Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on March 31, 2004, 11:34:46 AM
-
ouch (http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx)
Really the first half of the month was looking ok with .5 per day casualty rates(not including mercenaries of course) But Iraq has really been lit up in the last 2 weeks moving the total to near 2 a day.
Maybe after the aniversery of shock and awe passes it will quiet down again.
-
And ofcoures the majority of them are US troops.
-
so that would be what... couple hundred less than would have died from normal accidents and training during the same time period?
lazs
-
Hats off to the brass for keeping casualties so low.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so that would be what... couple hundred less than would have died from normal accidents and training during the same time period?
lazs
Man your dumb.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Man your dumb.
"You're" actually.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so that would be what... couple hundred less than would have died from normal accidents and training during the same time period?
lazs
Is this a serious question that you want an answer to or is it asked to not make it sound like a lot?
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
"You're" actually.
lol my bad. Egg on my face.
-
Yeah right lazs you try telling veterans their lives are worth no more than drunken drivers that die in car accidents..
You sir are a totally disrespectful moron
-
yeah... it is a serious question.
lazs
-
The number of people that have died in training and normal accidents are not part of those stats laz. As are the number of GIs missing limbs.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yeah... it is a serious question.
lazs
Here are the latest US military statistics I could find (mind you I didn't search very long).
1999 - Non-hostile deaths per 100,000 : 54.9
http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/wwt.pdf
-
10 bears... there is a chance that I am a totaly disrespectful moron but that can't be proven by what I have said in this thread.
I have in no way implied that soldiers lives are worth more or less than anyone elses... drunk or not.
I have implied that in large groups... people die. They die from a variety of things. I have implied as funked said, that we have kept casulties very low... so low in fact that they don't really rise much above what they would have been if the soldiers had stayed home and continued with normal home maintenance and training and driving to work.
As training tho... ya gotta admit that iraq is pretty good training.
I could imply that it is you who is the one using soldiers deaths to further your agenda and as such.... it is you who are being the disrespectful moron.... but in a sneaky liberal kinda way.
but... read what you want into it.
lazs
-
so that would be what... couple hundred less than would have died from normal accidents and training during the same time period?
normally I agree with most of what you say laz, but that was a somewhat retarded statement.
but just curius if you think that the normal and training accidents stopped during this time frame.
these are an aditional 700, in adition to the ones who die from training accidents, homicideds, health problems, car accidents,......
-
Latest I could find.
From: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf
Now you guys have a place to start the argument. Proceed.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1080757584_argue.jpg)
-
Who has a list of the exact reasons for the deaths?
I remember when the usual suspects were dancing in the streets over 500 and 25% of those werent even combat related. The remainder were those who died in Europe of infections or illnesses - also not combat related - but were included because they were flown out of Iraq for medical treatment. Acouple car accidents come to mind, as well.
A death is a death - dont misunderstand me here - but to inflate the numbers for what Im assuming to be a political argument is sick.
-
Toad - I dont think thats the beginning to an argument, I think its the end.
Looks like Lazs was right from a numerical standpoint.
-
I must be wrong in how im reading this then.....
538 accidents from 1.4 mill soldiers
700 killed in Iraq from 150k soldiers
I could be way off in the comparisons though..... insight?
-
ya.... after actually looking at the numbers... that comparison is bogus
-
Toad - I dont think thats the beginning to an argument, I think its the end.
Looks like Lazs was right from a numerical standpoint.
really, the key year is missing.
where is the 2003 info?
what the chart doesn't show is that in all probability, the deaths from other causes either stayed the same or increased. on top of the aditional 700 deaths.
the Iraqi combat deaths are in adition too, not instead of.
-
but isn't that part of the job description?
none were drafted, all signed up willingly .. I think the majority of soldiers know the risks and accept them as they do their orders
-
Hey... great way to pitch the next war.... Who cares how many American soldiers die.... It's part of the job description!!!
-
Originally posted by mosgood
I must be wrong in how im reading this then.....
Maybe Im reading this wrong... hang on asec...
-
Couple of thoughts:
Expect things in Iraq for the US to get alot worse as power is handed over to the iraqis and then afterwards for some time.
I wouldnt be surprised to exceed 1,500 US combat deaths before the new government is established enough to withdraw most US forces and button away emergency reserves.
I really wish an apache had been on hand to obliterate those hundreds of sunnis who murdered and were celebrating by dragging around bodies.
The sunnis may need to get cleaned out. Hate to say it but Im afraid they may need a thrashing of the highest order. Might be the only alternative to future stability in Iraq.
Pongo, were you aware that a Canadian civilian was killed by a crazed mob in Iraq this past week? Im just curious if canadian news reported it.
-
What I find interesting is that 1991 is the high-water mark for total # of deaths and deaths by suicide. After that, the numbers decreased until 2002.
What happened in '87 and '89? Was that Somalia?
-
Anyone know what was the highest number of troops in Iraq during the last year?
-
If you take the total deaths against the total troops in the report above, you get anywhere from 1 death for every 1400-1900 troops for the last 10 years before and including 2002.
If you use 250k of troops in Iraq (guess, if wrong and you know the correct number to use... use it) against 700 deaths you get 1 death for every 357 troops.
a little dirty but a guesstimate
-
but isn't that part of the job description?
no they signed on to protect our country, not this revinue scam. their lives are being mis-spent.
again, iraq is not the 'war on terror', it is deverting resources from the war on terror. and some how the proffits fall into the pockets of haliburton.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
and some how the proffits fall into the pockets of haliburton.
ya no kidding.
-
you do the search..
Osama was a money partner in a "pharm company"..where they made...umm aspirin...ya..
SO STFU..you are a moron if you dont know that sadam was more then willing to sell-produce WMDs to kill westerners..documented
do a serach on EMTA..the precurser to VX ..nerve agent
revenue scam..LMFAO
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Man your dumb.
Not nearly so dumb as you...
quit wasting your parents money and study....
:rolleyes:
-
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?
-
Hey Bohdi!! How ya been bud?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
really, the key year is missing.
where is the 2003 info?
what the chart doesn't show is that in all probability, the deaths from other causes either stayed the same or increased. on top of the aditional 700 deaths.
the Iraqi combat deaths are in adition too, not instead of.
I couldn't find 2003. Anyone else have any luck?
Your assumption may well be incorrect. In my years in the Air Force, accidental deaths went down in years of conflict. It almost seemed that when real danger was present, folks were more careful. I believe this was documented study I read while I was in.
So you may be right, but you might be wrong as well. I don't think you can make that generalization as yet. Be nice if someone could find 2003 data.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Not nearly so dumb as you...
quit wasting your parents money and study....
:rolleyes:
LOL sig material
-
Still looking, found this, still not conclusive either way but it may indicate that people AREN'T more careful in wartime. Seems accidental deaths are up as well as hostile deaths.
Despite war's end, military deaths a growing concern (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0602/p02s01-usmi.html)
At current rates, in fiscal 2003 Marines are having their worst year for serious on-duty accidents in 11 years, and the Navy in five years, according to official safety statistics. Meanwhile, the Army's number of serious on-duty ground accidents - as well as resulting fatalities - have more than doubled so far this fiscal year.
-
btw- toad, I forgot to mention, thanks for the info you did find. the chart did provide some useful info. on re-reading my "where's 2003", post I kinda came off sounding like the info was useless since we didn't have the 2003. didn't mean it that way, just that we needed more pieces.
-
That's a normal DOD site. I expect they just haven't compiled/posted 2003 as yet.
No offense taken. I don't view you as one of the board's bungholes. ;)
I just don't agree with you sometimes. Generally, you're a poster worth reading that does so without the ad hominem stuff.
-
So uhh how does the death/100000 rate compare with the murder rate/100000 in Washington or New York? Just outta curiousity :)
-
Pongo, were you aware that a Canadian civilian was killed by a crazed mob in Iraq this past week? Im just curious if canadian news reported it.
Ya He was from here. An ex royal marine now living in Victoria. Working as a Merc for 1000 US per day. He left a beutifle wife and 3 very young kids behind.
There are over 14000 mercs in Iraq right now apperently.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Ya He was from here. An ex royal marine now living in Victoria. Working as a Merc for 1000 US per day. He left a beutifle wife and 3 very young kids behind.
There are over 14000 mercs in Iraq right now apperently.
Seems like a selfish occupation for a dude with kids.
-
$1000 per day is pretty good change. I wonder how much a Marine lance corporal makes per day?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
$1000 per day is pretty good change. I wonder how much a Marine lance corporal makes per day?
Bro says $40
-
Your haliburton dollars at work.
-
Can you explain to me exactly how Haliburton figures into the war with Iraq. I understand the Cheney connection, but there's got to be more to it than that.
Exactly how much has Haliburton profited from the war with Iraq and how has this helped George W. Bush wither politically or financially.
I know the lefties just love to say this one word when they don't know what else to say, but I'm guessing most don't even know what the connection is.
And please don't link me to a "Tower 7" websight. Thanks.
-
haliburton has contracts on everything from catering to the transport of fuel. ( they are into other rackets, but these are the ones where their price gouging has made the papers)
do you remember the FL election fiasco. haliburton provided "free of charge" (at least to the Bush campaign, the tax payers are paying them back for him now), company helo's and legal suport. (damn fine investment on their part)
and as far as the Chaney conection he did run the company so it's not exactly a fact to be dismissed.
-
According to IraqBodyCount.net so far between 8,799 and 10,649 Iraqi civilians died due to the invasion.
Add 700 coalition deaths.
According to antiwar.com, add 4,895 to 6,370 Iraqi Military deaths.
According to other esitimates, 2,000,000 civilian deaths in the 12 years of sanctions for an average of 166,667 deaths a year.
High estimate of a year with the military option: 17,719
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Couple of thoughts:
Expect things in Iraq for the US to get alot worse as power is handed over to the iraqis and then afterwards for some time.
I wouldnt be surprised to exceed 1,500 US combat deaths before the new government is established enough to withdraw most US forces and button away emergency reserves.
I really wish an apache had been on hand to obliterate those hundreds of sunnis who murdered and were celebrating by dragging around bodies.
The sunnis may need to get cleaned out. Hate to say it but Im afraid they may need a thrashing of the highest order. Might be the only alternative to future stability in Iraq.
Pongo, were you aware that a Canadian civilian was killed by a crazed mob in Iraq this past week? Im just curious if canadian news reported it.
I thought it was the Shiites who were the bad guys.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Can you explain to me exactly how Haliburton figures into the war with Iraq. I understand the Cheney connection, but there's got to be more to it than that.
Exactly how much has Haliburton profited from the war with Iraq and how has this helped George W. Bush wither politically or financially.
I know the lefties just love to say this one word when they don't know what else to say, but I'm guessing most don't even know what the connection is.
And please don't link me to a "Tower 7" websight. Thanks.
Halliburton got no-bid contracts on Iraq which was kind of sleezy considering that Cheney just left the company, except for the fact that this sort of thing is right up Halliburton's alley iirc. Also a strange mission for a company imo
but anyway, the real scandal is the apparent overcharges of the company. Halliburton has already returned millions and there are more than one incidents that are being investigated. Sort of $700.00 tiolet seat stuff
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
According to IraqBodyCount.net so far between 8,799 and 10,649 Iraqi civilians died due to the invasion.
Add 700 coalition deaths.
According to antiwar.com, add 4,895 to 6,370 Iraqi Military deaths.
According to other esitimates, 2,000,000 civilian deaths in the 12 years of sanctions for an average of 166,667 deaths a year.
High estimate of a year with the military option: 17,719
I never understood this, if 166,667 people died because of sanctions and conditions, I know for a fact that within one year we have not reworked the entire infrastructure of the country. There could have been no possible way there were 166,667 dieing per year, then none. I do on the other hand think there was a sharp reduction. I just wish there were clear stats. Unfortunantly none will ever be released until all military action is done.
-
Muckmaw.
You know that haliburton has the no bid contracts for rebuilding the Iraqi oil infastructure?
You know the the US goverment has borrowed the money to pay for that(to haliburton)
Every dollar that is needed to do that work from food to security to road building to fence building to computer systems to transportation to TV for the workers to absolutly everything. Is paid from the goverment contracts to Haliburton who skims it and then pays subcontors and suppliers.
The big contract was not bid and NONE of the sub contracts are bid.
The domestic product of a small country given away to the vice presidents company to do with as they please.
The 14000 mercenaries in Iraq are moslty paid through those contracts.
Most are probably US ex service men so thats a nice nest egg for them. But think..the US has to borrow that money. From who? Not from US interests I assure you.. It is one of the most increadable public money expenditures in history. There is absolulty no guerentee that the oil reserves of Iraq will ever be available to pay it back..It seems far more likley to me that post US occupation Iraq will sell its oil to the Japanese and Euros and Chinese in Euros then give it to the US in dollars.
What is the US going to do? Say the Iraqis owe it to them? They were invaded, they had no say in the expenditures or anything else to do with the invasion.
Really the US administration was hoping to do a Dulles brothers act on Iraq like they did on Iran in the 40s. But entrenched despots are alot more resiliant then fledgling democracies so they failed and had to invade to get what they want..but what a gamble.
Some of it is self evident. There are not tones of companies arround that can take on that level of work..One happend to be as closely associated with the vice president as a company can be.
If col Saunders was the vice president and the white house put in an order for 80 billion dollars worth of KFC maybe it would be more clear.
-
And George Bush is helping out Haliburton....er why?
Because they let him use their helicopter during the Florida thing?
Or is Cheney the real evil genius behind the plot?
Let me see if I understand this..
Haliburton helps Bush get elected, so Bush repays them by starting a war and giving them the reparation contracts?
How did Halibuton help Bush get elected?
-
Originally posted by Munkii
I never understood this, if 166,667 people died because of sanctions and conditions, I know for a fact that within one year we have not reworked the entire infrastructure of the country. There could have been no possible way there were 166,667 dieing per year, then none. I do on the other hand think there was a sharp reduction. I just wish there were clear stats. Unfortunantly none will ever be released until all military action is done.
The 2,000,000 Iraqi deaths due to sanctions was widely reported before the invasion. UNICEF officials estimated in 2000 that 5,000 to 6,000 Iraqi children were dying each month primarily due to sanctions.
I have searched extensively I have yet to find anything to refute this apparent statistic and I am using the worst case scenario numbers published by groups opposed to the present administration's policy...all that I have found tend to show that the military option may have saved almost 150,000 lives this last year.
I would welcome any information that would bring light on the subject.
-
I'm sure when he is out of office we'll be seeing him getting big cash in consulting fee's from them.
I never really pictured you as so nieve that you wouldn't blink an eye when a presidents close friends and bussines associates, are allowed to run billions of taxpayers money through their sieve.
I finally get the trickle down economics.
bush gives a couple hundred billion (of our money) to his buddies, and some of that trickles down to pay the people doing the job (that's not our job)
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
And George Bush is helping out Haliburton....er why?
Because they let him use their helicopter during the Florida thing?
Or is Cheney the real evil genius behind the plot?
Let me see if I understand this..
Haliburton helps Bush get elected, so Bush repays them by starting a war and giving them the reparation contracts?
How did Halibuton help Bush get elected?
Sorry only the extremly obtuse, which you dont seem to be would need any more explenation of the issue.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
$1000 per day is pretty good change. I wonder how much a Marine lance corporal makes per day?
Yeah but the differnce between a merc and a marine is the marine has the Us to get his arse out of a hot spot .
Ofter more than not mercs are on there own very hazadus work for a familiy man is all im saying.
Hell I once made 4k in a day selling fords and never got shot at once LOL.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Muckmaw.
You know that haliburton has the no bid contracts for rebuilding the Iraqi oil infastructure?
Im way out of my element here, but isn't Haliburton one of maybe a few companies in the world that has the equipment, resources and expertise to rebuild the oil infrastucture?
I seem to have heard that somewhere, I could be very wrong but I seem to remember something like this.
-
they're subing it out and charging us much more than they are paying the subs.
also bush pushed and planed for this war for quite a while before he finally did it. plenty of time to take bids.
-
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
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Im way out of my element here, but isn't Haliburton one of maybe a few companies in the world that has the equipment, resources and expertise to rebuild the oil infrastucture?
I seem to have heard that somewhere, I could be very wrong but I seem to remember something like this.
