2000 and counting...

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.