Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on December 16, 2006, 07:01:33 AM
-
As I was thinking about how we are going to get out of Iraq and not leave a mid-east catastrophe behind, I came to the conclusion that there is no answer other than to escalate the war. Option 1.) start pulling out and Iran takes over Iraq and the oil fields making Iran the superpower of the eastern hemisphere. Option 2.) Stay the course and keep sending our warriors over there to be bled to death. Option 3) Support the sunni faction militarily to crush the Iranian backed shia, then let the american supported sunni's take care of the insurgents. Option 3 is the only real option and that would require a substantial
increase in US troops. Here we goooooooooooooooooooo:(
-
wow - you figured that out all by yourself?
-
Well if you go for option 3 I know of a guy that would be perfect for the job. He got decades of experience in dealing with the shi'ites. Only problem is he's in jail now.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
As I was thinking about how we are going to get out of Iraq and not leave a mid-east catastrophe behind...(
Ahem... the catastrophe is already there.
Just sayin'...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... the catastrophe is already there.
Just sayin'...
I really do not mean to make light of the losses in Iraq I mean if you are killed, the casualties are 100%. If your friend or brother is killed, the casualty rate is too high. But looking at this from a historical perspective, (using fatalities as a benchmark) this has been anything but a catastrophe... militarily speaking.
General Pickett lost more in a walk of a few hundred yards than the coalition has lost in almost four years. We lost 60 thousand in the three days surrounding Picketts charge. At Gallipoli, Austrailia alone lost 7600, NZ lost 2400. The rest of the British Commonwealth lost 22,000.
-
The only ones 'bleeding to death' are Iraqi's. The sooner the new freely elected democratic government in Iraq can get things under control the sooner we could leave. They are unfamiliar with ruling 'by the people' and much more familiar with rule by firepower. Trouble is democracy moves alot slower than bullets so we are going to be there for at least two more years.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... the catastrophe is already there.
Just sayin'...
I agree 100%. This war should have never happened. It is a catastrophe of mammoth porportions. Now that a new leadership has inherited bases loaded and nobody out for the bad guys, what do they do?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
wow - you figured that out all by yourself?
Figured what out all by myself?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Well if you go for option 3 I know of a guy that would be perfect for the job. He got decades of experience in dealing with the shi'ites. Only problem is he's in jail now.
heheh, I was thinking that myself. We should probably appoint him secretary of defense and take notes.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I really do not mean to make light of the losses in Iraq I mean if you are killed, the casualties are 100%. If your friend or brother is killed, the casualty rate is too high. But looking at this from a historical perspective, (using fatalities as a benchmark) this has been anything but a catastrophe... militarily speaking.
General Pickett lost more in a walk of a few hundred yards than the coalition has lost in almost four years. We lost 60 thousand in the three days surrounding Picketts charge. At Gallipoli, Austrailia alone lost 7600, NZ lost 2400. The rest of the British Commonwealth lost 22,000.
I disagree, at $500,000,000,000.00 this is the worst military catastrophe in the history of humankind.
-
The worst military catastrophe of all time? I hope all the drugs are making you say that.
The old european nations used to sneeze away more people and money in wars then the oldest person alive has ever seen in his life time.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I disagree, at $500,000,000,000.00 this is the worst military catastrophe in the history of humankind.
Heaven forbid you adjust for inflation, but you wouldn't have a point then.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I agree 100%. This war should have never happened. It is a catastrophe of mammoth porportions. Now that a new leadership has inherited bases loaded and nobody out for the bad guys, what do they do?
Hummmm...new "leadership?" You are aware that the Congress does not run wars aren't you? Or are you just a product of the public education system?
Most of the dem bottom feeders have already backed off from most of their pre-election promises including impeachment, pulling out the troops and adopting 100% of the 9/11 commissions recommendations. Of course, it's a lot easier to make these sort of ridiculous "promises", point fingers, and lay blame when you're out of power. The dems have been like much of the press, all smoke and no balls and no responsibility. Now they're in power they've got themselves a big problem since they know they've been full of crap for years and still don't have anything constructive to offer.
-
Well boys, if you're going to drag history into this let's compare this to every other war the U.S. has fought in it's history.
Compared to all the others, this has been one of the longest...four years and counting.
Yet, going by a strict body count of U.S. casualties, it is one of the least bloody.
Note the following statistics; These are deaths from combat as well as non-combat related fatalities in-theater, which in some wars made up as much as twenty-percent of all casualties. Only deaths are listed.
Revolutionary War 4,435
War of 1812...2,260
Mexican War.....13,283
Civil War...Union....349,528
Civil War....Confederate.....198,524
Spanish-American......2,456
Philippine-American......3,216
WWI.....116,708
WWII.....407,316
Korea.....54,246
Vietnam.....58,168
First Gulf War....293
Operation Enduring Freedom/Afganistan-Pakistan.....350
Operation Iraqi Freedom.....2,863 combat.....572 due to non-hostile causes
These figures were updated at the web-site where I got them in November of this year.
Strictly speaking, in terms of actual casualties, it is NOT a disaster of mammoth proportions. The civilian discontent over the war and the "body-count" has been largely orchestrated and demagogued.
-
Well the current dem plan to flee iraq code named "Operation Somalia" will surely free the world of our burdensome war for democracy... Of course it was such a peaceful place before the invasion, free of terrorist training camps and UN inspectors, and then evil Boosch had to close yourops favorite cash cow and vacation rape rooms and end the party... ITs not to late though, Saddam can be placed back in power to re-establish the Rape rooms and human Meat grinders and possibly once again become the favorite hangout for all peaceful dictators across yourop and the middle east..
-
We lost 20,000 in the Battle of the Bulge, along with 23,000 captured.
Iraq is not the mess that people are trying to portray it as.
We overthrew Saddam, killed his two worthless sons, destroyed Iraq's army and fighting ability, installed a democratic government that has had two free elections.
What did the UN sanctions do?