I bet your right, but at the least there are a small number of companies that can take on such an endevor. So interesting that the Vice president and the President were so intent on fabricating a situation that would be of such enormous benifit to one party.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.:aok
Ya i know Agent Orange wasn't a WMD with DDT but rather a simple defoliant. You were saying about sides?
-
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.
-
so pongo... you wish that we had never invaded and that the sadman was still in power?
You feel that the U.S. is learning nothing about urban or mid east warfare by being there?
You feel that all the American soldiers that have died there have been wasted lives?
You feel that a "soverign power" like the sadmans has a right to exist and that he would never be a threat?
You feel that the example of U.S. resolve is worthless or... not worth 700 soldiers lives?
You discount the thousands that the sadman and his sons would have tortured and killed in the same time period?
You have been shot at? I may have been shot at more than you. I don't like it. I would not avoid doing things that needed to be done tho simply because I may get shot at.
lazs
-
You feel that the example of U.S. resolve is worthless or... not worth 700 soldiers lives?
is this a show of resolve? really?
to me it's a show of our inability to distinguish targets (the terrorists where not iraqi, they where saudis based out of afganistan).
it's a show of our hypocracy (we are suporting the UN resolution by ignoring the wishes of the UN? WTF is that? or we are getting rid of saddam because he is an evil tyrant, while our buddies are the saudi royal family, inspite of them being evil tyrants or we are attacking because of iraqs ties to the hijackers. how many hyjackers wehre Iraqi, how many saudis?)
their lives where thrown away to increase proffits for a few.
this does not deminish the honor in which they have served, they've done their job, and from all reports our soldiers are doing their jobs and doing them well. the fault isn't with the military. the fault is with the president who sent them into this situation.
-
resolve? sure. imagine what is going through the heads of people who would back terrorists.
I'm happy with the way things came out. We should be thinking of a way to get out now tho and let the people run their own country. I have no doubt that is what is being done.
pongos big crocadile tears simply are offensive to me.
lazs
-
I iamine they figure they are good to go. they attack us and we attack iraq.
that and they are probably thinking about how easy it is going to be to talk you Iraqi kids to join them.
imagine how easy it would be to talk people around here into fighting if a foriegn arm where ocupying our land.
-
don't be so glum captain... I figure it all worked out pretty well. Most people probly figure the U.S. will have the resolve to do what is in it's best interest.
I still claim crocadile tears on the liberals. If you put lives saved against lives lost it's all worked out pretty well. Lot's of really bad guys don't exist anymore. Iraq may or may not get a good government out of the deal but they sure got rid of a really bad one.
lazs
-
Battle of the Somme...day one...60,000 British casualties.
Battle of Iwo Jima...day one...2500 Marine casualties.
Iraq...year one...700 casualties (200 of them accidental)
Haliburton is but one of MANY companies, both foreign and domestic, which have contracts with the U.S. government to help rebuild Iraq. Suggesting that Bush started a war to line his own pockets with money is a repugnant use of class warfare.
Let's keep things in perspective shall we.
Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Pongo
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.
wonder what frontline to combat troops US army runs to these days - was 7-1 in the40's and 50's, 15 -1 in Vietnam, does anyone know? I'm thinking at least 20-1.
In which case there's only about 8k-10k actual boots with bayonets on the ground which seems kind of hard to believe though.....
-
Haliburton is but one of MANY companies, both foreign and domestic, which have contracts with the U.S. government to help rebuild Iraq. Suggesting that Bush started a war to line his own pockets with money is a repugnant use of class warfare.
Haliburton is the prime contractor, most of the others get their checks through Haliburton.
I am sugesting that Bush started the war to line, if not his own , then the pockets of his associates, who will take care of him later.
and yes, it is repugnant, and class warfare.
-
wonder how many firemen and policemen across this country have died doing their duty during the same time period? I don't see anyone keeping a tally on that number. Maybe because it's part of their job description also ...
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
Haliburton is the prime contractor, most of the others get their checks through Haliburton.
I am sugesting that Bush started the war to line, if not his own , then the pockets of his associates, who will take care of him later.
and yes, it is repugnant, and class warfare.
this is so retarded it has to be a troll