Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Soldiers in Iraq aren't Heroes?; Andy Rooney Opines...
Topic Started: Apr 12 2004, 07:04 PM (843 Views)
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Doctortobe,
Don't get too enamoured with the kill ratios. Sure they can be impressive. I think in Gulf War I we had a 1:100 kill ratio (or something equally amazing). But in Veitnam we had 1:30 ratio (in every open battle we won), but we eventually lost. I can't remember where I saw this but at Little Big Horn, Custer had the same 1:30 ratio. Lastly, in WWII the Germans had a superior ratio over the UK, USSR, and the USA but we always had just one more to topple them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Yeah, but tactically we were winning Vietnam, Custer lost due to overwhelming numerical superiority of the Native Americans plus the fact that he was unaware of their numbers, and, given the death tolls of the US, UK, and Germany (.4, .28, and 5.5 million respectfully. US and UK tolls INCLUDE Pacific Theatre deaths) your statement about a 30-1 kill ratio is pretty farfetched, add in the fact that these were only MILITARY casualties (400,000 to 600,000 civilians died in bombings) and it is even more unlikely. Even if 85% of German casualties occured on the Russian Front, the death toll on the Western Front would still be higher then the death tolls of BOTH US and UK soldiers COMBINED. The death toll of the Soviet union shows you what happens when you take an army of peasents and tell them to charge machine guns until they overrun the position. The first Gulf War was a cakewalk with the majority of deaths due to "friendly fire". So therefore, none of the correct facts has any relevance to the war on Iraq.

Given the current trend, hypothetically we could take out over a million insurgents before the American portion of the coalition was killed. This does not account for any other nation's forces or the fact that if it got to that point more troops could be sent in to reinforce the people already there. Nor does it take into account the fact that the uprisings are starting to wane and that many Sunni and Shiite clerics are calling on their followers to stand down.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
I think anyone that serves in Combat should be labelled a hero, any one that risks a shorter life span to support thier country.

CP,

I don't think I'm that far from your position on this. My uncle died during the Vietnam Conflict (1966) and to me he is both a hero and honorable (no, he is not Klingon ;)) for playing a part in protecting our country. I've mentioned on more than one occasion that the Purple Heart of his that I now have is among my most treasured possessions. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
proton:

:loling: :rotfl: when you grow up you'll be maybe in a position to give advise.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^

Not to mention 'advice.' :whistle: :wave2: ;)

[Fessy realizes that this will come back to haunt him, but he's having fun nevertheless. ;)]
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Adrian
Apr 14 2004, 02:37 AM
Doctortobe,
Don't get too enamoured with the kill ratios. Sure they can be impressive. I think in Gulf War I we had a 1:100 kill ratio (or something equally amazing). But in Veitnam we had 1:30 ratio (in every open battle we won), but we eventually lost. I can't remember where I saw this but at Little Big Horn, Custer had the same 1:30 ratio. Lastly, in WWII the Germans had a superior ratio over the UK, USSR, and the USA but we always had just one more to topple them.

Who said we lost Vietnam? Did the Cong ever win a battle? No.

We ABANDONED them. Not the same thing at all.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
somerled
Apr 14 2004, 09:24 AM
proton:

:loling: :rotfl: when you grow up you'll be maybe in a position to give advise.

:loling: :loling: :rotfl: :loling: :loling:

You are telling someone else to grow up???

Maybe if you spent less time stroking your own ego and more time on research you would present a better case.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Bill :
the effect was the same none-the-less and the withdrawal was pretty hasty and disorganised.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
We pretty much lost the war for "hearts and minds" here and abroad. We must win that front in this conflict if we are to win.
I don't think we're doing a great job right now.
In the begining of the occupation, commanders were given "slush funds", pools of cash that they could distribute to any project that improved relations between the Iraqis and US forces. The commanders thought the slush funds were great; they showed real results. But the funds dried up and the relations slowly went bad.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Quote:
 
We pretty much lost the war for "hearts and minds" here and abroad. We must win that front in this conflict if we are to win.


Fine, then tell your side to stop with the moronic comparisons to Vietnam and using the word "quagmire" all the time. The irritating part is that neither are true.

The only reason we're "not doing a great job now" is plain and simple. It is being lied about by the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, the lamestream media, Howard "Yeaaaaaagh" Dean, and 95% of those elected officials who have a "D" after their name.

Just cut it out.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Am I the only one who believes that the War is not over, and that we have far from lost it?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

somerled
Apr 14 2004, 08:24 AM
proton:

:loling:  :rotfl: when you grow up you'll be maybe in a position to give advise.

I think now you've set the buffer way too long, it seems to have cut most of that post out, I'm sure there was a lot more insightful and thought provoking points in that reply, at least another change of story anyhoo.

Set it back to 128 characters.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Fes,
I agree. We are still at the crossroads in Iraq. We haven't lost yet, but we are far from "winning" as well.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
I've been writing to my brother-in-law, thanking him and telling him to persevere. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Things are a lot better than the media reports. I won't say more so as not to reveal sources!

Semper Fi!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus