Author Topic: 700 dead (Read 2117 times)

Pongo · « **Reply #60 on:** April 01, 2004, 10:29:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
looks to me like we average about 100 deaths per 100,000 so that would mean... just lounging around we would lose 150 of those 700 that died in iraq..

Now... say we wanted to get some real training... intense year round training... with live fire, war games etc... the number would probly double at least.

I am glad we are keeping casalties so low. One or two terrorist bombs at a U.S. base would kill far more.

I believe that those deaths are not wasted.

lazs

Your incorrect. Your losing those as well. The 700 is on top of anything else that caused serving members over there to die.
The casualty count is low from an open warfare kind of view..but for an insurgency the casualty rate is extrodinarily high.
2 per day is alot. and the number is getting near that.
I think if you were a national guardsman that had his terms of service arbitrarily extended you might think 2 a day is way to many.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #61 on:** April 01, 2004, 11:13:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
for an insurgency the casualty rate is extrodinarily high.
2 per day is alot. and the number is getting near that.
I think if you were a national guardsman that had his terms of service arbitrarily extended you might think 2 a day is way to many.

Good point. I was about to post that 700 out of 145,000 (is that the actual # now?) wasn't insignificant, but it seems to be within a nominal margin of error. Now, considering that its not all out warfare, maybe it is a bit high.

Pongo · « **Reply #62 on:** April 01, 2004, 11:51:12 AM »

And is the 145000 combat troops.
The old trick is to hide the infantry with the cooks. If you count actual line troops and count the causalties sustained by just them you get interesting numbers. I bet the 145 000 is total troops Infantry is probably closer to 40,000 total. And I bet bet thier casualties account for 70% of the total.

lazs2 · « **Reply #63 on:** April 01, 2004, 12:50:26 PM »

pongo.. the numbers I have seen are like 100 per 100,000. I am saying that if we were doing live fire year round training it would be much higher... we are getting a lot of training out of so few casualties... hate to see anyone die but.. we are getting pretty good value for the casualties. Are you claiming that our soldiers or leaders are doing a poor job? seems that to me they are doing an exceptional job in keeping down casualties...

besides.... I find these big crocadile tears shed by the foreigners and libererals on this board to be very distasteful... worse... the liberal foreigners. really sleazy guys.

lazs

Pongo · « **Reply #64 on:** April 01, 2004, 01:11:43 PM »

Congrats you are approaching what must be the world record for callous stupidity. Hope you get to look into the eyes of one of your mangled countrymen one day and thank him for recieveing such excellent training in driving arround in a jeep till the road blew up under him.

lazs2 · « **Reply #65 on:** April 01, 2004, 01:20:21 PM »

pongo... wars and armies are a fact of life and allways have been. training soldiers is a fact of life... casualties are a fact of life. I do not want to see anyone die needlessly. I have allready said that.

If we have to have an army and we have to train em and we have to occupy hostile lands then I am ecstatic that we can keep our casualties down to the remarlkably low numbers in iraq.

I also resent your implication that our soldiers are doing nothing more than driving around waiting to get blown up... you sure turned off the croc tear faucet for that one (eh)?

I believe that it is your gloating over American deaths that is obvious here.

I would have no problem with thanking these soldiers for their service and do so whenever I have the opportunity... I would also have no trouble telling you just how phony I felt your "concern" was.

lazs

Pongo · « **Reply #66 on:** April 01, 2004, 02:04:04 PM »

I didnt charecterise it that way. That is how they are being killed. You said that they are recieving good training by being killed. I pointed out how they are being killed.

Where did I gloat over american deaths?
Maybe you would rather not know that americans are dieing there cause then your politcal aggenda demands that you invent positive reasons why they died or their deaths dont matter..
I cant take the blame for your brainwashing lazs.

Do you have any military experiance lazs? You seem to know alot about live fire training and the casualty rates that are acceptable in young people that vollenteer to defend thier country.

Fishu · « **Reply #67 on:** April 01, 2004, 02:25:45 PM »

I've browsed through the causes every now and then.. right after the 'major actions' there was closely 50/50 between combat and incident losses, but then these enemy combatants got their crap together... well, US troops did too.. and the combat losses raised clearly above the incidental losses.

Amazingly many casualties has been caused by flipped over vehicles, especially within few months of the major operations.
After a few too many of these incidents, there was a long time without such incidents.

LAWCobra · « **Reply #68 on:** April 01, 2004, 06:15:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo

Do you have any military experiance lazs? You seem to know alot about live fire training and the casualty rates that are acceptable in young people that vollenteer to defend thier country.

OUCH!!

Batz · « **Reply #69 on:** April 01, 2004, 06:45:51 PM »

Quote

besides.... I find these big crocadile tears shed by the foreigners and libererals on this board to be very distasteful... worse... the liberal foreigners. really sleazy guys.

It is pretty pathetic

lazs2 · « **Reply #70 on:** April 02, 2004, 10:14:05 AM »

I have no military background nor any political agenda. I am happy that the sadman is no longer in power and am pleased with the low casualty rate.

I would like to see a volunteer army over there. In any case...

I am American pongo not you... I will be the one voting on our leaders and will be the one affected by their decisions. If you are such an Ameriphile then why don't you apply for citizenship?

lazs

Pongo · « **Reply #71 on:** April 02, 2004, 11:22:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I have no military background nor any political agenda. I am happy that the sadman is no longer in power and am pleased with the low casualty rate.

I would like to see a volunteer army over there. In any case...

I am American pongo not you... I will be the one voting on our leaders and will be the one affected by their decisions. If you are such an Ameriphile then why don't you apply for citizenship?

lazs

The first is obvios the second is delusional. The question is what did the volunteers volunteer for. To fight terrorism or to invade Iraq? Obviosly I am asking the wrong person as you think they volunteered to be bomb fodder for training purposes.

And telling people from other countries to mind their own business when the business we are talking about is the US invasion and occupation of soveign states is about as rediculous as it gets. Who is the leader of the US obviosly effects everyone in the world. People like yourself who give a blank check to the president to wage war arround the world make sure that US politics effect us all. While we are only talking about the US deaths here..obviosly there are people from many countries dieing in Iraq.

101ABN · « **Reply #72 on:** April 02, 2004, 11:37:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
maybe he was more than willing. but we have found no proof that he was doing it. (not 'had ever' but was doing at the time we invaded)

you can go as far back as you like in Osamas past, back to where he recieved help from us. (seems like it was the early 80's when we called him a freedom fighter. but then he confined his terroist activities agains the ussr. thats the difference between a terrorist and afreedom fighter, right? whos side they are on.)

we've sold WMD, as well as conventional arms, we've trained terrorists, that's not the issue.

the issue is was he complying at the time of invasion, and since it was a UN directive that he was required to comply with, did the UN ask us to invade?

the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is that a terrorist targets the civilian population, freedom fighter fights against an opposing force. its not the fact of who's side you are on.

Torque · « **Reply #73 on:** April 02, 2004, 02:32:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 101ABN
the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is that a terrorist targets the civilian population, freedom fighter fights against an opposing force. its not the fact of who's side you are on.

Plenty of info out there showing how so called freedom fighters targeted civillians, nuns and priests, all those saintly people trained at the SOA on torture techniques and then sent to South America accounting for some of the worst atrocities in recent history. Heck Bush even pardoned Orlando Bosch can you say United States of Hypocrisy.

Ya i know Agent Orange wasn't a WMD with DDT but rather a simple defoliant. You were saying about sides?

101ABN · « **Reply #74 on:** April 02, 2004, 02:43:54 PM »

which freedom fighters targeted nuns, priests, and other holy figures? freedom fighters from one place sent to another place to fight are not called freedom fighters, they are called mercs. now i can take one thing back, maybe for some chance a "freedom fighter" in a place....like congo perhaps have been known to kill nuns and priests (missionaries). i bet these "freedom fighters" are muslim. a christian in a muslim country are considered, to the muslims, the enemy reguardless to status.