39 US Soldiers Dead in just over a Week

[DanS]

I have a good idea about what I support and why.

I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind what you think should be done. As of right now, it doesn't add up. That is, unless you basically believe that Saddam should have been given a free hand to do as he wished, the terms of the suspension of hostilities for the Gulf War be damned.

As far as I view it, by supporting the Gulf War, you've left a turd in my in-tray, not the other way around.

[Alexander's Horse]

ah - trying to change the subject eh Dan?

[DanS]

I've never viewed the Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I, II, and the aftermath as separate subjects. Lots of big mistakes made throughout our recent history with Iraq, which we have to actively fix.

[Patroklos]

God you are a character.

But then what would you do in Saddam's place, let the uprising succeed!?

Probobly not become a meglomanic dictator with a perchant for mass murder, but if I already were I would crush the rebellion. I would then expect all decent people in the world (I guess not you) to blame me for for it.

Basically as far as I can tell, most of the people killed post GWI were direct enemies, not indiscriminate killings - nope, THOSE were caused by the sanctions by the West!

Does that include the young girls who had their heads crushed by driving over them by Uday? After he raped them of course.

And if by direct enemies you mean people who stood up for democracy, freedom, or pretty much anything then sure. Direct Enemies. That definetly makes it all Okay

As for BEFORE GWI, well those don't count

Yeah I guess your right. They are just people, and brown ones at that. I don't see why they should "count" either.

So Saddam was basically contained with his wings clipped and not exactly causing anyone any problems at a time

Except 20 odd million Iraqis, but they don't "count," right now I remember.

Sudan were already actively commiting genocide

Wait a second, I thought you didn't support invading countries to better the lives of those in it. Sudan wasn't hurting anyone outside their borders any more than Iraq, they had their "wings clipped."

Sorry, but unless the pro Iraq invasionists were expecting as many US soldiers in Iraq years later as during the start of the war

I was.

15,000 US casualties

Wow, thats a nice number. You understand that at this rate we could stay there for 10 more years and not reach that number. That is rhetorical, I know you don't.

an insurgency as strong as ever

Hardly, they have failed in every objective. Can't stop elections, can't cut supply routes, can't stop utilites, can't stop oil production, can't stop Iraq security forcers recruiting, can't stop the interim government, can't hold territory, can't break US military moral, can't break US civilian moral (dispite your best efforts), can't get popular Iraqi support....

So if their only mission is to simply exist and kill indiscriminatly, which its not, sure they are as "successful" as ever.

vaunted democracy Bush is espousing will probably end up as an Islamist ally of Iran(which also happens to be a democracy!)...

Now that (to paraphrase Saddam) would be the Mother of all Owngoals!!!

Did you just use a hypothetical, and a poor one at that, as a point?

As for whether the US Army is dangerously overstretched or not - of course they are overstretched if they are having to resort to reservists as frontline troops!

Dangerously, yet we still met all our worldwide demands without mobilizing? Interesting. I want you to reserach how many active duty division the US army has, research how many we have in Iraq, and then get back to me on how overstreached we are. I could tell you, but I want you to do it because you really need to learn how to research, as this thread has made abundantly clear.

But I will throw you a bone, our peace time military is
under stress.

I would even go so far as to say that their equipment is overstretched if they are using amphibious vehicles as opposed to proper land vehicles

Marines. That should be a good enough hint.

As for the rest, ah hell, why even bother.

[Chemical Ollie]

Using reservist as frontline troops might actually be a good idea in a war like this, as those guys are older and more mature, thus better skilled in "winning hearts and minds".

A Swedish reporter in Afghanistan back in 2002 observed that the American reservists (or perhaps they were National Guard, I can't recall) were polite but firm and confident. They negotiated with village elders and tried to respect the local culture. When their unit was later rotated with a bunch of regulars, the local civilians became more hostile, as the young cowboys behaved like nervous Rambos: shouting, kicking in doors and trying to look macho.

[Max Webster]

Originally posted by Zero
Try being there jackass.

I deserved that. Its obviously not all fun in the sun as I implied. But I'm sure you knew that before you joined the army.

But anyway I thought the "another one bites the dust video or rather slideshow was in extremely bad taste.

Another thought I had was after watching the other two videos, was with all that firepower how could the US not win the war against the insurgents. But I guess its not that simple.

I wish more soldiers from the Iraq theatre would express their thoughts and experiences here.

