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 (842 Views)
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
^^^Let’s hope so. The fact that casualties are “higher than expected,” 20,000 troops just had their tour of duty extended and more troops are being requested seems to suggest otherwise right now. Rumsfeld: Iraq Toll Higher Than Expected
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
No, more casualties mean more resistance. Saying that casualties are higher than expected is also a bit of a misnomer (and I'm not surprised the press didn't jump for joy on this one). There are usually three estimates given, and I doubt sincerely that this is worse than the worst case.

20,000 troops had their tours extended, most likely to mop of the Sadr resistance.

As I said in my statement, 24, we NEVER hear about the good things that happen. That infuritates me... media scum. I'm already convinced that most of the lamestream media actually wants things to go worse, so they can reveal their anti-Americanism. I also think their anti-Bush agenda is shameful.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

600 or so troops dead in a year of occupation, it sounds alot, and its a figure you wouldnt like to hear if you were a family member of the fallen.

But really with what they have had to go through, its a far smaller figure than I would have guessed a year ago. IMO the casualty rate is not higher than expected.

I am also really tiring of the media comparing Iraq to Vietnam, they were totally different situations. That link only furthers my support for Iraq.

From what I have read about the Vietnam war, I am totally disgusted at how the public acted. Brainwashed by the media and conned by actors, musicians and hippies ( jane Fonda and the like) - none of which really had a clue. Brainwashed to the point where tose poor ordinary Joe citizens who went over to fight for their country but were spat on upon their return home.

Individuals are intelligent, people are stupid.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Since May 1 2003 we've lost 353 in battle. That's less than 30/month.

City/Nation___Population; 2001 Murders/Combat Deaths; Per Capita
Iraq_________26,298,900__________353_________________1.34
The District______571,822__________262________________45.84
Detroit__________956,283__________402________________42.04
Baltimore_______660,826__________253_________________38.29
Memphis________655,898__________162_________________24.70
Chicago_______2,910,709__________647_________________22.23
Philly_________1,518,302__________288_________________18.97

Sources:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html
http://www.populationworld.com/Iraq.php
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
So you're saying the Sunni Triangle is safer than Washington, DC? Baghdad is safer than Detroit?
If your counting total deaths, wouldn't you also add in civilian deaths? Aslo, wouldn't the average per capita death rate on US bases in the USA be helpfull? Also, wouldn't you want to add in the deaths of our coalition partners? And why only combat deaths? What qualifies as a combat death? Does the pentagon have rules on this?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
I made no assumptions or comments, I just gave you the information as it is. I think it speaks for itself.

Combat deaths are US soldiers killed in combat (front lines or G-4). If I'm gonna count battle deaths I'll say so, but I couldn't find those figures. Besides, why would I want to? Count militant deaths? We WANT them dead. We WANT it tom be deadly for them. Don't you? Why would the death rate on US bases be helpful? I think it'd only be biased in one manner or another (can't tell wich direction, but it would be statistically unreliable).

I just put the numbers out there for others to draw their own conclusions on this "oh-so-deadly" war.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Surok
Member Avatar
Ensign
anon_persona
Apr 16 2004, 01:56 PM
Since May 1 2003 we've lost 353 in battle. That's less than 30/month.

City/Nation___Population; 2001 Murders/Combat Deaths; Per Capita
Iraq_________26,298,900__________353_________________1.34
The District______571,822__________262________________45.84
Detroit__________956,283__________402________________42.04
Baltimore_______660,826__________253_________________38.29
Memphis________655,898__________162_________________24.70
Chicago_______2,910,709__________647_________________22.23
Philly_________1,518,302__________288_________________18.97

Sources:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html
http://www.populationworld.com/Iraq.php

Gee, less than 30 a month? What are we all worrying about/ We can keep this going forever!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
As long as it takes, Surok...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
No I mean civilian deaths as in journalists, police, missionary workers, ect. They're being targetted, too.
You're only counting US deaths, aren't the casualties from our "coalition of the willing" just as important? By only presnting US deaths, the danger appears smaller.
The US bases would be useful to compare/contrast the safety of Iraq vs. if the troops had stayed home. You're argueing that having our troops in Iraq is safer than in the USA. This stat would be helpful.
Your source lists 497 since war began. Is that just an update?
I found this interesting link onCost of the War
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
whats the cost of not going to war?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
I'm already convinced that most of the lamestream media actually wants things to go worse, so they can reveal their anti-Americanism. I also think their anti-Bush agenda is shameful.

Unfortunately, this is probably more true than not. There was a time when objectivity was something one saw regularly in the media....
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
I don't buy that at all. The Press wants America to fail? Why? No oofense, but this has that Admiral Bill "You're either against (America, national defence, anti-terrorism, ect.) or for it" false choice. What's wrong with saying something could be done better?
Most journalsist label themselves as liberal center on social issues (they are colledge educated) and conservative on ecomic issues (they usually make over $100,000 per year).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Sorry, Dan, I forgot to reply to your question of the cost of not going to war with Iraq.
Well, we were spending on the overflights of the no fly zone and keeping of troops in Saudi Arabia to make sure Sadaam didn't invade. There was also a small cost diplomatically keeping those troops in the Moslem "Holy Land" (remember, that's one of bin Laden's big beefs with us). But it was pretty low when compared to the cost of invading Iraq. To the USA he was a nusence, but not much more (sort of like a middle east version of Castro in Cuba).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Adrian
Apr 18 2004, 11:41 AM
Sorry, Dan, I forgot to reply to your question of the cost of not going to war with Iraq.
Well, we were spending on the overflights of the no fly zone and keeping of troops in Saudi Arabia to make sure Sadaam didn't invade. There was also a small cost diplomatically keeping those troops in the Moslem "Holy Land" (remember, that's one of bin Laden's big beefs with us). But it was pretty low when compared to the cost of invading Iraq. To the USA he was a nusence, but not much more (sort of like a middle east version of Castro in Cuba).

I was not talking about money, I was talking more abstract then that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Adrian
Apr 18 2004, 10:41 AM
Sorry, Dan, I forgot to reply to your question of the cost of not going to war with Iraq.
Well, we were spending on the overflights of the no fly zone and keeping of troops in Saudi Arabia to make sure Sadaam didn't invade. There was also a small cost diplomatically keeping those troops in the Moslem "Holy Land" (remember, that's one of bin Laden's big beefs with us). But it was pretty low when compared to the cost of invading Iraq. To the USA he was a nusence, but not much more (sort of like a middle east version of Castro in Cuba).

Oh, how banal.

Just how many buildings in America has Castro had airplane flown into?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus