems at a point where you gotta finish what you started. Clearly if America(primarily but the other nations throwing in their help as well) withdrew now it would be disastrous. To my mind Iraq was a bad call, and as a non American I have my suspicions about the reasons why, and Erik wrote a very informative post from his perspective on the "popularity dropping" thread.

I can honestly say that right now I do think what America is doing there is very important, I am not that up to speed on the situation and only listen to what info I can glean from friends or the news. That said I would make a guess that if all assistance was removed now I guess there would be even less security and more murder than there is now-speculation I admit but from where I stand that is how it appears. So from that perspective and the fact that most soldiers would feel they are protecting their nations interests sure, they should feel they are doing something worthwhile.

What needs to be looked at IMO is what steps will be taken in future to prevent this kind of thing happening, obviously the UN saying NO is not enough. I do realise I am just a wishful thinker though.


----------



## Makalakumu

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> If we purged the government of liars and crooks, what would we do with all those empty peopleless buildings?



Homeless shelters?


----------



## michaeledward

Some current statistics ....

1453 - Total United States Fatalities in Iraq
_998 - *Hostile* United States Fatalities since the End of Major Combat Operations (5/1/2003)
1246 - United States Fatalities since President Bush challenges "Bring Them On".
1078 - United States Fatalities since Saddam Hussein was captured (12/13/2003)
__ 13 - United States Fatalities in February 2005 (so far)


----------



## RRouuselot

One of the benefits of working on a military installation is we can get more positive news than is offered by CNN, ABC, & NBC which tend to go for stories that are more emotional shall we say. They hardly ever focus on the positive side of a story but rather do stories that try get a reaction out of your average American. 

   The Navy Marine Corps News & AFN  mainly focuses on the positive stories that come out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Things like GIs building schools, furnishing it, helping dig ditches, purifying water supplies, giving medical care to people that otherwise couldnt get, let alone afford it, and so on. Occasionally they show some gloom-n-doom but most people in the military are painfully aware of that anyway and dont really need to be reminded what happens in a war since many have already been in at least one. 

   Do I think the reason for going there were justifiable..not really, but there is nothing we can do about that now except suck it up and do a good job helping people while we are there.


----------



## RRouuselot

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> If we purged the government of liars and crooks, what would we do with all those empty peopleless buildings?


 Even with all the crooks and liars we still have one of the best standards of living in the world. I have been to some real 3rd world **** holes in my day that would lock you up just for writing that....so trust me on this..you would rather live in the US with all the liars and crooks than some other places I have been.

 Americans have it GOOD.


----------



## michaeledward

Today, the number of American soldiers who have died in Iraq will quite probably reach 1,500. Is there an end in sight?


----------



## shesulsa

Oh, Michael.  How many people do you think are willing to admit you're right ... er ... left? :ultracool


----------



## Tgace

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4241



> Data on US service member deaths are provided at The Center for Military Historys Military Casualty Information web page .  Here we can find a number of casualty statistics, but I focused on only two sources.  The WAR ON TERRORISM - OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM depicts casualties by month and is current to January 29, 2005.  This data provides the baseline for a historical comparison.
> 
> Since the Department of Defense (DoD) has established deaths per 100,000 service members on active duty as its criterion, it is simply a matter of mathematically calculating the ratios for GI deaths in the 23 months of OIF to arrive at the deaths per 100,000 rate, which I will refer to simply as the death rate.  I used the latest DoD figures available (2004) for active duty strength as 1,418,731.  This figure will of course, fluctuate due to mobilization and de-mobilization of reserve component units.
> 
> The important numbers for the comparison:
> 
>  Total hostile and non-hostile deaths for IOF are 1429
>  Death rate for 23 months of OIF is 100.7
>  Average death rate for one year is 52.5
>  Average monthly death rate is 4.4
> 
> Note the last two numbers as they are key in comparing GI death rates for the last 24 years and the rates from OIF.  Statistics going back more than two decades are provided on the chart U.S. ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY DEATHS PER 100,000 SERVING - 1980 through 2002 .  The rest of this exercise is, as they say, a matter of running the numbers.
> 
> Right at the top of the table are the death rates for all causes in 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carters Presidency.  Note the accident rate alone is nearly twice what is today.  The total yearly death rate for Carters last year is 110.7, which is more than double the OIF yearly death rate!  Note to the major press: we werent even at war in 1980, yet DoD had an accident rate among GIs that was almost 20 points more than our yearly rate in Iraq.
> 
> We cant tell from the chart how many of these accidents were off-duty or happened during training.  Its a safe bet that many occurred during training exercises due to the loss of experienced officers and NCOs during the Carter hollow military years.  Also note that when President Reagan took office in 1981, the accidental death rate started to decline even as troop strength increased.
> 
> Other significant events occurred that affected the death rate.  In 1983, hostile action in Grenada resulted in a 0.8 rate, while the terrorist attack on the Marine Barracks in Beirut far surpassed our deaths on Grenada with a rate of 11.6.  Overall, our death rate in 1983 was 108.5, which is still far above our OIF rate of 52.5.
> 
> By 1989, the accidental death rate had declined almost 29 points from 1980 while uniformed end-strength had increased by almost 144,000.  Also in 1989, Bush 41 ordered US forces to conduct Operation Just Cause, which had a death rate of 1.0 due to hostile action.  Still, 1989 saw a total death rate of 71.0 which is almost 19 points above the yearly death rate of OIF.
> 
> The next big event was in 1991 when the US conducted Operation Desert Storm (ODS).  This operation resulted in a death rate of 6.9 per 100,000 service members.  But the actual operation lasted about 1.5 months.  Therefore, a monthly rate for ODS would be approximately 4.6.  This is slightly above the monthly death rate for OIF at 4.4.
> 
> In 1993, the accidental death rate continued to decline, but under Clintons watch the suicide rate peaked out in 1995.  At a rate of 15.0, it was the highest self-inflicted death rate of any president over the 22-year time period depicted on the chart.  This contributed to an overall death rate of 62.5; still 10 points over the rate for OIF.
> 
> Thankfully, the suicide rate dropped in 1996, but this was also the year we suffered a hostile action death rate of 0.1 due to operations in Bosnia.  The rate works out in raw numbers to be about two people.  It is difficult to get exact casualty figures for Bosnia, but the number of KIA as being two makes sense from a scanning of available reports.  These two were killed from mines, while an estimated 50 were also wounded from mines and from unexploded ordnance.
> 
> Also note the sharp increase of terror attacks during Clintons Presidency.  The last big terrorist attack came during Reagans first term on the Marine Barracks, then attacks tapered off to zero in 1990 and 1991, and were 0.1 in 1992, Bush 41s last year in office.  Starting in 1993, the death rate due to terror attacks climbed to 1.6, then 0.4, 1.2, 0.2, and in Clintons last year in office it was 1.1.  During Clintons eight years in office the total death rate was 4.5 due to terror attacks, which was far below the 11.6 of 1983, but exceeds the rate of 3.6 due to the attack on the Pentagon on 9-11.
> 
> Finally, there is no uniformed death rate due to hostile action shown in 2001, which was the start of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan.  This is more than likely due to the small numbers of troops initially employed, and the type of operations that were conducted.  Large conventional forces were comprised of native Northern Alliance formations and Pashtun tribal units.  Also, these DoD figures do not count casualties sustained by CIA operatives and paramilitary personnel such as Johnny Michael Spann.  However, in 2002 there was a hostile action death rate of 1.1 as more Soldiers and Marines were deployed to Afghanistan.  The yearly death rate total for 2002 was 58.2, which is still above the OIF rate of 52.5.
> 
> Of course, we cant tell from this data how many accidents were training-related, off-duty, or if they happened in a theater of war.  Therefore, any OIF death rates would have to be added to incidents at home station.  Nevertheless, what these figures should tell the American left is that just training for war, even in peacetime, is a very dangerous business.  And, in case any of the aging hippies from the 60s in the press rooms across America are wondering, the yearly death rate for our conventional involvement in Vietnam  from 1964 to 1973 was 176, more than triple the current rate in OIF.
> 
> Ultimately though, this kind of rational examination of the numbers is not going to convince many people on the left.  Even if you show them that when Jimmy Carter was in charge that he had an accidental death rate almost 20 points higher than the death rate in Iraq, they would probably just scoff and say something to the effect that wellat least we didnt have to go war.  This view betrays their true agenda.
> 
> They dont give a damn about our troops, no matter what phony sympathy they express about the deaths of our heroes.  If they did, they would have had Carters head on a pike.
> 
> In reality, theyre just scared theyll be asked to help join the effort to protect our freedom, because they simply dont want to have their nice, safe cocoons punctured.
> 
> Douglas Hanson is our military affairs correspondent


----------



## michaeledward

Tgace, can I assume that because you posted this article, you actually mean to say this ?




			
				Tgace's Post said:
			
		

> They dont give a damn about our troops, no matter what phony sympathy they express about the deaths of our heroes.


----------



## Tgace

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/004154.php



> At the beginning of the Iraq War, an accidental helipcopter crash killed several American soldiers. A general said about the accident: "What we do is dangerous. Even in peacetime." Indeed, year in and year out, an average of one to two American soldiers die every day, during peacetime, as a result of accidents. This casualty rate has never attracted any public attention. Accidental deaths in peacetime never make headlines, notwithstanding their relative frequency.
> 
> There have been 53 combat deaths in Iraq in the 90-plus days since May 1--roughly one every other day, about half the Army's accidental death rate during peacetime. Yet every one of these deaths has been front-page news. Why?
> 
> Not because of the strategic significance of this casualty rate, which is zero--just as the roughly equal rate of accidental deaths of troops in Iraq has no impact on the strategic situation there. And not because such an intense focus on near-zero casualty rates is a standard staple of war reporting. Past wars have, needless to say, generated vastly greater casualty rates. At the height of the Vietnam war, to which liberals longingly compare Iraq, an average of 40 American servicemen died each day--75 times the current rate in Iraq--and fatalities in World Wars I and II were far greater still. Yet in none of these conflicts was each casualty considered front-page news.
> 
> It is fair to say that no country has ever had to fight a war under this kind of scrutiny--where the death of every soldier is trumpeted in front-page headlines. It is doubtful whether a war can be fought under such circumstances. It has become a political commonplace to say that the continuing casualties in Iraq will, at some point, become a political problem for the Bush administration. I don't doubt that this is true, given the tone of the news coverage, which suggests on a daily or near-daily basis that every fatality is proof of the failure of our effort in Iraq.
> 
> If we ask why the minuscule combat casualty rate in Iraq receives such intense publicity, while the nearly-equal accidental death rate there is almost ignored, and accidental deaths of soldiers in other parts of the world are never reported, there can be only one answer: the focus by the American press on every combat fatality represents a conscious effort to undermine the war effort and the Bush administration. Why else this sudden concern for the well-being of the American G.I.? Why else the ritual incantation: ...the fifty-third combat death since President Bush declared the end of major combat on May 1? Why else the studied refusal to put the minimal casualties in Iraq into any kind of historical context? Why else do the front-page stories on every casualty crowd out objective coverage of the great progress that has been made in Iraq in an astonishingly brief period of time?
> 
> *And consider the tactics of the anti-American forces in Iraq. They launch attacks on a daily basis, not seeking military advantage of any kind but seeking rather to kill an American soldier every day or two. Why? What is the goal? Publicity in the American press, primarily. The only hope of the desperate Baathists and other desperadoes loose in Iraq is that the American people will tire of the war and the reconstruction effort and go home. The withdrawal of American troops from Somalia after casualties were sustained in Mogadishu made a deep impression on the Arab world, and serves as a model for insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere. And the Baathists would like nothing better than for Iraq to be perceived as a second Vietnam.*
> 
> So the Baathists kill not for military advantage but for headlines, and American reporters and editors oblige them. Is it unfair to suggest that these parties work together for a common purpose--to discredit the Iraq war and the Bush administration with the American public?
> 
> *Outraged liberals will say that the press must report what happens, and cannot be expected to suppress news of American casualties. Of course. But editorial judgment dictates the prominence given to stories and the context in which they are placed. Why does not the New York Times headline, each morning, Man Killed In Car Accident In Iowa? Presumably because such a death, while undoubtedly tragic for the mans family, has no broader significance. But why is that so different from the death of a single soldier in Iraq, which has no strategic significance whatsoever? One could argue that every highway fatality is newsworthy because it casts doubt on the success of Americas effort to promote highway safety. But our newspapers have no interest in promoting such a theory; hence individual traffic deaths are not considered newsworthy. Such examples could be multiplied endlessly, as thousands of Americans are killed every day, some accidentally, some intentionally; some while engaged in noble enterprises, others not. Every day, reporters and editors decide which of these fatalities are newsworthy, what will be said about them, and in what context they will be placed. *
> 
> So all I ask is that American newspapers start applying fair and objective news judgment to what is, in fact, a remarkably low casualty rate, under the circumstances. And stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy.


----------



## michaeledward

Tgace, can I assume that because you posted this article, you actually mean to say this ?



			
				Tgace's Post said:
			
		

> _They dont give a damn about our troops, no matter what phony sympathy they express about the deaths of our heroes. _


----------



## MisterMike

We hear how mani U.S. troops are killed/injured on a day to day basis.
We hear how many Iraqi troops/police are killed on a day to day basis.
Why don't we hear how many insurgents are killed on a day to day basis?


----------



## Tgace

Wars are not won or lost strategically on body counts. Its as wrong to assume "defeat" in Iraq based on our casualties as it was wrong of us to calculate victory in Vietnam based on our body count. The body by body reporting is about media ratings, political motivations and insurgency strategy, as my last post stated. If the body count was tied logically (read minus a blatant partisan axe grinding away) to the military's capability or incapability to complete its mission maybe Id give it more credence. Otherwise Id say its war, thats what happens, and everybody over there is aware of that fact. The issue should be about the mission, what it takes to complete that mission, and if the casualties are within the "acceptable" range on the matrix (cold, but thats the reality. Military planners estimate casualties and place them on a scale). If not then the strategy should be changed. Unless all those who say "we cant just leave Iraq with the mess we made" have changed their minds.


----------



## Tgace

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Tgace, can I assume that because you posted this article, you actually mean to say this ?
> 
> [/i]


Perhaps some do, perhaps most don't. Unlike many others here, I "try" not to make extreme judgements about people. The conversations here seem, as a matter the nature of the media and of debate, to drive people to the extreme ends of the spectrum....


----------



## michaeledward

Tgace said:
			
		

> When you post refrences should I assume that you support/believe every single word and statement in that refrence?


You will seldom (perhaps never) find a reference on one of my posts that does not include a personal commentary. I will use the linked reference material to support *my thoughts*, which I offer in the thread.

You chose to not contribute any personal thoughts, but just the linked article. From this, I draw the conclusion that you are in agreement with (or perhaps are) the author of the linked material 

I will ask you once again, Do you mean to say:


			
				Tgace's Post said:
			
		

> They dont give a damn about our troops, no matter what phony sympathy they express about the deaths of our heroes.


----------



## Tgace

Altered my previous post to show I think I already have.....who am I kidding? Ive just come home from working all night and screwed up my last post thinking I was replying. :erg:


----------



## Tgace

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You chose to not contribute any personal thoughts, but just the linked article. From this, I draw the conclusion that you are in agreement with (or perhaps are) the author of the linked material


If I draw from another source, I cite where it came from...hence the link.

I am also far from being the only person to just post links to sources with no comment. Except you seem to agree more with the party that comes to mind...


----------



## Tgace

MisterMike said:
			
		

> We hear how mani U.S. troops are killed/injured on a day to day basis.
> We hear how many Iraqi troops/police are killed on a day to day basis.
> Why don't we hear how many insurgents are killed on a day to day basis?


Hmmmmm....I wonder why?

Maybe because the military learned from Vietnam that it cant determine victory based on body counts and wont publicize them?

As to why the media doesn't believe those numbers "newsworthy"....well I can assume many things.


----------



## Makalakumu

MisterMike said:
			
		

> We hear how mani U.S. troops are killed/injured on a day to day basis.
> We hear how many Iraqi troops/police are killed on a day to day basis.
> *Why don't we hear how many insurgents are killed on a day to day basis*?



I imagine that trying to discern whether one killed an insurgent or a civilian is difficult at times...


----------



## MisterMike

Well, I'd like to help the media classify them.

"Civilian" with a gun = insurgent.

I guess it helps the "cause" when you only report the losses.


----------



## Makalakumu

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well, I'd like to help the media classify them.
> 
> "Civilian" with a gun = insurgent.
> 
> I guess it helps the "cause" when you only report the losses.



The problem is that the insurgents aren't ususally using guns to kill our sons and daughters.  They use roadside bombs or carbombs or bombs strapped under clothing.  Heck, they've even strapped up little kids..._any civilian could be the one that takes you out_.

It has got to be a paranoid hell to be a soldier in Iraq... :uhohh:


----------



## michaeledward

However you wish to define something, the numbers, while occassionally disputed, are seldom not in the press. 

I refer you to: 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net


----------



## Tgace

So theres  double "bang for the buck" for the insurgents. Their attacks pump up the "civilian death count" and so do their own deaths.


----------



## michaeledward

Tgace, can I assume that because you posted this article, you actually mean to say this? 



			
				Tgace's Post said:
			
		

> They dont give a damn about our troops, no matter what phony sympathy they express about the deaths of our heroes.


And I refer back to the article, the pronoun, 'They' has an anticedent of 'people on the left'. 

Are you honestly arguing that the left wing of American Politics "don't give a damn about our troops"?




And yes, I saw your evasive non-response. 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Perhaps some do, perhaps most don't. Unlike many others here, I "try" not to make extreme judgements about people. The conversations here seem, as a matter the nature of the media and of debate, to drive people to the extreme ends of the spectrum....


Can you possibly delude yourself to thinking that you are not making 'extreme judgements' about people when you say that I don't give a damn about the troops. Or if you try to pass this personal attack off to a non-descript 'some', in this non-reply. 

Your response offends me, Mr. Hannity.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Hey, I have a question. If you're living in a country and another country invades, destroys your army, and takes over your government, and you fight back, are you really an, "insurgent?"


----------



## Tgace

Hmmm...I didnt realize that my every post was a direct statement towards anybody in particular. Seems a little egotistical to me.

Suffice it to say that its interesting that there is only one sentence you seem to want to make issue of, while its the content of the rest of the article regarding casuality counts that I was interested in. It appears that you are more interested in making this an issue about me than it is about the issue at hand. Thats OK though, its par for the course......


----------



## Tgace

Hey...the sky is blue.


----------



## michaeledward

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmm...I didnt realize that my every post was a direct statement towards anybody in particular. Seems a little egotistical to me.
> 
> Suffice it to say that its interesting that there is only one sentence you seem to want to make issue of, while its the content of the rest of the article regarding casuality counts that I was interested in. It appears that you are more interested in making this an issue about me than it is about the issue at hand. Thats OK though, its par for the course......


You call it Egotistical ... I call it offensive ...

And while you are accusing me of picking nit, and not addressing the question ... another 10 American Soldiers have died to protect us from an imminent threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction.


----------



## Tgace

Wow...I guess I better give you a direct answer before Im responsible for any more. :shrug:

Any other personal requests?


----------



## RRouuselot

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hey, I have a question. If you're living in a country and another country invades, destroys your army, and takes over your government, and you fight back, are you really an, "insurgent?"


   I guess it depends on whether or not it is really "your" country.
   From what I have read, and heard many of these "insurgents" are imported from other countries.
  I think one of the biggest "Iraqi" insurgents hails from Jordan: 

*Abu Musab al-Zarqawi*







 The first time most Americans heard the name of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was when Colin Powell stood before the United Nations to make his case for invading Iraq.    While much of Powell's statement turned out to be fictional, Zarqawi is unfortunately quite real. 

 As is often the case with the terrorist underground, we know a lot about Zarqawi and yet not nearly enough. For instance, such basic details as his real name and the country of his birth remain obscure. _*He is believed to have been born in Jordan, possibly of Palestinian descent.*_ His aliases include Fadel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, Fadil al-Khalaylah, Ahmad Fadil Al-Khalailah and just Habib. One of the Fad'l variations is probably in the neighborhood of his birth name. He may or may not be missing a leg, which is a much more important issue than you might think. 

 Zarqawi hails from the town of Zarqa, Jordan, from whence his best-known alias is derived. He's thought to be a high school dropout. Zarqawi went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the late 1980s, which has been the ruin of many a poor boy. In Afghanistan, Zarqawi plugged into the al Qaeda terrorist network, at the time fighting the Soviet Union with the support of the CIA. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, Qaeda ran training camps where angry young men met other angry young men and formed lifelong friendships. 

 One of the people Zarqawi is known to have met in the training camps was a young Pakistani explosives expert named Abdel Basit, who would later be known to the world as Ramzi Yousef. Other major terrorists were working in the camps at that time, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the big cheese, Osama bin Laden, who was more or less running the operation. 

    Jordan, like other Middle Eastern states, recognized the threat posed by Afghan _mujahideen_ much earlier than the West. Jordan and Egypt, among other countries, responded to that perceived threat by arbitrarily imprisoning the _mujahideen_, usually without charge and often under brutal conditions. Not surprisingly, this treatment only increased their anger and radicalism. 

 Right or wrong, when Zarqawi returned to Jordan in the early 1990s, he was jailed and spent seven years in jail. When he emerged, he was a full-blown radical who (according to Jordanian authorities) immediately began plotting attacks on U.S. and Israeli tourists in Jordan. He fled to Pakistan soon after leaving prison.

 From the start, intelligence officials believe, Zarqawi only worked with bin Laden to further his goal of setting up his own terrorist shop. 






 Zarqawi's original plan was to overthrow the government of Jordan, but when he was smoked out of the country and sentenced to death _in absentia_, he went traveling, first to Europe then back to the Middle East and South Asia. Zarqawi allegedly ran a semi-independent shop on the border between Afghanistan and Iran, teaching his students how to use poisons and chemical weapons in terrorist attacks. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi had to make tracks. According to Colin Powell, that's when the trouble really began. 

    The Z-man found shelter in Iran for a while, but Colin Powell didn't care. According to U.S. intelligence, Zarqawi traveled to Iraq in early 2002, and allegedly began associating with *Ansar al-Islam*, an impoverished group of 600 to 800 Iraqi Kurds whose stated goal was to secede from Saddam's Iraq so that its tiny, ethnically exclusive clan could go hide out in the mountains. 

 Of course, there's room for a different interpretation of Ansar's role. For instance, if you're Colin Powell and you're desperate to sell an Iraq invasion to the international community, you could argue that Ansar was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder."

 The American Heritage Dictionary defines a nexus as "A means of connection; a link or tie." Whatever else Ansar was, it certainly wasn't a nexus. 

 Geographically stuck between Iran, Iraq and the mainstream Kurds, Ansar was not an effective force in the region. al Qaeda briefly cultivated a relationship with the group, because of its strategic location relative to Afghanistan. When bin Laden and his crew were forced to retreat to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, al Qaeda's interest in Asnar faded.






 According to the U.S. pre-Iraq party line, Zarqawi used his "base" in Iraq to stage bombings and terrorist attacks in Turkey and Morocco. Powell told the U.N. that Zarqawi received medical treatment during a stay in Baghdad in May 2002. This was supposed to illustrate Saddam's alliance with al Qaeda. (No one ever talks about the fact that Ramzi Yousef received medical treatment from a hospital in New Jersey after a minor car accident in 1993. Did Bill Clinton personally fluff his pillow?) 

 As it turns out, the report of medical treatment wasn't even credible to begin with. According to U.S. intelligence, Zarqawi had a leg amputated in Baghdad. Except that most sources now believe Zarqawi is equipped with two working legs. As Newsweek colorfully put in in early 2004, "The stark fact is that we dont even know for sure how many legs Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi has, let alone whether the Jordanian terrorist, purportedly tied to al Qaeda, is really behind the latest outrages in Iraq."

    The remainder of Powell's claims about Iraq were less than airtight, as we all know by now. There is virtually no evidence to support claims that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together. bin Laden openly advocated the overthrow of Hussein before the U.S. decided to invade. There may well have been al Qaeda operatives in Baghdad, but there were also al Qaeda operatives in New York, Madrid, Cairo, Fort Lauderdale and Norman, Oklahoma.

 Although they've stopped repeating the above claims, the U.S. government has not formally retracted its claims about Zarqawi, despite extensive media reports casting doubt on most of Powell's speech. But that doesn't mean the Z-Man's usefulness as a propaganda tool has ended. Far from it. The U.S. government has significantly upped the ante on Zarqawi's status since toppling Saddam Hussein. According to the Pentagon, Zarqawi has been a lightning rod for Iraq's resistance to the U.S. occupation force. U.S. intelligence sources speaking on and off the record now blame Zarqawi for virtually every terrorist attack seen in the last year, including the 3/11 Madrid train bombing and bomb attacks on Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq. 

 In February 2004, the U.S. claimed it had intercepted a letter from Zarqawi to al Qaeda, outlining his strategy in Iraq and asking for reinforcements. In addition to "proving" once and for all that Zarqawi was an al Qaeda evildoer, the letter further explained that Zarqawi was responsible for bombing the Shi'ites (most al Qaeda terrorists are Sunni Muslims): 


We are striving urgently and racing against time to create companies of _mujahidin _that will repair to secure places and strive to reconnoiter the country, hunting the enemy - Americans, police, and soldiers -- on the roads and lanes. We are continuing to train and multiply them. As for the Shi`a, we will hurt them, God willing, through martyrdom operations and car bombs.​Even MORE convenient than the al Qaeda link was the fact that the letter seemed like a sure bet to drive a wedge between the Shi'ites and Sunnis. If Sunni extremists were deliberately targeting Shi'ites, then obviously the two groups couldn't possibly join forces against the U.S. occupation and its hand-picked provisional government. The letter didn't stop Sunnis and Shi'ites from doing just that, however. Unfortunately for our intrepid protagonists, the letter was quickly judged to be a forgery by just about anyone whose opinion mattered. Even Western journalists openly scoffed at the letter's authenticity, let alone the conspiracy-obsessed Arab world, which went to town over the incident. The U.S. didn't help matters by flatly refusing to discuss how it got its hands on the letter. "The important thing is that we have this document in our hands," explained Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt in February. "How it was found is not as important as the fact that we have it." Given the U.S. intelligence record to date, that's a pretty iffy proposition. 

 By now, you may be wondering what a reasonable person can actually claim to know about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and it's a good question. The piles of misinformation are so deep that it's nearly impossible to divine the truth. Shortly after the 3/11 bombing of a Madrid commuter train, pundits began speculating on a Zarqawi link, based on comments by French terrorism investigator Jean-Charles Brisard. The most compelling reason to think this might be true is that it didn't come from the U.S. government. 






 Despite all the laborious U.S. efforts to prove a link, most independent experts believe Zarqawi is not operating on behalf of al Qaeda, a conclusion which the U.S. military reluctantly conceded in early 2004. 

 In recent media interviews with captured Ansar al-Islam operatives, the terrorists said they never laid eyes on Zarqawi (the interviewees provided other verifiable information on Ansar activities). Ansar itself has been more or less made obsolete by the U.S. invasion, which spurred an influx of thousands of foreign fighters into Iraq (some al Qaeda-linked, but others not). In early 2004, some Iraqi insurgents claimed in a leaflet that Zarqawi had been killed. Not too many people believe this to be true.

 A tape released in April 2004 appeared to be from the Z-Man himself. According to the tape, Zarqawi took credit for several bomb attacks against U.S. and coalition forces. He pointedly did not take credit for the attacks on Shi'ites, but he did castigate the Shi'ites as "idolators." He called on Iraqis to "burn the earth under the occupiers' feet." After the tape was released, the U.S. increased its reward for his capture to $25 million -- on a par with bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri before their recent increases to $50 million. 

 In May, Zarqawi made himself into a star of the Internet with a homemade snuff video that really got people talking. The video, released with the catchy title "Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi slaughters an American infidel with his own hands" delivered pretty much as advertised, ending with a scene of Zarqawi brandishing the decapitated head of an American civilian named Nicholas Berg.

 About the only evil act missing from the long list of charges against Zarqawi had been any use of the chemical weapons which are his alleged specialty. It was especially odd since (from what we hear) Iraq was just chock-full of evil chemicals waiting for such attacks. 

 However, that oversight was rectified in late April 2004, when Jordanian officials named Zarqawi the mastermind of a foiled plot to kill 80,000 people with a chemical attack. (Bear in mind that this estimate may be a trifle high. Ramzi Yousef planned to kill 250,000 people in his 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The actual death count was six.) 

    And just how many legs _does_ Zarqawi have anyway? We're going to have to get back to you on that, but we can definitively state the answer is no more than three and no less than zero. Probably.


----------



## Flatlander

-----------------------------------------------
*Mod Note:*
Please keep this discussion polite and respectful.  Let's try to tone down the sarcasm and personal comments.  This is a thread I would prefer not to close, considering the original topic.

Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
-----------------------------------------------


----------



## Tgace

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030127-casualties01.htm

"War planners' estimate of battle losses may factor in an American expectation for 'sterile warfare.'"


----------



## Bob Hubbard

What are the death and injury rates for American troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea?
How about Afghanistan?
How do they compare to those in Iraq?

US Troop Deployments:
Iraq - 144,000
Germany - 75,603
South Korea - 40,258
Japan - 40,045
Afghanistan - 17,900
* Source Playboy Feb 2005

I still say, while each injury and death is a tragedy, the numbers from a strategic and tactical perspective are acceptable, and not much higher than during peace-time. To date, we have lost less killed and wounded in over 18 months in Iraq, than we did in 24 hours at Normandy, Gettysburg, Sicily, the Philipines or any single major battle during the Korean or Vietnam wars.

Since the War on Terror has generated 1,500+ KIA in the last 18? months, can someone please compare the casulties against the number of Law Enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the US in the same time period in the War on Crime? To put things in perspective, we also need to know the total number of LEO in the US.

I agree with Mr. Edward in the sence that this was was needless, and the administration criminally wrong to have done it, however I also agree with those who argue the losses are not that great, etc.

Hate the administration for starting it, but, honor those who are there at risk.
I'm now going back to lurking....too much to do, too little time to do it.


----------



## Tgace

Nicely put Bob...and close to my intent in this cluster **** too.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I still say, while each injury and death is a tragedy, the numbers from a strategic and tactical perspective are acceptable, and not much higher than during peace-time.


 I think it's entirely appropriate to be dismayed and disgusted at every single tragic American and Iraqi death that's taken place in Iraq subsequent to lies about WMD.



			
				Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Since the War on Terror has generated 1,500+ KIA in the last 18? months, can someone please compare the casulties against the number of Law Enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the US in the same time period in the War on Crime? To put things in perspective, we also need to know the total number of LEO in the US.


 I've got a better idea: if we're going to extend semi-asinine comparisons of Iraq casualty counts to past wars, to peacetime deployments, and to the United States, let's factor in actual population sizes, and make a realistic comparison between the US and Iraq.  (Stolen blatantly from Professor Juan Cole of Informed Comment: http://www.juancole.com)

 If the United States were Iraq, over 3000 Americans would have died in aggressive attacks all last week, including those caused by car bombings, machine gun attacks, grenades, and aerial attack.  That's more than died in 9/11; that number of Americans would be dying _every single_ week.

 If the US were Iraq, the White House and nearby government buildings would be under constant mortar fire and virtually no one in the White House, State Department, or Pentagon would consider it safe to venture outside.

 If the US were Iraq, all major television, radio, and newspaper reporters would hide out in their hotels in DC and New York, and would rely on strangers to report by word-of-mouth what was happening anywhere else in the country.

 If the US were Iraq, private armies totalling nearly 300,000 would control Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver, and Omaha to the point that local police and US troops couldn't even enter those cities.

 If the US were Iraq, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi) the President (Izzedine Salim) and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) would have all been recently assassinated.

 If the US were Iraq, the Air Force would routinely bomb Watts, Flint, Billings, Pueblo, Philadelphia, DC, and other major urban areas to target "criminal gangs" but would, inevitably, also injure and kill civilians with collateral damage.

 If the US were Iraq, commerical air traffic would be essentially shut down, and nearly every segment of the interstate highway system would be impassible for all but military convoys without certainty of kidnap, carjacking, or being sprayed by random machine-gun fire.

 If the US were Iraq, no one would have electricity for more than 10 hours a day, even in the midst of the summer or winter, and most people for far less.


----------



## Tgace

Nobody is comparing the US to Iraq here...we are comparing the causality rate of US troops in Iraq to that of other conflicts and other events (accidental, training etc.) to see if the issue is truly about the number of casualties or about "other" issues.....apparently the "issue" isnt about what we should accomplish in Iraq now that we are there (right or wrong). And is about grinding political axes.


----------



## Tgace

What is the point of the tally? Is it to say A."we are loosing too many. Get out."...B."we are loosing too many, we need to change our strategy."....or C. "we are loosing too many and its that warmongering, illiterate, republicans fault. See I told you so."

?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I think it's entirely appropriate to be dismayed and disgusted at every single tragic American and Iraqi death that's taken place in Iraq subsequent to lies about WMD.


 I agree.



> I've got a better idea: if we're going to extend semi-asinine comparisons of Iraq casualty counts to past wars, to peacetime deployments, and to the United States, let's factor in actual population sizes, and make a realistic comparison between the US and Iraq. (Stolen blatantly from Professor Juan Cole of Informed Comment: http://www.juancole.com)


 Sorry Peach, but I respectfully disagree.   I find Cole to be a sensationalist who is incapable of putting things into real perspective.  My opinion, I'm entitled to it, however "asinine" it may be.

 If you want to look at those deaths, then please, do.  But first, remove all NON-hostile deaths.  You know, car accidents, transport crashed, suicide etc, and focus -strictly- on deaths caused by hostile action.

 Because blowing ones brains out, flipping a jeep, or having equipment malfunction happens all over the world, regardless of engagement status.

 -EVERY- death is a loss.  Of life, of love, of potential, of hope and of dreams. Especially when the conflict has been proven to have been avoidable, needless and it's reasons a lie.

 BUT! to imply that those 1,500+ lives ended as a direct cause of this conflict is simply put to promote a lie.

 Cole and other morons like him will ignore that, and simply lead one to think that all 1,500+ deaths were avoidable.

 They were not.  Equipment fails.  If it didn't fail there, it might have in Germany.  Do those lives lost there count any less like is implied?  I would certainly hope not.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Tgace said:
			
		

> What is the point of the tally? Is it to say A."we are loosing too many. Get out."...B."we are loosing too many, we need to change our strategy."....or C. "we are loosing too many and its that warmongering, illiterate, republicans fault. See I told you so."
> 
> ?


 The point of the running score people keep is to point a finger at the corrupt administration running this nation and scream "Murderer" while ignoring any facts or statistics that don't say the same thing.

1,500, or 15,000.  They are all just numbers.
I'd rather know who these men and women were, what their dreams were, who they left behind, how they died.


----------



## Makalakumu

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The point of the running score people keep is to point a finger at the corrupt administration running this nation and scream "Murderer" while ignoring any facts or statistics that don't say the same thing.
> 
> 1,500, or 15,000.  They are all just numbers.
> I'd rather know who these men and women were, what their dreams were, who they left behind, how they died.



While I agree with the latter sentiment, I think that the running total of soldiers killed _and the running total of Iraqi casualties _ (all of them) points a finger at a misuse of our military and the needless waste of so many lives.  

As you have said, this conflict could have been avoided and there were peaceful options that the US could have backed before resorting to this.  The bottom line is that, this war has a lot more to do with ideology then anything else.

In my opinion, the US military is suppose to defend American.  It is not the world's constabulary.


----------



## Tgace

A good article on the nature of War and its relationship to politics....

http://www.grose.us/academic/clausewitz.html


----------



## rmcrobertson

1. Gee, Clausewitz considered war to be the continuation of politics by other means? Why, heckfire. None of us libs ever done knowed thet before...oh wait. That's actually the point; far from identifying any, "clear and present danger," to this country that might have vaguely justified the whole pre-emptive war notion, this Administration simply pushed us into a conflict we didn't have to be in, and apparently saw nothing wrong with trumping up evidence to do so. Why? The extension of its political and ideological purposes abroad.

2. Ya know, one of the diseases of present-day society really is the decline of decent manners. This bit about calling people like Professor Cole, "morons," because we don't agree with them...or claiming that they make stuff up, when we provide no evidence of that being the case, because we don't agree with them. Sheesh. Just repeat after me: "I don't agree. Let me explain why {insert facts, quotes, references to history, or at least logic here}. Instead, I think that {insert explanation of differing views and grounds for that view here}." Instead, though, we get this Michael Savage stuff...I know, I know. Nobody ever listens to him, that's just a liberal piece of propaganda. It's just the product of common sense that leaves anybody repeating his statements, and methods of, "argument," virtually word for word.

3. Good to see the repeat of Joseph Stalin's logic: "One dead is a tragedy. A million is a statistic." Beyond pointing out that one or two or, well, some tens of thousands of people who don't happen to be Americans have died in Iraq during this War, I agree. I too would like to check and see if the families who lost sons, husbands, brothers, sisters, believe that what they lost was lost for a good cause, one in which the President acted out of the best of motives because he had no choice, acted because he had good evidence thatv it was necessary to act, acted because he had the best interests of his country at heart and not for partisan or merely-ideological reasons.

Come on. Let's hear about how we found the WMDs. Or wait....about Hussein's support for Al Quaida. Or, sorry...tell us how this helped catch good old Osama bin Laden. Oops, my bad...about how everybody in Iraq wanted us in there and the streets are lined with flowers. Ohm gosh, there I go being liberal again...remind me what a patriot Mr. Chalabi is...oh heckfire, dammit, about how it's, "mission accomplished." But we're not, "nation-building..." oh no, perish forbid.

Cheap shots? Stuff you've heard before? Absolutely; I agree. But no worse than calling anybody who disagrees with this latest little adventure a traitor or a moron; no worse than the cyncial logic that shrugs and says, "Well, people die."


----------



## Tgace

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030330-public-opinion01.htm


----------



## agatanai atsilahu

Tgace said:
			
		

> What is the point of the tally? Is it to say A."we are loosing too many. Get out."...B."we are loosing too many, we need to change our strategy."....or C. "we are loosing too many and its that warmongering, illiterate, republicans fault. See I told you so."
> 
> ?


 All things considered I choose D.- We lost too many at #1


----------



## RRouuselot

agatanai atsilahu said:
			
		

> All things considered I choose D.- We lost too many at #1


 
 Yeah the first person to die on 9-11 was one too many.


----------



## agatanai atsilahu

Agreed. Maybe one day someone will lead us to bring the guilty to justice.


----------



## PeachMonkey

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> Yeah the first person to die on 9-11 was one too many.


 Of course, 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with the invasion of Iraq.  Which is, after all, the topic of this thread.


----------



## RRouuselot

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Of course, 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with the invasion of Iraq. Which is, after all, the topic of this thread.


  Didn't it?

  9-11 was the perfect excuse for G.W. II to invade Iraq.


----------



## PeachMonkey

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> 9-11 was the perfect excuse for G.W. II to invade Iraq.


 Oh, sorry... I didn't realize you were being sarcastic earlier.  Yes, you're right, 9/11 *was* the perfect excuse to launch the propaganda campaign.


----------



## RRouuselot

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry... I didn't realize you were being sarcastic earlier. ........


 
 I wasn't.


----------



## michaeledward

This just in ....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7203233/



> NEW YORK - At least 26 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing military officials.


Waiting for the comparison to Army and Navy acts of criminal homicide while Carter was president.


----------



## Tgace

Hmmm..thought the thread was about the tragedy of American deaths and their relevance to the mission in Iraq. 

If you want to paint servicemen/women as abusers or torturers I believe there are other threads for that.


----------



## RRouuselot

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Waiting for the comparison to Army and Navy acts of criminal homicide while Carter was president.


   Carter  .....he was a spineless joke.


----------



## RRouuselot

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This just in ....
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7203233/


    I think the bleeding heart liberals need to face the fact that innocent people sometimes die as the result of conflict.


----------



## michaeledward

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmm..thought the thread was about the tragedy of American deaths and their relevance to the mission in Iraq.
> 
> If you want to paint servicemen/women as abusers or torturers I believe there are other threads for that.


Not painting anything. Just reporting. I think there is also a thread that, which no doubt, qualifies me as part of the 'Liberal Media'.


----------



## michaeledward

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> I think the bleeding heart liberals need to face the fact that innocent people sometimes die as the result of conflict.


Facing the fact clearly.

The 'innocent people' are reported here:

www.iraqbodycount.net

Currently, there are credible reports of more than 16,000 'innocent people' being killed because of conflict.

That news story reports about detained people (perhaps, people not so innocent) who were killed by their captors. A different thing entirely.

Post Script


			
				Iraq Body Count - In Rememberance - Excerpt said:
			
		

> At least *618* of the dead whose ages are known were less than 18 years old, and *64* were babies no more than two years old.


----------



## Makalakumu

I've seen some reports that expand the Iraqi body count to 100,000.


----------



## michaeledward

So far this month, this our service members have had their least violent month since February of last year. Let's hope it continues on this downward trend.

This month, only 32 US service members lost their lives, 1 UK service member, and 3 coalition members. 

The dark cloud of this silver lining is that Iraqi leaders are more frequently targeted. 

Wishing for Peace - michael


----------



## michaeledward

President Bush, today, announced that there are *as many* native Iraqi's trained for security service in Iraq as there are United States Service Members serving in country. Essentially, this means the size of trained forces has doubled in the last two years. Further, as the Adminstration has stated our forces will come home as soon as the Iraqi's can perform the job themselves, it would seem it is time for the C-130's to begin ferrying soldiers home. 


And not a moment too soon.

  1,548 United States fatalities.
11,664 'Official' United States injured count ... some estimates quite a bit higher.


----------



## Tgace

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warsusa.htm


----------



## RRouuselot

I heard on AFN that all Marines under the age of 26 must re-take part of their drivers license exam due to the fact they die in more accidents while driving off base. Last year more marines died in traffic related accidents than died in Iraq.


----------



## Tgace

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=1139


----------



## michaeledward

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.news-medical.net/?id=1139


Well, there's the proof.

Killing people is getting better for you everyday ... Best we start more wars, eh?


----------



## Tgace




----------



## rmcrobertson

Here's a cheerful little depressor about a Marine unit in Iraq:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/25/international/middleeast/25marines.html?pagewanted=1


----------



## michaeledward

51 United States Service Members killed in Iraq in April. 

1586 United States Service Members killed in Iraq since our invasion.

More than 500 Iraqi Police Officers / Guardsmen / Civilians killed by insurgents in April.


----------



## Tgace

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/rozelle200502140749.asp


----------



## rmcrobertson

Uh, are you saying that this particular soldier's courage means that we should overlook his commander-in-chief's lying and stupidity, or--if we're talking about the article I cited--our government's failure to plan adequately and protect our troops as much as possible? I was also wondering if you could explain why "National Review," when it features Sean Hannity (never served) and speaks on behalf of George Bush Jr. (avoided Vietnam) should be taken seriously when it waxes patriotic?

Seriously--could you explain why they're more morally authoritative than, say, a long chain of liberals and lefties who actually did serve?


----------



## michaeledward

Robert,

I think Tgace just plain can't stand it to have citizens reminded that soldiers are dying in Iraq. It seems whenever I update this thread, he immediately has a 'Good News' story to post right after it.

It's almost as if he is 'banking' these news stories so they are ready to fire off when someone goes through the bother of reminding our fellow citizens that American Soldiers are dying every day in Iraq; just in case we got too preoccupied with wizzin' on the President's Social Security Privatization Plan (aka My Legacy on Wall Street).

Gee ... didn't we turn control back over to this country 3 months ago? 

What other countries have we had 149 soldiers die as guests of the government?

Mike

Support our Troops ..... Bring Them Home!!


----------



## michaeledward

Please take a few moments for this.



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB152/



http://ragno.imag.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB152/casket_exhibit.html


----------



## michaeledward

.


----------



## shesulsa

This is one of the most important articles an American citizen need read.  The implications could be huge if one reads between the lines.  Thank you for posting, MichaelEdward.


----------



## shesulsa

.


----------



## elder999

I need to establish some things before I say anything about this.

1) I am a patriot. My family has a long history in this country, and it's a country that Im mostly proud of, in spite of whatever complaints or grievances I  have. It has taken more than a few missteps through history, and will continue to do so, but I wouldnt live anywhere elsefor now. 


2) I am not a supporter of the war in Iraq. Not because I think it was completely unjustified, or the administration lied, but because it is a colossal waste of energy when viewed through its principle justification: the so-called war on terror. 


In posting and conversing about this elsewhere, Ive pretty much covered a fair amount of the ground the rest of you have covered. However, I have also had conversations with U.S. military personnel who have a variety of viewpoints on the war in Iraq, and to a man, whether for it or against it in principle-they are consistent in their viewpoint: _the number of war dead should not be an issue._ 

These men and women take an oath, and their lives- however rightly or wrongly you feel they are being spent- are part and parcel of the very currency of our freedom-along with our exercising our rights as citizens. Weve lost men in actions that were mistakes before, sometimes mistakes with the very *best* of intentions-Somalia comes to mind . Whatever you believe about the war in Iraq, these men and women are over there because they chose to do a job, and thats where their job sent them.They will (mostly) do that job, however they feel about the war in Iraq. 


They work for *us*. You should remember that. 


Sadly, we are stuck with the situation in Iraq, and will continue to be there for quite some time. American servicemen and women and Iraqi soldiers, police and citizens will continue to be killed and maimed, and, eventually, the situation will become similar to the one that existed in Northern Ireland for so long-ours will be an occupying army and continuing target; a new generation of insurgents will continue to bomb us , _perhaps even having forgotten why_ and a portion, perhaps even a majority, of the Iraqi population will continue to want us to remain there.  


Forget about the over 1,000 dead and try to imagine the day ten years distant, when the total has reached *three or five thousand-and rising*, and it doesnt even make the ticker at the bottom of the screen on NotNews-er, I mean _Fox_ news or CNN..


----------



## michaeledward

Perhaps you heard the Presidents prime-time new conference last week.

Or Maybe you heard the First Lady's monolog at the Correspondents's dinner.

How many times did they ask the citizens to honor those who serve? How clearly did they recognize the sacrifices being demand of those who serve. 

The number is zero. 

It brings to mind this paragraph.



			
				John Kerry said:
			
		

> We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.
> 
> The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputation bleaching behind them in the sun in this country.


And if the 1593 who have died, and the official listing of over 12,000 who have been wounded, is in some way to be *not an issue*, then maybe we can look at the hundreds of billions of dollars the country has spent on this project. I think the current spending is at about 180 Billion dollars, with another 80 billion dollars on the bench. 

How do you ask a soldier to be the last soldier to die in Iraq?


----------



## elder999

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And if the 1593 who have died, and the official listing of over 12,000 who have been wounded, is in some way to be *not an issue*, then maybe we can look at the hundreds of billions of dollars the country has spent on this project. I think the current spending is at about 180 Billion dollars, with another 80 billion dollars on the bench.
> 
> How do you ask a soldier to be the last soldier to die in Iraq?


It's not an issue to those soldiers-that's what I was saying, and I'd say the greater issue _might_ be the uncounted thousands of innocent Iraqi dead, and yes, the hundreds of billions of dollars in the face of unprecedented deficits is a greater issue to me than men and women whose lives were virtually forfeit by virtue of their _chosen_ profession.

As for the "last soldier to die in Iraq," they'll die,by all indications, willingly, and a long time from now.

Now, I'm no fan of the war in Iraq, the *B*u*S*h administration, or Mr. *B*u*S*h himself, and I used to go on long and loud about more than a few things about him and the troops. *Soldiers* set me straight-*again*-and pointed out a few of the things that he has done-like privately visiting with the families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than attending public services.

As for what you said about "not honoring the troops, that is an issue, along with a host of other things like how this war in Iraq is about hegemony and corporate control of American policy, the USA PATRIOT Act, the HUGE deficit, etc., etc., etc.

Soldiers, on the other hand, *die*, as they always have....and I'm willing to bet that most of us will get used to it.


----------



## michaeledward

elder999 said:
			
		

> Soldiers, on the other hand, *die*, as they always have....and I'm willing to bet that most of us will get used to it.


A sad comment. 

I hope I am in the minorty on that estimation as well.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

elder999 in bold:

*These men and women take an oath, and their lives- however rightly or wrongly you feel they are being spent- are part and parcel of the very currency of our freedom-along with our exercising our rights as citizens. 

They work for us. You should remember that.[/size][/font] 

Forget about the over 1,000 dead and try to imagine the day ten years distant, when the total has reached three or five thousand-and rising, and it doesnt even make the ticker at the bottom of the screen on NotNews-er, I mean Fox news or CNN.. 
*


The entire tone of this post is incredibly dismissive of the soldiers, sailors, airman, and Marines serving over there.  It minimizes them, relegates them to nothing more than drones.  

I'd submit that they are not working for us, but rather for the big business interests endorsing and profiting from this war...just as Marines in Haiti in the early part of the 20th century were working for Dole and United Fruit.  Their deaths and sacrifice have little to do with freedom or staying true to their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."  Report after report clearly indicates that the  Iraqi regime was no threat prior to our invasion.  The President and his administration knew that going in.

I will not forget about the dead, nor those about to die.  Nor will Michael and others here.  But you're right about the cable networks ignoring them.  It'll be old news...and the government won't permit the press to film the coffins as they arrive.  Bad for public image, you know.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## elder999

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The entire tone of this post is incredibly dismissive of the soldiers, sailors, airman, and Marines serving over there. It minimizes them, relegates them to nothing more than drones.






Im sorry that you took it that way-it wasnt my intention at all.



While I never had the privilege to serve, I have had the privilege of working in close contact with members of various branches of our armed forces-with the exception, as far as I know, of the Marine Corps, though it is likely that Ive written at least part of their training materials in the last decade. While working with these men and women, Ive developed nothing but the highest regard for their dedication and professionalism, and I have always felt distinctly _safe_ in their company.



Ive had the opportunity to discuss a variety of topics with them in detail, not the least of which has been the war in Iraq, which I almost entirely am against. You might be surprised how many of those service men and women agree with my arguments, and point out their willingness to go, or have gone, based upon their sense of duty to their oath, and to U.S. citizens.



Im acquainted with one Army officer who basically has said that its his duty to tell his men to *go die,*, and to go die with them if he must. 





			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'd submit that they are not working for us, but rather for the big business interests endorsing and profiting from this war...just as Marines in Haiti in the early part of the 20th century were working for Dole and United Fruit. Their deaths and sacrifice have little to do with freedom or staying true to their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Report after report clearly indicates that the Iraqi regime was no threat prior to our invasion. The President and his administration knew that going in.






While I can agree with you historically and in principle, Ill point out that many men and a few women died in Viet Nam believing that we were there to protect and free the South Vietnamese people, to stem the tide of Communism, and not, as some theorize, to secure oil fields in the South China Sea. Whatever you choose to believe or call the truth, the fact remains that those who served honorably did so for their own reasons, and their deaths and sacrifices, then and now, have everything to do with those reasons, and nothing to do-as they almost never do-with the true motivations and reasons for deciding to make war in the first place.



To say otherwise, in my opinion, is to be incredibly dismissive of the sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines-it minimizes them, and relegates them to nothing but drones.





			
				hardeadjarhead said:
			
		

> I will not forget about the dead, nor those about to die. Nor will Michael and others here. But you're right about the cable networks ignoring them. It'll be old news...and the government won't permit the press to film the coffins as they arrive. Bad for public image, you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve






Nor do *I* forget them-I pray for all our servicemen and women, living and dead, every day, and the fact that they are in this war-or any other-deeply saddens me in ways that very few other things do.


----------



## michaeledward

As of 8:00 a.m. Monday, May 9, 2005, icasualties.org reports that:

1602 United States Servicemembers have died in Iraq.


----------



## Rynocerous

.


It is truely sad to hear this. I have lost many friends, and am still losing comrades. Let us not forget the fact that we are fellow Americans who wear our uniforms with pride and fight a war that we may not even believe in. That is truly dedication to our job, and our country. Not many people can say that they would stand behind their job even if they were wrong and give their life for their cause.:waah: It is sad but we do it non the less. Take my word for it when we get back we need all the ecouragment we can get. Even if it's a pat on the back, or a thank you, offer to by them a drink, whatever. You may not realize it but we need that reassurment. 

Oh and by the way the media can go **** themselves.

Sincerely,

Ryno


----------



## rmcrobertson

What exactly did all these men and women die for? I forget--or is it just that the government never really gave a reason?


----------



## Tgace

Why is it that enemy casualty counts are not a good indicator of combat success, but US casualty figures are supposed to be indicative of failure...:idunno:


----------



## Tgace

elder999 said:
			
		

> While I can agree with you historically and in principle, Ill point out that many men and a few women died in Viet Nam believing that we were there to protect and free the South Vietnamese people, to stem the tide of Communism, and not, as some theorize, to secure oil fields in the South China Sea. Whatever you choose to believe or call the truth, the fact remains that those who served honorably did so for their own reasons, and their deaths and sacrifices, then and now, have everything to do with those reasons, and nothing to do-as they almost never do-with the true motivations and reasons for deciding to make war in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> To say otherwise, in my opinion, is to be incredibly dismissive of the sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines-it minimizes them, and relegates them to nothing but drones.


Amen! Name any War that didnt have its "idealistic" side that soldiers die for and its "political/economic" side that governemnts go to war over. Its the way its always been.
:asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Tgace said:
			
		

> Why is it that enemy casualty counts are not a good indicator of combat success, but US casualty figures are supposed to be indicative of failure...:idunno:


Because if there's no valid reason for the conflict in the first place, neither are good indicators.  Our own losses just hit closer to home.


----------



## rmcrobertson

1. It doesn't seem to anybody that maybe, just maybe, because soldiers go fight for their own fairly-private resons (the ones John Keegan outlines), and because they are usually kids, that maybe, just maybe, politicians like Bush and Johnson have a sort of--gosh, hate to use the word--responsibility to send them to war only as a last resort, and only when they have facts to support their claims? 

2. What were those reasons, again? And how reliable were the facts that Johnson and Bush advanced in support of their claims? I forget. 

3. For that matter, I forget--what are the current excuses for going into Iraq?


----------



## Rynocerous

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What exactly did all these men and women die for? I forget--or is it just that the government never really gave a reason?


Well if you forget, they died for their country...

They signed up in the Armed Forces knowing full well the chance of going to war. People like yourself questioning what they died for is questioning the soldiers integrity and valor! Soldiers dying is soldiers dying, regardless of the reason. Quite frankly I am getting very sick of hearing we shouldn't be there, and it's all Bush's fault. Whether it is or isn't his fault is besides the point. There are still soldiers over there dying, and all your whining(in general, not pointed at you rmcrobertson) doesn't fix anything.

Sincerely,

Ryan W Guthormsen


----------



## OUMoose

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> Well if you forget, they died for their country...
> 
> They signed up in the Armed Forces knowing full well the chance of going to war. People like yourself questioning what they died for is questioning the soldiers integrity and valor! Soldiers dying is soldiers dying, regardless of the reason. Quite frankly I am getting very sick of hearing we shouldn't be there, and it's all Bush's fault. Whether it is or isn't his fault is besides the point. There are still soldiers over there dying, and all your whining(in general, not pointed at you rmcrobertson) doesn't fix anything.



I have to disagree.  No one is questioning any soldier's integrity nor valor.  They all have served their country and fullfilled thier oaths to the best of their ability.  That should make anyone who knew them proud.  

The questioning comes in as to WHY they were sent there.  The point of blame is integral to the point at hand.  Granted, Joe Schmoe American doesn't want to listen, as he's intoxicated by the interesting cocktail of fearmongering and nationalism served up by our CnC (that's my opinion, btw... you can take it or leave it).  Whining here doesn't do much, no, however "whining" to your elected representatives will.

Yes, there are still soldiers in the line of fire that are dying needlessly at this point.  Does that make them any less valorous?  No.


----------



## Makalakumu

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I have to disagree. No one is questioning any soldier's integrity nor valor. They all have served their country and fullfilled thier oaths to the best of their ability. That should make anyone who knew them proud.
> 
> The questioning comes in as to WHY they were sent there. The point of blame is integral to the point at hand. Granted, Joe Schmoe American doesn't want to listen, as he's intoxicated by the interesting cocktail of fearmongering and nationalism served up by our CnC (that's my opinion, btw... you can take it or leave it). Whining here doesn't do much, no, however "whining" to your elected representatives will.
> 
> Yes, there are still soldiers in the line of fire that are dying needlessly at this point. Does that make them any less valorous? No.


Our soldiers ARE dying for a reason, just not the reasons that the administration has shared with us.  It is essential that we all keep that in mind.  Iraq is part of a broad strategy to reshape the Middle East...and the reasons for doing this have nothing to do with Terror.


----------



## elder999

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What exactly did all these men and women die for? I forget--or is it just that the government never really gave a reason?


Same thing they always die for: each other.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

I'm pretty sure that robertson meant to ask why these men were sent to war in the first place, elder.


----------



## michaeledward

1651 u.s. dead ....5 soldiers dying every two days this month. 

Just in case anyone is wondering.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Has anybody graphed casualties over time?

Whoops foundit--shoulda looked...

http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-and-iraq-by-month

Also see: 

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/DeRooij_Iraq-Coalition-Toll.htm


Uh-oh...


----------



## elder999

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Has anybody graphed casualties over time?


Several people.

 This guy has a cool one with embedded links.


----------



## michaeledward

Please review this weeks 'Doonesbury' plate in the comics section of your Sunday Paper.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I saw that. Very touching.


----------



## michaeledward

This article ... 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902245_pf.html

... does not provide any hope that the number of soldiers killed and wounded will stop rising anytime soon. 

Please take a few minutes to read it.


----------



## michaeledward

By Monday morning, expect 1700 dead soldiers from Iraq.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Four American women killed in the Iraqi bombings:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/iraq


"The women were part of a team of Marines assigned to various checkpoints around Fallujah. The Marines use females at the checkpoints to search Muslim women "in order to be respectful of Iraqi cultural sensitivities," a military statement said."

<snip>

"Pentagon policy prohibits women from serving in front-line combat roles  in the infantry, armor or artillery, for example. But the nature of the war in
Iraq, with no real front lines, has seen women soldiers take part in close-quarters combat more than in any previous conflict.

The group al-Qaida in Iraq claimed it carried out the ambush, one of the single deadliest attacks against the Marines  and against women  in this country.
_
Thirty-six female troops have died since the war began, most of them from hostile fire._"


And...

"The attack, which raised the death toll among U.S. military members since the beginning of the war to 1,734, according to an Associated Press count, came as Americans have grown increasingly concerned about a conflict that shows no sign of abating."




Regards,



Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I'm gonna say something that'll really be unpopular, I'm sure.

The fact that these latest losses were women is a moot point. The fact that some parties will make the fact they were female a big part of the story is, in my opinion, wrong. So they were women? So what? They wore the uniform, they knew the risks.

Mourn them not because they were women.  Mourn them because they were people.

When women enter military service, they will face action, and they will die. It is part of the risk.  I don't think any of them would want to be remembered as "That gal who got killed." but as a Marine who went too soon.

The toll is now 1,734...the end, no where in sight. 
With each loss, we are dimished.


----------



## Rick Wade

Small minor correction 

3 Marines and 1 Sailor.  

The fact that they we women is neither here or there just like the fact that a woman was awarded the Siler Star for combat actions last week is neither here or there.  They are Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen first.  I am very proud of the job they and everyone in our military is doing today, tomorrow and yesterday.  I would proudly serve next to any woman willing to pick up a gun and defend her country, herself and if need be me.

V/R

Rick English


----------



## shesulsa

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I'm gonna say something that'll really be unpopular, I'm sure.
> 
> The fact that these latest losses were women is a moot point. The fact that some parties will make the fact they were female a big part of the story is, in my opinion, wrong. So they were women? So what? They wore the uniform, they knew the risks.
> 
> Mourn them not because they were women.  Mourn them because they were people.
> 
> When women enter military service, they will face action, and they will die. It is part of the risk. I don't think any of them would want to be remembered as "That gal who got killed." but as a Marine who went too soon.
> 
> The toll is now 1,734...the end, no where in sight.
> With each loss, we are dimished.


 Would that there were a somber bowing smiley, but as there isn't ...
 :asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The fact that these latest losses were women is a moot point. The fact that some parties will make the fact they were female a big part of the story is, in my opinion, wrong. So they were women? So what? They wore the uniform, they knew the risks.
> 
> Mourn them not because they were women.  Mourn them because they were people.
> 
> When women enter military service, they will face action, and they will die. It is part of the risk.  I don't think any of them would want to be remembered as "That gal who got killed." but as a Marine who went too soon.




The reason I posted that was to point out the hypocrisy of those who would deny women the right to serve in a combat military occupational specialty (MOS), yet still send women to serve in an area where they too die.  

One of the reasons listed for not allowing women to serve in those billets is that their deaths would have a deleterious effect on the males in their unit.

I'm all for women serving in combat units.  The Russians did in WWII, to great effect.  Female mortarmen, female pilots and gunners on aircraft, female snipers.  


Dare I ask?  Where are the female Iraqi police at these checkpoints?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace

Im with the others. There is only one type of Soldier/Marine. To make a big deal over the fact that they were women probably wouldnt be what they wanted. They were Marines. 

I could never figure out how a Soldier would be any more/less upset about a female comrade being killed than a male comrade. I have no more or less "protective instincts" with my female officers than the males. I would hope that we would share equal concern between us all.

If they can make the standard, let em in.


----------



## Flatlander

Off topic here, but I just wanted to mention that Ryno's best friend from the service was killed in Iraq last week. :asian:

 Ryno's down in DC for the funeral.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Damn.


----------



## Flatlander

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Damn.


Quite.  Honestly, I have no idea what he's going through.  Man, that's got to be tough.  

  Ryno:  I'm there for you, brother.  Keep it strong.


----------



## raedyn

http://www.casualty-maps.com/

This site shows a map of US military deaths - the hometown of the service people, their rank, and date & location of their death. For those who may be interested.


----------



## michaeledward

I thought our military had a policy of not doing 'body counts'. Apparently, that policy is being rethought.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8544091/




> *U.S. kills 14 insurgents in northern Iraq*
> 
> *10 Iraqi soldiers die in attacks in country's Sunni heartland*
> 
> 
> BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. soldiers killed 14 insurgents in two days of fighting in a strategic northern city, the American military said Monday, and gunmen killed 10 Iraqi soldiers in the central Sunni heartland.


. . . .and according to icasualties.org

1755 United States service members have died in Iraq.

and 211 United States service members have died in Afghanistan.


----------



## michaeledward

Now, more than 1800 American soldiers dead in Iraq.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

More than a squad of Marines wiped out in one attack this week.

"Mission Accomplished," eh?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike

Yes, we ended "major combat operations."

We are now "engaged in securing and reconstructing" Iraq.


----------



## Tgace

People have no clue what "major combat operations" means.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

eu·phe·mism     n.

The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive: Euphemisms such as slumber room... abound in the funeral business


de·ni·al    n.

Defintion 3 b. _Psychology_ An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.


de·lu·sion    n.

The act or process of deluding.

The state of being deluded.

A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.

_Psychiatry._ A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.


hubris   n. 

Overbearing pride or presumption.




(Now comes the right, with back to back double and triple posts in an attempt to overwhelm with mass...perhaps cutting and pasting definitions from dictionaries in order to mirror this post...perhaps not, given that I've anticipated it.)


Ah, I wish I had more time to play...this is such fun.  Such a busy summer, though.



Regards,



Steve


----------



## michaeledward

Well, August has been the deadliest month for American soldiers since the elections in January. 24 hours to go, and 81 soldiers have died. Four Retired Generals did not offer any hope for the next year on Sunday's Meet the Press.

It's been almost a year since Nick started this thread. 

*Eight Hundred and Eighty United States service people have died* in Iraq during that time. Thousands wounded.


----------



## michaeledward

Hey, in the 365 days, and oh, 15 hours since bignick started this thread, 893 American Soldiers have died in Iraq. The total today is 1,893.


----------



## michaeledward

For Service members, September has been a relatively quiet month in Iraq. For the indiginous Iraqi's, it has been a very deadly month.

This morning, the confirmed deaths in Iraq for United States service members reach 1,900.


----------



## michaeledward

CNN is reporting the United States military has lost its 2,000 member to the Iraq Invasion.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.main/index.html


----------



## arnisador

I saw that. As the president's support drops and drops and more info. comes out about pre-war intelligence, this number seems larger all the time.


----------



## michaeledward

Part of the issue is that the number *is larger all the time*.



The U.S. Military is asking the media to not report the 2,000th fatality as a milestone. Instead, they ask to count other events as milestones. While not enumerating these other milestones, one would assume the reference is to:A - End of Major Combat Operations - May 1, 2003 - 140 US Dead
B - Turnover of Sovereignty - June 28, 2004 - 858 US Dead
C - Iraqi Elections - January 30, 2005 - 1,437 US Dead
D - Adoption of current draft of Constitution - October 15, 2005 Vote - 1,978 (approx) US Dead

​Of course, none of these 'milestones' has meant anything for the United States Service men and women, or the United States taxpayer.

The Constitution that was ratified was ratified in an 80 / 20 split. These election results could very easily be predicted based on the tribal breakdown of the Iraqi populace (20 Kurdish, 60 Shi'ite, 20 Sunni). The 20 percent of the population that is fueling the insurgency (revolution - civil war) voted overwhelmingly against the constitution. This 'milestone' will be as meaningless as all the other milestones. 



			
				Lt. Col. Steve Boylan - Director of combined forces press center said:
			
		

> "I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq. The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."
> "The 2,000th Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that is killed in action is just as important as the first that died and will be just as important as the last to die in this war against terrorism and to ensure freedom for a people who have not known freedom in over two generations."
> "Celebrate the daily milestones, the accomplishments they have secured and look to the future of a free and democratic Iraq and to the day that all of our troops return home to the heroes welcome they deserve,"



He (Boylan)complained that the true milestones of the war were "rarely covered or discussed," and said they included the troops who had volunteered to serve, the families of those that have been deployed for a year or more, and the Iraqis who have sought at great risk to restore normalcy to their country. It also includes, he added, Iraqis who sought to join the security forces and had became daily targets for insurgent attacks at recruiting centers, those who turned out to vote in the constitutional referendum, and those who chose to risk their lives by joining the government.


​


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Can we get the thread title changed to 2,000 and counting?


According to a recent Harris poll, 53% of Americans now think the war was a mistake...and this from the Wall Street Journal, that rampant hotbed of pinko liberalism:

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...iXuh4y3XrvAf9qXXtbheI_20061025.html?mod=blogs


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Can we get the thread title changed to 2,000 and counting?


Consider it done.


----------



## Tgace

New trends in military planning: We set a casualty limit and pull out once the limit is reached........hope the next war doesnt open with a D-Day style assault.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

*New trends in military planning: We set a casualty limit and pull out once the limit is reached........hope the next war doesnt open with a D-Day style assault.
*
I'm trying to think when the casualty limit was set by Bush.

So we contrast "D-Day," where we invaded France in the 2nd year of the war to prosecute a war against a nation that had initially declared war against us, who had invaded and occupied nearly all of Europe...and then "Operation Iraqi Freedom," where we invade a ruined and impoverished nation with a skeleton Army--under false pretenses--to satisfy the ego of a dysfunctional President and his kleptocratic cronies.  The Secretary of State now says we'll be there as long as ten years.  Extrapolate the current casualty rate for another decade.

If you use the WWII reference, can I use "Viet Nam?"  The latter might fit better, and be a tad more along the lines of what we're facing.  I'm straining to remember when the Iraqi's attacked U.S. territory.

Had we not invaded, Iraq would still be sitting there impotent...still lacking WMD's...and 2,000 American families would have their sons and daughters home with them this Christmas.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Xequat

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If you use the WWII reference, can I use "Viet Nam?" The latter might fit better, and be a tad more along the lines of what we're facing.


 
Except that we lost over 58000 in Viet Nam.


----------



## michaeledward

Xequat said:
			
		

> Except that we lost over 58000 in Viet Nam.


 
How many in the first three years?


----------



## Xequat

This link looks pretty good.

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html


----------



## heretic888

Xequat said:
			
		

> Except that we lost over 58000 in Viet Nam.


 
I don't think Steve was just talking about the casualty count in that particular context, Xequat.

Laterz.


----------



## Xequat

Oh, OK then, my mistake.  I thought he was.


----------



## michaeledward

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How many in the first three years?


 
1,864 United States fatalities in Vietnam from 1961 to 1965. Four Years. Got it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

I was trying to point out that WWII was fought for a clearly defined reason with a clearly defined plan.  There were no post-invasion insurrections in Germany, Japan, or Italy.  Those occupations and reconstructions were unresisted.  There was uniform international support from our allies.  We were unified as a people in our response.  The complicating factors of ethnic and religious rivalries didn't exist in the countries we occupied.

People who bemoan the fact that we are NOT unified in our attitude towards this war have...on this forum and elsewhere...taken the stance that we have become a weak nation of sheep not worthy of the sacrifices of our fathers.  This is much easier than admitting they elected a deceitful incompetent to the White House whose foreign policies are disasterous.

Pearl Harbor contrasted with non-existant WMD's...seems pretty clear to me that the casualties of 1941-45 were justified.  The casualties of 2002-2005 have not been.  

I'm waiting for an answer to _why_ we should stay the course.  Then too I haven't been given a good reason for why we are on this course at all.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward

John Kerry made a speech earlier this week calling for the withdrawl of 20,000 troops from Iraq after the December elections. What he didn't say, is that even with 20,000 troops rotated out of the theater, troop levels will not have moved from last Spring. It is a meaningless numbers trick. 

Currently, there are 161,000 Soldiers serving in country. The 'Base Level', before the recent increase for the Constitutional referendum, is 138,000 soldiers. 



> _October 27th, 2005 11:02 pm_
> US forces in Iraq reach 161,000, highest level of the war
> 
> WASHINGTON (AFP) -- US forces in Iraq have swelled to 161,000, their highest level since the US invasion in March 2003, a Pentagon spokesman said.
> The increase was due to overlapping troop rotations, said Lawrence DiRita, the chief Pentagon spokesman.
> The previous high in US force levels was reached in January, when the number of US troops in the country rose to 159,000 during national elections.
> "The last number I saw was 161,000, but you're going to start to see that come down pretty dramatically because that was in-place relief and holdovers," said DiRita.
> Lieutenant General John Vines, the number two commander in Iraq, said in September that the numbers would rise for the October 15 constitutional referendum by only some 2,000 troops from a base level of 138,000.
> He said at the time that the growth in the number of trained Iraqi security forces meant there was less need for a larger US troop buildup for the referendum, or for the upcoming December 15 national elections.
> In the past the US military has built up force levels during key political milestones in anticipation of rising insurgent violence.
> "For the next election, I wouldn't be surprised to see it go right back up to 160,000 based on puts and takes and in-place rotations and relief, and everything else," DiRita said.


----------



## michaeledward

For a couple of weeks now, there have been reports about Saddam Hussien's acceptance of an Exile deal which could have prevented the war. The President of the United Arab Emerites had apparently arranged for Hussein and his family to exile themselves to his country, opening the door for Iraqi elections. 

You may recall, President Bush repeatedly called for this exact event prior to the invasion of Iraq. 

It will be interesting to see who will follow up on these reports.


----------



## arnisador

Yes, I'd like to hear more about that.


----------



## michaeledward

Here is one headline

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/International/2005/10/30/1284645-sun.html



> *Saddam exile was set in 2003*
> 
> Sun, October 30, 2005
> *He had accepted an offer to flee weeks ahead of the U.S. invasion but the move was scuttled.*
> 
> *By AP*


 

And here's another link from  three years ago

http://english.people.com.cn/200301/31/eng20030131_110989.shtml



> *US President on Saddam's Exile *
> 
> Joining the chorus to press Iraqi President Saddam Hussein into exile, US President George W. Bush said Thursday that he would welcome such an arrangement to avoid a possible war.


 
It will be interesting to see if these reports are true and how the Administration might try to square this circle.


----------



## michaeledward

The number of U.S. Fatalities in Iraq has now beyond 2,100.

The number of U.S. Fatalities in Afghanistand is 257. 97 of those deaths have occured in 2005.


----------



## sgtmac_46

michaeledward said:
			
		

> For a couple of weeks now, there have been reports about Saddam Hussien's acceptance of an Exile deal which could have prevented the war. The President of the United Arab Emerites had apparently arranged for Hussein and his family to exile themselves to his country, opening the door for Iraqi elections.
> 
> You may recall, President Bush repeatedly called for this exact event prior to the invasion of Iraq.
> 
> It will be interesting to see who will follow up on these reports.


 It is apparent that Saddam Hussein was approached with that deal, but Saddam Hussein added conditions to the deal, and negotians with the Arab League fell through.  Note, michael, it was the arab league he was negotiating with.  Lets not try an insinuate it was Bush that scuttled the deal, as he wasn't a part of this negotiation. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/02/saddam.exile/?eref=yahoo


----------



## sgtmac_46

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The number of U.S. Fatalities in Iraq has now beyond 2,100.
> 
> The number of U.S. Fatalities in Afghanistand is 257. 97 of those deaths have occured in 2005.



To put those numbers in perspective, in 2004 "16,694 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 42,636 total traffic fatalities." 
http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1112,00.html

Apparently the war we should be concerned about, if we're worried about young American men and women dying, is the war on drunk driving.  That's the one more likely to kill the average American.


----------



## michaeledward

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> To put those numbers in perspective, in 2004 "16,694 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 42,636 total traffic fatalities."
> http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1112,00.html
> 
> Apparently the war we should be concerned about, if we're worried about young American men and women dying, is the war on drunk driving. That's the one more likely to kill the average American.


 
What is the population of Young Drivers in America compared with the number of servicemen in Iraq?


----------



## mj_lover

i fail to see what drunk driving has to do with the war. yes, it is sad, and traffic deaths should be minimalized..but has no relavence to war. sir, it almost seems as if you are saying the deaths of these people is trivial.


----------



## sgtmac_46

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What is the population of Young Drivers in America compared with the number of servicemen in Iraq?


 If we're looking at body counts as an indication on what is a course of action worth, we should examine where the larger body count exists.  A dead US serviceman dying in Iraq is no more or less dead than one who returns home and is hit by a drunk driver.  Bullets aren't anymore gruesome than a 2000 pound projectile of a more pedestrian nature.  

We tend to view war death as some sort of particularly gruesome event, while driving by those killed in an equally horrific manner on the highway with barely a glance. 

I have family and friends in Iraq, and it is a dangerous place.  But it's also dangerous driving down the roads of our nation.  The difference is that the men and women in Iraq know the dangers, and they are doing a noble job (Despite the best efforts of some to denigrate their sacrifice in the name of a political agenda).   

The point of my comparison is to add perspective to a statistic that is thrown about by some in the attempt to elicit and emotional response.  Some perspective shows that 2200 dead in a 3 year war is by no means a massacre.  What's more, a good 1/3 of that number are as a result of accidental injuries outside the realm of combat, meaning that they are the natural result of moving large numbers of men and equipment to and fro, and would likely happen if those same people were stationed in the US (Base accidents occur all the time). 

Finally, as I have pointed out before, we lost more dead in the morning hours of June 6, 1944, trying to take a set of beaches in northern France, than in the entire history of this war. The "Butcher's Bill" should not be the deciding factor on whether or not a task should be completed.


----------



## arnisador

A body count is no measure of the value of the action. But...this isn't D-Day, and I think there's a reason why so many people are commenting on the body count now, as  they did in Vietnam.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

arnisador said:
			
		

> A body count is no measure of the value of the action. But...this isn't D-Day, and I think there's a reason why so many people are commenting on the body count now, as they did in Vietnam.


 
Exactly. Iraq, by any estimations, was never the threat that Nazi Germany was. Now, I understand that many feel that our actions were justified there; however it was, by the war's architects own admission, a pre-emptive war and such wars have a higher standard for justifying casualties.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Exactly. Iraq, by any estimations, was never the threat that Nazi Germany was. Now, I understand that many feel that our actions were justified there; however it was, by the war's architects own admission, a pre-emptive war and such wars have a higher standard for justifying casualties.


 "Higher standard"?  2200 in 3 years is not high by any standard of war.  

What's more, the justification or not of the cause has nothing to do with the cost.

What's more, Nazi Germany was no direct threat against the US either.  Japan attacked the US, not Nazi Germany.  Give one example of how Nazi Germany had declared intent to directly threaten the US prior to the US declaring war on Germany?  

It could be argued (and many people at the time did) that Germany was never a direct threat to the US.  

However, we felt that Fascism needed to be rooted out, as the ideal of fascism was a threat to everyone.  We were right to attack Nazi Germany to end the threat of totalitarian fascism there, and were right to attack Saddam Hussein to end the threat of totalitarian fascism in that country (In case anyone was wondering, that's what the Ba'athist party was, a fascist national socialist party.)

What's more, there are other examples of wars we fought that were not necessary, but right.  In the balkans for example.  There was no threat whatsoever from the Serbians, yet, it was considered the right thing to do.  What's the difference between then and now?  The political party in power.

If the free world were as honorable and brave a people as we wished to be, we would put an end to totalitarianism on this planet permanently.  But, since, for a lot of reasons, we find it more convenient to tolerate dictatorial regimes, we'll just have to take the victories where we can get them (Whether the wars for fought for the right reasons or not).


----------



## Jonathan Randall

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What's more, Nazi Germany was no direct threat against the US either. Japan attacked the US, not Nazi Germany. Give one example of how Nazi Germany had declared intent to directly threaten the US prior to the US declaring war on Germany?


 
Germany DECLARED WAR on us, before we declared war on them. Also, in the months before Pearl Harbor, we were fighting an undeclared naval war with them in the Atlantic. Immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Nazi u-boats launched a full scall assault upon our shipping. The U.S. Merchant Marine had the HIGHEST casualty rate (by percentage of members) of any service during the war.

Also, a total European victory by the Nazis would have been as contrary to our interests as any event in our history could possibly have been, including the Revolution (as if we had lost the first time, demographics made separation inevitable, IMHO).

It just is not possible to equate Iraq or any other nation in the Mideast with either Stalin or Hitler. And yes, the COST does have a bearing on the matter. We must always judge whether the cost of something is worth the result.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "Higher standard"? 2200 in 3 years is not high by any standard of war.
> 
> What's more, the justification or not of the cause has nothing to do with the cost.


 
I never said that it was high, by historic standards. I DO say that it is harder to justify casualties in wars that are not DIRECTLY in our national interest.

Sure the cause has to do with the costs. Sometimes the cost is TOO HIGH for the RESULT and not to ask ourselves continually whether the cost is justified shows a disregard for the lives of our young people (I know that you, personally don't disregard their lives, but others couldn't care less how many we lose so long as their political party is justified).


----------



## sgtmac_46

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> (I know that you, personally don't disregard their lives, but others couldn't care less how many we lose so long as their political party is justified).


 As I know that you don't disregard their lives, either.  However, the argument that some are willing to sell-out lives for political party justification goes both ways.  It is clear that insurgencies strengthen as it becomes clear that they are gaining headway.  Our enemies aren't stupid by any stretch of the imagination.  The belief, on their part (probably justified) that the body count they are inflicting is getting them the results they want, merely serves to give them the belief that all they have to do is ratchet it up, and they can win.  So, perversly, the over-emphasis on the number killed, as if with just a few more we will pull out, ends up getting MORE servicemen killed than a united front.

Now, you will argue, and arguably so, that it is your right, duty and responsibility to voice your dissent.  I would never do anything to restrict your right to do so.  But realize that, even as you do so, it can be argued that the voice of dissent in this country grants comfort to the enemy, and convinces him that he can win.  They believe, even now, that all they have to do is make this conflict more costly, that means more car bombs, more snipings, more IED's against US troops.  

So, if we're focusing on what is likely to cause our troops more death and injury, it is more complex than simply saying "Bring them home now" or even "Maybe we shouldn't be there".  Perceptions are as powerful in war as bullets.  

Perhaps we should save the indictments of each other until after we finish what, though we may not have agreed on it's original justification, any rational person can realize we have to finish.  Again, though, this being America, we have the right to voice our opinions on any given topic without restraint.  I would not have it any other way, but I pray that my fellow Americans understand the dangers of over-simplifying a situation full of real complexities.  

We should have learned this from the Vietnam war.  Belief that we lack resolve gets our servicemen killed ONCE they have been committed to a task (regardless of what we think of the original advisability of that task).


----------



## Jonathan Randall

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> We should have learned this from the Vietnam war. Belief that we lack resolve gets our servicemen killed ONCE they have been committed to a task (regardless of what we think of the original advisability of that task).


 
No, I think the contrary was true. We were losing 150+ soldiers a week in Vietnam and South Vietnam, despite tons of money, infrastructure building and American life spent, was no closer to standing on its own in 1970 than it was in 1965.

My point is that I see similiar results in Iraq (a probable Shiite dominated Islamic theocracy allied with Iran as well as some sort of likely partition) at 2100 lost as we would see at 10,000 lost. I think that after mismanaging the first stages after taking Baghdad, many in power are preparing a "stab in the back" theory to explain any failures. I want to save those 8,000 by not allowing them to maintain an open ended conflict with steady losses. 

This is another reason why you do NOT go to war without OVERWHELMING public support. Not just a majority along if we have a quick victory and a parade, but enough for the long haul. I am thinking of the Powell doctrine, although the man himself has lost much of my respect.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> No, I think the contrary was true. We were losing 150+ soldiers a week in Vietnam and South Vietnam, despite tons of money, infrastructure building and American life spent, was no closer to standing on its own in 1970 than it was in 1965.


 It was as much the political situation in the US at the time, otherwise the North Vietnamese wouldn't have spent so much effort playing the propaganda game and flying US celebrities to Hanoi.  

What's more, i've already established that Iraq differs GREATLY from North Vietnam.  First of all, there is no super-power playing overt patron to a powerful government.   If Iraq has any comparison to Vietnam, it might be argued that Iraq is Vietnam minus North Vietnam and the Soviet Union.   It is Vietnam with only the Viet Cong as the enemy, who were broken and irrelavent after 1968, after the military failure (and the US propaganda media victory) we call "The Tet Offensive".  

Again, this shows the power of perception versus reality.  



			
				Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> My point is that I see similiar results in Iraq (a probable Shiite dominated Islamic theocracy allied with Iran as well as some sort of likely partition) at 2100 lost as we would see at 10,000 lost. I think that after mismanaging the first stages after taking Baghdad, many in power are preparing a "stab in the back" theory to explain any failures. I want to save those 8,000 by not allowing them to maintain an open ended conflict with steady losses.


 Well, since I don't see the current situation as a total failure, i'm disinclined to agree with you hypothesis.  Again, 3 provinces of the country's 18 are currently involved in insurgency activities, this number has not grown.

Further, you may want to save those "8,000", but it's also likely that you'll simply insure a prolonged conflict that will cost the lives of those 8,000.  Sometimes our best intentions go awry.   



			
				Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> This is another reason why you do NOT go to war without OVERWHELMING public support. Not just a majority along if we have a quick victory and a parade, but enough for the long haul. I am thinking of the Powell doctrine, although the man himself has lost much of my respect.


  The war was undertaken with Overwhelming support, even from Democrats (though many wish to forget it for political reasons).  Now that we are in this conflict, VICTORY is the only solution.  I, however, will take to my grave the conviction that once we undertake a necessary task (as this task has become, even if it disputably was originally) it should be completed.


----------



## Tgace

Iraq is not Vietnam

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/669tqiiq.asp

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621836013.html?from=storyrhs

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-06-20-iraq-vietnam-vets_x.htm


> If there are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, these graying soldiers and the other Vietnam veterans serving here offer a unique perspective. They say they are more optimistic this time: They see a clearer mission than in Vietnam, a more supportive public back home and an Iraqi population that seems to be growing friendlier toward Americans.
> 
> "In Vietnam, I don't think the local population ever understood that we were just there to help them," says Chief Warrant Officer James Miles, 57, of Sioux Falls, S.D., who flew UH-1H Hueys in Vietnam from February 1969 to February 1970. And the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were a tougher, more tenacious enemy, he says. Instead of setting off bombs outside the base, they'd be inside.
> 
> "I knew we were going to lose Vietnam the day I walked off the plane," says Miles, who returned home this month after nearly a year in Iraq. Not this time. "There's no doubt in my mind that this was the right thing to do," he says.


----------



## Flatlander

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Further, you may want to save those "8,000", but it's also likely that you'll simply insure a prolonged conflict that will cost the lives of those 8,000.


Or some other 8000.  Or more...  I think the fact is that, due to the superior training and equipment of the American forces, fewer people will die with them around, working toward securing the nation.





> Now that we are in this conflict, VICTORY is the only solution. I, however, will take to my grave the conviction that once we undertake a necessary task (as this task has become, even if it disputably was originally) it should be completed.


I agree.  The US is obligated to remain there until effective security can be established.


----------



## arnisador

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "Higher standard"?  2200 in 3 years is not high by any standard of war.
> 
> What's more, the justification or not of the cause has nothing to do with the cost.



But the cost does have something to do with whether it's worthwhile to act on that justification.

It's all moot now. We're there! I'm glad Saddam Hussein is out. I hope things'll be better for the Iraqi people 10 years down the road.


----------



## michaeledward

In 10 years, it is quite possible there will not be any 'Iraqi' people. 

They will be Iranians, Kurds, and pissed off Sunni's.


----------



## arnisador

I'm all for a nation of Kurdistan. They've earned it. Section it off from Northern Iraq; leave the Turkish part alone for political reasons.


----------



## michaeledward

The problem with the 'Three State Solution', is that central Iraq (Sunniland) does not have any oil. (Generalized statement).

The Kurds have substaintial oil deposits in Northern Iraq. As I understand it, approximately 1/4th of the known oil reserves in Iraq are located geographically in the autonomous Kurdish areas of Iraq.

The Shi'ite controlled southern portion of Iraq contains 3/4 of the known Iraqi oil reserves.

The Sunni Triangle has squat. 

Some have argued that *most *of Iraq is stable, blah, blah, blah. The part that is not stable is the 20% minority Sunni population. The Sunni's have no easily adaptable economic platform. With little economic choice in front of them, the civil war is going to go on for a very long time. 

Soon, Iran will be more blatant in supporting the Clerics who will soon be in government. Southern Iraq will be joined in the battle against the Sunni's by Iran. The United States will be *defending *what is left of Fallujah ... a city we destroyed. 

There is no good solution. There never was. Too late. 

But, it sure is doing a good job destroying the future of the American Economy ... except for halliburton and co.


----------



## arnisador

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Some have argued that *most *of Iraq is stable, blah, blah, blah. The part that is not stable is the 20% minority Sunni population.



Yeaqh, this is the heart of the stability problem. I certainly don't know what the solution is.


----------



## sgtmac_46

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The problem with the 'Three State Solution', is that central Iraq (Sunniland) does not have any oil. (Generalized statement).
> 
> The Kurds have substaintial oil deposits in Northern Iraq. As I understand it, approximately 1/4th of the known oil reserves in Iraq are located geographically in the autonomous Kurdish areas of Iraq.
> 
> The Shi'ite controlled southern portion of Iraq contains 3/4 of the known Iraqi oil reserves.
> 
> The Sunni Triangle has squat.
> 
> Some have argued that *most *of Iraq is stable, blah, blah, blah. The part that is not stable is the 20% minority Sunni population. The Sunni's have no easily adaptable economic platform. With little economic choice in front of them, the civil war is going to go on for a very long time.
> 
> Soon, Iran will be more blatant in supporting the Clerics who will soon be in government. Southern Iraq will be joined in the battle against the Sunni's by Iran. The United States will be *defending *what is left of Fallujah ... a city we destroyed.
> 
> There is no good solution. There never was. Too late.
> 
> But, it sure is doing a good job destroying the future of the American Economy ... except for halliburton and co.


 
That whole argument is built on the inherently prejudiced assumption that these people are incapable of compromise and thoroughly incapable of building and maintaining a functioning democracy.  

I'd like to hear your argument as to why that would be.  Are they cultural or racially incapable of this in your estimation?  Or are you claiming some other quality exists that makes those things impossible?


----------



## michaeledward

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That whole argument is built on the inherently prejudiced assumption that these people are incapable of compromise and thoroughly incapable of building and maintaining a functioning democracy.
> 
> I'd like to hear your argument as to why that would be. Are they cultural or racially incapable of this in your estimation? Or are you claiming some other quality exists that makes those things impossible?


 
There is no argument in my post. There is simply a statement that I feel is accurate. It is quite possible that I am wrong. It is quite possible that "we will be greeted as liberators, with chocolate and flowers", too .... well maybe not so much.

Iraq has existed as a "country" for less then 100 years. Before that, these tribes have lived in the same geographic area for between 3 and 5 millenia. In 3,000 years, they have been unable or unwilling to reach a 'compromise'. Yet, they have been able to build and maintain a governing structure.

What hubris would lead someone to believe that the influence of an outside group, for a couple of years, or hell, even a couple of decades ("It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." D.Rumsfeld) could alter these ancient civilizations? 

I guess if you want to sum up my argument, it is this: I prefer to see the world as it is, not as I would like it to be. This country followed willfully and blindly Rumsfeld, Perle, Kristol, Hadley, Armitage, Cheney, and the Project for A New American Century lunatics into a war that is going to destroy this country. 

Really, this war isn't even about the god damned carbons stuck in the ground. That would have been just an added benefit, if we were ever to get 'our son of a *****' Chalabi installed as Client/Puppet President.

But, there you have it ... right in my signature ... we are well on the way.


----------



## sgtmac_46

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is no argument in my post. There is simply a statement that I feel is accurate. It is quite possible that I am wrong. It is quite possible that "we will be greeted as liberators, with chocolate and flowers", too .... well maybe not so much.
> 
> Iraq has existed as a "country" for less then 100 years. Before that, these tribes have lived in the same geographic area for between 3 and 5 millenia. In 3,000 years, they have been unable or unwilling to reach a 'compromise'. Yet, they have been able to build and maintain a governing structure.


 "These tribes" are human beings, like you and I.....unless you know something I don't.  What's more, in the entire history of mankind, can you name more than a handful of people's and regions that have remained peaceful for more than a generation.  How many times in the last century has our own tribe been unable or unwilling to compromise?



			
				michaelward said:
			
		

> What hubris would lead someone to believe that the influence of an outside group, for a couple of years, or hell, even a couple of decades ("It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." D.Rumsfeld) could alter these ancient civilizations?


  The same hubris that believed we could accomplish the same in Germany and Japan, both nations with long histories of martial aggression.  Japan, in particular, was less than 60 years out of a feudal society, when we occupied their nation and attempted to bring democratic reforms.



			
				michaelward said:
			
		

> I guess if you want to sum up my argument, it is this: I prefer to see the world as it is, not as I would like it to be. This country followed willfully and blindly Rumsfeld, Perle, Kristol, Hadley, Armitage, Cheney, and the Project for A New American Century lunatics into a war that is going to destroy this country.


 Well, if we're going to see the world as it is, not as we wish it were, then it is equally clear that we've accomplished the most important task....Eliminating Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq.  Though you will argue this will lead to some apocalyptic outcome, that has yet to be illustrated in anything but the most rabid fantasies of the left.  




			
				michaelward said:
			
		

> Really, this war isn't even about the god damned carbons stuck in the ground. That would have been just an added benefit, if we were ever to get 'our son of a *****' Chalabi installed as Client/Puppet President.


 I do find the admission that, instead of being money grubbing fiends, those you have named, are instead, idealistic would be nation builders, who truly DO desire democracy in the middle east.  What an ironic twist.   Perhaps you've hit on the truth that Neo-Conservatives aren't conservatives at all, but merely branched off from liberalism, to form a strange hybrid of both political views.  



			
				michaelward said:
			
		

> But, there you have it ... right in my signature ... we are well on the way.


 We shall see.  

My argument is less dogmatic than that of those neo-conservatives.  I merely know that failure in a task such as this, will lead to WIDE RANGING repercussions.  I, too, prefer the world as it is, namely the fact that we can't go back and discuss the merits of something that has already been done, as if coming to a conclusion that it was or was not a bad course, will alter the fact that we are stuck with the consequences.  Military failure will lead to HUGE problems for decades to come.  Military success, on the other hand, will create huge problems for OTHERS, who equally desire to see their agenda pursued.


----------



## michaeledward

A very deadly weekend for the United States military in Iraq.

We have move well past the 2,200 fatality for US soldiers in Iraq.


----------



## Fluffy

Eveyone seems to want to share a political opinion around here, why?  What good does it do to tick off a good 1/2 of the members?  I just don't get it!


----------



## michaeledward

Fluffy said:
			
		

> Eveyone seems to want to share a political opinion around here, why? What good does it do to tick off a good 1/2 of the members? I just don't get it!


 
Fluffy, I am not certian if that comment is directed toward me, or not. As this thread has been dormant since November, I can only assume it is.

I would like to point out that there is no opinion presented in my post. It is a statement of factual happenings in Iraq.

Some people 'Support Our Troops' by putting little yellow magnets on the back of their cars. I support our troops by remembering every day, they are in service to the nation, they are dying, they are getting wounded. I acknowledge their service and remember soldiers are dying every day. 

As for my opinion, their service and their deaths are a tragedy, because it did not need to happen. Each death comes about because of corrupt and incompetent political leadership.

However, on this thread, I try to keep those opinions quiet. And, still, some seem to read opinions into statements that don't have them.


----------



## Rick Wade

As a member of the armed forces that served over in Iraq I can tell you that the support that Michael gives is some of the best support.  Because these are the people that really care about the troops (as people).  Mike I salute you, although you and I don't always see Eye to Eye politically.  

P.S.  I would give you rep points except I need to spread them out first.  So I figured publicly is the next best way.

V/R

Rick


----------



## Jonathan Randall

Fluffy said:
			
		

> Eveyone seems to want to share a political opinion around here, why? What good does it do to tick off a good 1/2 of the members? I just don't get it!


 
While you have a good point, I think it depends upon how it is done. People should be able to *dis*agree without *dis*respecting one another. Also, if someone with a different view makes a valid point, acknowledge it rather than brush it off because it doesn't fit your own party line.

The Iraq war is such a major issue facing America today that I think dialogue on the subject is essential. However, we don't need to call each other names or imply a lack of patriotism to those with different viewpoints.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

"And what sort of soldiers are those you are to lead? Are they reliable? Are they brave? Are they capable of victory? Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man-at-arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefield many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then as I regard him now -- as one of the world's noblest figures, not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless. His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give.

He needs no eulogy from me or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast. But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements. In 20 campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people. From one end of the world to the other he has drained deep the chalice of courage.

As I listened to those songs [of the glee club], in memory's eye I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs, on many a weary march from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle-deep through the mire of shell-shocked roads, to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of  God.

I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death.

They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory.

Always, for them: Duty, Honor, Country; always their blood and sweat and tears, as we sought the way and the light and the truth.

And 20 years after, on the other side of the globe, again the filth of murky foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts; those boiling suns of relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms; the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails; the bitterness of long separation from those they loved and cherished; the deadly pestilence of tropical disease; the horror of stricken areas of war; their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable purpose, their complete and decisive victory -- always victory. Always through the bloody haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men reverently following your password of: Duty, Honor, Country."
*
General Douglas MacArthur: Thayer Award Acceptance Address

delivered 12 May 1962, West Point, NY

"Duty, Honor, Country"*


----------



## Blotan Hunka

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurthayeraward.html

Listen to it. It is amazing.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

And the part the General said that I think is important here.

*"Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men's minds; but serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation's war-guardian, as its lifeguard from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiator in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded, and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.

Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government; whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing, indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as thorough and complete as they should be. These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a ten-fold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.

You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come the great captains who hold the nation's destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds. The Long Gray Line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country.

This does not mean that you are war mongers.

On the contrary, the soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.

But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: "Only the dead have seen the end of war."*


----------



## jdinca

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> While you have a good point, I think it depends upon how it is done. People should be able to *dis*agree without *dis*respecting one another. Also, if someone with a different view makes a valid point, acknowledge it rather than brush it off because it doesn't fit your own party line.
> 
> The Iraq war is such a major issue facing America today that I think dialogue on the subject is essential. However, we don't need to call each other names or imply a lack of patriotism to those with different viewpoints.



Great points.


----------



## Fluffy

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> While you have a good point, I think it depends upon how it is done. People should be able to *dis*agree without *dis*respecting one another. Also, if someone with a different view makes a valid point, acknowledge it rather than brush it off because it doesn't fit your own party line.
> 
> The Iraq war is such a major issue facing America today that I think dialogue on the subject is essential. However, we don't need to call each other names or imply a lack of patriotism to those with different viewpoints.


 
I posted that while in a bad mood...........I'm over it.  

~Fluff


----------



## michaeledward

Major Bob Bateman delivers reports to Eric Alterman's blog on MSNBC. He is, and has been serving in Iraq for the past year ... perhaps more. Eric Alterman's blog is decidedly liberal. Major Bob has never, to my knowledge, published his own political views. 

Today, he submitted this report to Altercation. 

I am going to post it on this thread .... although, it deals nothing with the sacrifices that the 2,210 have made, I found it particularly moving. And it called to mind the sacrifices of those mentioned in this thread.



> Inside the Tactical Operations Center (called a TOC in our parlance) in this Battalion headquarters chatter from multiple radio systems barks across the room. American units on routine patrols send in their reports steadily. One element searches for the source of gunfire they recently heard coming from a few blocks away. Another unit coordinates and removes the possibility for confliction between two Iraqi units operating in close proximity to each other. To the untrained ear the constant stream of callsigns, grid coordinates and acronyms may seem like chaos. But, just as stock brokers on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange can pull meaning from their pits on the floor of the Exchange, so to do American soldiers mentally create order from these streams. It is a delicate and precious skill. But today, at this instant and for the next twelve minutes, the chatter is drown out by events more local. This too is a skill. I am here as witness to a ceremony.
> 
> The front of the room is covered with maps, screens, and charts. In the back, however, two soldiers hold aloft an American flag. It is the only adornment, the only concession to a special event, the sole decoration for this ceremony. In front of the flag stand a Second Lieutenant of Infantry and a Lieutenant Colonel, the latter some eighteen years senior to the former. The Colonel commands the battalion, the lieutenant is one of his officers. A major, few captains, and some Non-commissioned officers cluster in a horseshoe around them. The sergeants on watch, still at their stations, turn down the radios. The Colonel speaks.
> 
> He has words of praise for the young officer. He speaks of the shiny gold bar which a Second Lieutenant wears, and how it discolors and becomes worn over time. His metaphor speaks to the process of developing wisdom through the only true method known to man, by making mistakes. He speaks of growth and maturation, and most of all he speaks to an unstated element of potential. This, he is saying, is a young man who is worthy. They are words filtered through his own long years of service, but they carry with them the message of faith. Not faith in any religion, for this is the ultimate secular ceremony, but faith in the man standing before him. It is a faith I share, for I know this Lieutenant. I came to Camp Liberty from my own base specifically to be here for this event. After a few moments the Colonel issues the sole command of the event, Publish the orders. Nineteen sets of mud-encrusted heels clomp in near unison as every man present snaps to. We are in the position of attention. Silence reigns, broken only by the staccato bursts of situation reports over the radio nets.
> 
> The Adjutant speaks out, reading aloud the words many of us have heard hundreds of times before, words that are new to only one man in the room. The President of the United States has reposed special trust and confidence in your patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities. In view of these qualities and your demonstrated potential for increased responsibility, you are, therefore, promoted in the United States Army to the grade of First Lieutenant...
> 
> The order is as short as it is direct. Only four sentences long, it takes about twenty seconds to read. Halfway through the recitation the Colonel comes from the position of Attention and faces the lieutenant. With his right hand he reaches out, and tears the old rank, the golden butterbar of Second Lieutenant from the young mans chest. A second later he replaces it with the black bar (silver on our non-combat uniforms) of a First Lieutenant. The promotion is complete.
> 
> There are many things that we do not do well in my Army. There are many things in which the military as a whole could do better. In our professional journals I am among the first to point these out. But there is one thing, at least, which we perform magnificently. We make it clear, to each man and woman, with each promotion, that this means something. Officer or enlisted, there is always an acknowledgement of the qualities, and often the sacrifices, of the person being promoted.
> 
> Here, in combat, promotion means something else as well. There is an added frisson, an added measure of validation. You have been tested, judged worthy by your peers and superiors, selected, promotedand you will now be tested again, immediately, with even more responsibility.