[Max Webster]

Originally posted by BlackCat
It might sound offending, but in my view this is palin BS.

Such as ? Please tell what US did to provoke hate against US,

It is not me that want to know the answer on this - it is all secret services, governements, political partiies, organisations and common people.

If you really has the answer, please tell - we all want to know.

No offence taken. But why is it BS? They have been fighting somebody somewhere all through their history. When your bouncing around in other folks backyards, for various reasons you tend to make enemies. Also some folks in this world just don't like the US because of their culture, religion and wealth.

I think they states is suffering the fallout from past imperialist powers who made decisions that haunt us today.

Complicated world. Sometimes I wonder why I even try to bother to understand it.

[Max Webster]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Using reservist as frontline troops might actually be a good idea in a war like this, as those guys are older and more mature, thus better skilled in "winning hearts and minds".

A Swedish reporter in Afghanistan back in 2002 observed that the American reservists (or perhaps they were National Guard, I can't recall) were polite but firm and confident. They negotiated with village elders and tried to respect the local culture. When their unit was later rotated with a bunch of regulars, the local civilians became more hostile, as the young cowboys behaved like nervous Rambos: shouting, kicking in doors and trying to look macho.

I think the US soldiers are not only soldiers but diplomats. I think the key in reducing american enemies is in their attitude and conduct when dealing with non-hostile locals of any area of conflict.

When an american soldier does something nasty, intentionally or unintentionally he creates the potential of creating another insurgent.

Very tricky thing when at times your not sure who your enemies are.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Max Webster

---

with all that firepower how could the US not win the war against the insurgents. ---

That's because this is not a question about firepower. The firepower was good to take out the initial Sadamist regular army, but now it's all about hearts and minds. If you use pure firepower now, you will get two more enemies for every enemy you kill. I assume you and I already know this, let's just hope the chickenhawks will understand one day.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Max Webster





No offence taken. But why is it BS? They have been fighting somebody somewhere all through their history. When your bouncing around in other folks backyards, for various reasons you tend to make enemies. Also some folks in this world just don't like the US because of their culture, religion and wealth.

I think they states is suffering the fallout from past imperialist powers who made decisions that haunt us today.

Complicated world. Sometimes I wonder why I even try to bother to understand it.

Ok, it was to be short I used that abbreviation

It is right that US has been involved in wars through it's lifetime, but compared to countries as UK, France, Belgium, Germany etc, they are newbeeies and in some way amateurs.

Today it is islamic groups that are claiming that US is their enemy, but before first Iraq war, the closest US has been in military involvment has been the Philipines, and that ended a lot of years ago.

Thew only connection to ME and islam I can find is the claim that the US government is controlled by Israel/jews and that I really can't see as a valid claim - that makes as much sense as ID/creationism.

[Chemical Ollie]

Someone said 15000 American casualties was BS. Too bad I can't find that claim online. Here's some links supporting the Ame´rican claim...

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

15180...

[Patroklos]

MOBIUS claimed 15,000 casualties in Iraq.

Very interesting sight, though "casualty" due to wounds can be up to the observer.

Obviously WIA RTD should not be included, but with WIA not RTD and KIA (even accidents like car wrecks) you get 8,000 odd total. Far cry from 15,000.

Se we are averaging less than a thousand deaths a year by a large margin, definetly another Vietnam.

[BlackCat]

Hey guys, where the hell have you been ? I thought I was alone in having some sane views about losses etc in Iraq, and then you suddently pops up and tells the same as me !!!

btw - nice to see that it isn't me that need a tinfoil hat

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
It is true that Saddam was indeed responsible for killing many thousands of enemies after the Gulf War - but then the bulk of those were the marsh Arabs that Bush snr stabbed in the back by inciting to rise up against him and then stood by as Saddam crushed them. But then what would you do in Saddam's place, let the uprising succeed!?

It is possible to defeat a rebellion without then dragging out hundreds of thousands of people, executing them and burying them in mass graves in the desert. Make no mistake, Hussein deserves to hang from the highest lampost on this planet, upside-down, by his testicles, while each Iraqi is given a stone to throw at him. He is a most evil human being.

Nonetheless, this ended in 1991, and so using it as an excuse to justify the invasion in 2003 in order to save his subjects is disingenuous. You can't prevent something that happened 13 years ago and has ended.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Se we are averaging less than a thousand deaths a year by a large margin, definetly another Vietnam.

Compare with the early years of Vietnam and you get a similar figure.