----------



## Sarah

Fluffy said:
			
		

> I posted that while in a bad mood...........I'm over it.
> 
> ~Fluff


 
Everyone to their own aye....if ya dont like the heat, stay outta the study


----------



## arnisador

*Military reservists earn more on duty than off*



> On average, the reservists made $850 more per month while on duty than in their civilian jobs, the report found.





> To get a good idea of the impact on a full year&#8217;s pay, it also provided statistics for the 51,200 reservists who were at their regular jobs for most if not all of 2001, and then on duty for more than 271 days in either 2002 or 2003. For those reservists the study found:
> 
> * The average civilian pay was $39,300, compared with $56,400 while on combat duty.
> * 83 percent made more on duty than at their civilian jobs.
> * 66 percent saw their pay increase more than $10,000 while on duty.
> * 7 percent lost more than $10,000 while on duty.


----------



## michaeledward

January 31, 2006

The United Kingdom lost is 100th soldier on the ground in Iraq today. 

The U.K. has had approximately 8,500 troops in Iraq since the beginning of the conflict. The forces have been stationed mostly in Southern Iraq.


----------



## michaeledward

1,079 days of War

2,300 United States service members dead

What is the name of this conflict? 

Why are A/C 130 Gunships returning to Iraq?


----------



## michaeledward

It has been a very good month for American Service members in Iraq. 

March 2006 had less than one American fatality per day. February 2004 was the last time American troops had a lower number of fatal casualties. 

The other side of the equation is that almost 200 Iraqi security service members died during the month of March.

There have been more than 400 battlefield injuries for American Soldiers in Iraq.

Also, despite the claims that media is reporting from their hotel balconies, well over 60 journalists have died reporting on the Iraq conflict.

Lastly, this is an interesting, if sad, site.
http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Interesting link. Thank you.


----------



## michaeledward

2,400 United States service members have died in Iraq.


----------



## michaeledward

Three years ago today.... 

2,260 American Service Personnel fatalities later.


----------



## shesulsa

.


----------



## michaeledward

Today, icasualties.org is reporting the 2,500 United States Service member death in Iraq.


----------



## michaeledward

icasualties.org is reporting that 2,601 and American Service members have died in Iraq since the beginning of the invasion. 

While we have been distracted by Israel and Lebanon, and British airplanes, and the North Slope of Alaska, and while I was out fishing today, our service members are still being killed in the occupation of Iraq.


----------



## michaeledward

2,700 

As of today.


----------



## michaeledward

Today, www.icasualties.org is reporting 2,800 American service members having died in Iraq. 

The President of the United States declared the 'End of Major Combat Operations' at a point in time where 140 American service members having lost their lives.


----------



## jazkiljok

US Non Mortal Casuaties:
including non-hostile and medical evacuations

TOTAL - NON-MORTAL CASUALTIES	33,838


----------



## michaeledward

www.icasualties.org is reporting 2,900 American service members as having died in Iraq.


----------



## terryl965

:asian:


----------



## Tez3

The numbers seem hard to comprehend when just written down.

Every year in August I pack up our car and head off for the South of France for a well deserved holiday in the sun, lazing on the beach. We catch the ferry from Dover to Calais and zoom off down the motorway till we get to St. Tropez. In the north of France you pass fields and villages with small graveyards in from World War 1. The year before last we thought we should stop and visit one, so we went to a place called Vimy. 
You enter the site through a wood, still cordoned off because of unstable munitions from that war. You park up and can look round the trenches that are still there, grassed over and dry, the day we went the sun was shining. You marvel at the immense size of the craters left by the shells then you wander off on the paths to where the cemetaries are. There isn't one big one rather a few, each surrounded by small stone walls with wrought iron gates. The grass is immaculate, there are no weeds to be seen, beautiful roses are everywhere. And you look at the rows and rows and rows of white headstones, in their pristine lines. There are some people walking up and down, you meet their eyes but say nothing, there is nothing to say. It's peaceful, quiet and we walked silently along the paths looking at the gravestones, they give the name, regiment and age. They were all so young,some even 16. At this time in the war all these young men would have been volunteers, rushing off to the recruiting office wanting to do their bit for King and Country, trusting the powers that be that this was a just war, wanting to do the right thing. So many dead.
  Leaving the cemetaries, we didn't visit them all it would have taken hours maybe days, we went onto the memorial. You have to walk up a long road to get to the Vimy Ridge Memorial, it's huge, imposing and stunning. It was built with money raised by public subscription in Canada. Walking around it you can read all the names of the fallen, thousands of them. it is humbling.
Of course it's right that we are prepared to fight and die for our freedom and rights but it has to be a just war. we have to be able to trust that our leaders aren't sacrificing our troops for political points. 
 When I read the title of this thread, '2000 dead' I was immediately taken back to Vimy, all those graves, all those young lives lost. We really haven't learnt anything have we?


----------



## michaeledward

Icasualties.org is reporting 3,000 American service members have died in Iraq since the invasion of March 20, 2003. 

For Tez3 ... 127 of your countrymen have died in this time period. 

Other members of the 'coalition' have lost 124 service men and women. 

So, we end the year in Iraq with 3250 military members having lost their lives.

Also, at least 377 contractors have died in Iraq. These contractors are often doing jobs that once were part of the military, but can be farmed out at a far greater expense; transferring public wealth to private companies. 

In my opinion, this is but the beginning of the price our service men and women will pay. 


In sorrow, 

Michael


----------



## Rich Parsons

Just to share. The link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070101/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq  has it reported that 3000 have now died in Iraq.


----------



## michaeledward

3,100


----------



## jetboatdeath

Go over and stop it.


----------



## michaeledward

jetboatdeath said:


> Go over and stop it.


 
I am wondering if you have any idea what you are saying?


----------



## jetboatdeath

Please i wonder if you do? Be carefull of what you say more so if you don't know who you are saying it to. I am a war vet seen worse things than you can imagine. But we did it because we signed up to do it and it needed done. I have friends in Arlington so please don't bore me with all the bleeding heart crap. I speak for my freinds only but we were all glad to be there.If today someone signs up for the military without the notion of going to war thats their fault. Sorry but a contract is a contract.


----------



## michaeledward

While the focus of casualties falls, sadly, most easily upon the number of fatalities, we occassionally hear or see reference to the total number of non-fatal casualties. 

Last week, a sub-set of the casualties statistic came forward. In Iraq, injuries have resulted in 500 amputees. This number does not include those soldiers who have lost a finger, fingers, a toe or toes. Five hundred American soldiers have lost a leg, an arm, or both. There have been, I believe, 5 triple amputees as a result of the Iraq war and occupation.

A tremendous price the soldiers have paid. And a future price that can not be calculated into the two billion dollars a week we are spending now, in Iraq.


----------



## jazkiljok

we also forget the nearly 800 contractors killed in this war and the untold injuries this stealth army's soldiers and workers have sustained. 

there are nearly as many contractors in iraq as U.S. troops.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070223/ap_on_re_us/iraq_contractors


----------



## michaeledward

As we approach the fourth anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq, American soldiers continue to die daily.

In the past day, the number of U.S. deaths passed 3,200.


----------



## Monadnock

Sometimes a picture is worth a 1000 words.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/416901761_57a5288113_o.jpg

Here are photographs of a display on the grounds of Reed College, in Portland, OR. "Each white flag represents six dead Iraqis since the beginning of the war, and each red flag represents a dead US serviceman. Statistics come from the Lancet survey of Iraqi mortality since 2003, published October 2006."


----------



## michaeledward

Thank you, Michael.

That's powerful.


----------



## Ray

Monadnock said:


> Each white flag represents six dead Iraqis since the beginning of the war, and each red flag represents a dead US serviceman.


Is that one of MS-excel's standard chart formats?


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Monadnock said:


> Sometimes a picture is worth a 1000 words.
> 
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/416901761_57a5288113_o.jpg
> 
> Here are photographs of a display on the grounds of Reed College, in Portland, OR. "Each white flag represents six dead Iraqis since the beginning of the war, and each red flag represents a dead US serviceman. Statistics come from the Lancet survey of Iraqi mortality since 2003, published October 2006."


 
I used to be in favor of remaining in Iraq, because I thought it would be wrong of us to move in, destroy their infrastructure, then leave without repairing the damage we'd done.  Sadly, I must now eat my words.  This continued "effort" is doing nothing more than costing lives and fueling military contractors.  

"Mission Accomplished" I guess.  

Thank you for posting the picture of the college.


----------



## Blotan Hunka




----------



## michaeledward

Blotan Hunka,

I am sorry you feel you need to use *this* thread for your political agenda. 
This thread is not the place for that rant. 

I can only assume that you are unable to use your own words. 

Michael


----------



## jetboatdeath

Just like you mike. 
Can't answer the questions in the video so bash on someones 
Intelligence. Typical...


----------



## michaeledward

jetboatdeath said:


> Just like you mike.
> Can't answer the questions in the video so bash on someones
> Intelligence. Typical...


 
What question? 

And, I would further suggest, as I did in my post, that this thread is not the place for that discussion.


----------



## jetboatdeath

Oh I see its a place for posts of media that agree with your views, but not opposing them?
Just checking.


----------



## michaeledward

jetboatdeath said:


> Oh I see its a place for posts of media that agree with your views, but not opposing them?
> Just checking.


 
My personal opinion is that this is a place to 'Support the Troops' - which can be done in an apolitical way. 

I'll be more than pleased to argue any political points elsewhere. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=480579&postcount=390



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Some people 'Support Our Troops' by putting little yellow magnets on the back of their cars. I support our troops by remembering every day, they are in service to the nation, they are dying, they are getting wounded. I acknowledge their service and remember soldiers are dying every day.


 
I may not always live up to the intent I included in post 390. But, I try. 

If you wish to have a political argument about some guy on YouTube calling me a traitor, let us take that up somewhere else.


----------



## michaeledward

I Casualites . org is reporting 3,301 United States Dead in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

On March 15 - one month ago - the number was 3,200.


----------



## michaeledward

Another month, another hundred funerals.

Icasualites.org reports today 3,401 United States deaths in Iraq. 

A slightly positive note was sounded today when the Iraqi Parliment announced it would not be taking the month of July as a vacation month. It looks as if there will still be an August recess. 

There was quite a bit of discomfort in our Congress about the Iraqi Parliment taking a two month holiday while the United States troops were effecting the surge strategy.


----------



## michaeledward

3,500 American service members have died in Iraq.


----------



## michaeledward

Here is a note I recieved in the Reputation area - from a different thread.



> it's hopeless here. war criticism fatigue


 
This morning, www.icasualties.org is reporting 3600 American Service members have died in the Iraq Conflict. It would sadden me greatly that fatigue of any kind would set in while we continue to ask our fellow citizens to die in armed struggle.


----------



## Touch Of Death

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I used to be in favor of remaining in Iraq, because I thought it would be wrong of us to move in, destroy their infrastructure, then leave without repairing the damage we'd done. Sadly, I must now eat my words. This continued "effort" is doing nothing more than costing lives and fueling military contractors.
> 
> "Mission Accomplished" I guess.
> 
> Thank you for posting the picture of the college.


I've just recently heared one of the reasons everything is taking so long is that The US is trying to grant its contractors the rights to the untapped oil reserves. This is is an almost universaly unacceptable pill to swallow for the Sunnis and the Shiites. Which is another way of saying "How did all their sand get on top of our oil?"
Sean


----------



## Blotan Hunka

On being a soldier.



> There is no greater bond on earth than the comradeship created under battle conditions. The common soldier fights for his friends first, followed by his unit, and then his country. When under fire, very few first-line combat troops consider or even care what the cause of the war is. Fear, not anger, is ruler on the battlefield. All any combat infantryman desires is for his friends and himself to go safely home.
> 
> Following the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, a story was told which illustrates this bond. After a short advance, a platoon of American troops was forced to return to their starting trench. Running over the shell-scarred terrain, all of the troops, save one, reached safety. The wounded casualty lay where he fell; unable to move. His close friend, upon seeing the distress of his fellow infantryman, started to leave the safety of the trench when his lieutenant grabbed him. "Where are you going? Are you crazy! You'll be killed!" the lieutenant said in rapid succession. The soldier's simple reply was, "He's my friend" as he bolted into "No-Man's Land." Running through a hail of lead, the soldier reached his friend and began dragging him to safety. Just as they reached the crest of their own trench, the previously unwounded soldier was hit and slid, mortally wounded, into the trench. His lieutenant asked, "Was it worth it?" The dying soldier looked up and replied, "Yes! When I reached my friend," he said, "I knew you would come."


----------



## michaeledward

3,702 American Dead in Iraq.

3,999 Total Coalition Dead in Iraq.

1609 days since 'Shock and Awe'.


----------



## michaeledward

Duplicate post .... groggy pipes.


----------



## michaeledward

Today, www.icasualties.org/oif is reporting 3,800 American service personnel as having died in Iraq. 

Since the Surge began/was announced on February 1, 2007, 760 Coalition force members have died in Iraq. Looking over time, the Surge/Escalation has been significantly ineffective. 

In complete months since 2/1/2007, year over year, there have been have been a total 26 preceeding months. The Surge has been more deadly than all but 2 of those 26 months. 

February 07 - 81 dead
February 06 - 55 dead 
February 05 - 58 dead
February 04 - 20 dead

March 07 - 81 dead
March 06 - 31 dead
March 05 - 35 dead
March 04 - 52 dead
March 03 - not a complete month of battle - 65 dead in major combat operations. 

This pattern follows through month over month with two exceptions, listed here.

April 07 - 104 dead
April 04 - 135 dead

August 07 - 84 dead
August 05 - 85 dead

Who can ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake?


----------



## michaeledward

On December 28, 2007, the United States military announced the 3,900 fatalitie of an American Soldier in Iraq. 

Thankfully, I have not had to post on this thread for a couple of months. October, November, and December of 2007 have seen the least American fatalities since July, August and September of 2003.


----------



## elder999

*4,001* U.S. service men and women dead.

97% of those (that's 3862) since their Commander in Chief announced mission accomplished on the deck of that carrier.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Wow....just...wow.  I can't help but wonder how this war will go down in history.  What type of memorial will we use to signify this loss?  

Thank you for updating, elder.


----------

