39 US Soldiers Dead in just over a Week

[Zero]

Originally posted by Max Webster

Appears to me after watching those videos the marines are having a blast in Iraq. I think Bush would spoil the party if he pulled out now.

Try being there jackass.

True some get to live in good when theyre deployed. Some sleep in cotts filled up with sands, sands and more sands... it all depends on where ur stationed.

Sands and heat. Sands and heat. Oh and more sands and heat. u want some water? heres some hot boiling water cause refrigeration hasnt been installed yet.

true, we fool around and find a way to stay sane and fun in this god forsaken hellhole but yeah just because some people are having a blast and theres a vid of that does not mean GETTING DEPLOYED SUCKS.

trust me, everybody in iraq wants to come home, unless they wanted to go because they wanted to make some taxfree bling bling on their paycheck which sucked to begin with.

[DanS]

Your position is curious, because the sanctions were a direct result of the terms of the suspension of hostilities in the Gulf War.

I take it that your position is that the terms of the suspension of hostilities should not have been enforced? Or is it your opinion that we should have been real men and occupied Iraq after the Gulf War?

[chequita guevara]

The sanctions may have killed as many as a million people. Only someone evil could support that.

[Alexander's Horse]

its simple really. saddam was wrong in GWI because he invaded a sovereign state. Dubya did exactly the same in GWII.

[DanS]

I'd like my question answered, not evaded. I'd like to know what action you would take to correct these wrongs.

[DanS]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The sanctions may have killed as many as a million people. Only someone evil could support that.

They were a direct result of the terms of the suspension of hostilities in the Gulf War. Is it your opinion that we should not have enforced those terms?

[Bereta_Eder]

get off peoples backs for christ sake. look at you like ravens on the body of the iraqis and middle easterners.

hang on strong brothas

[Bereta_Eder]

one would say

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
They were a direct result of the terms of the suspension of hostilities in the Gulf War. Is it your opinion that we should not have enforced those terms?

I opposed sanctions before the first Iraqi-American War.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I opposed sanctions before the first Iraqi-American War.

so did I.

[chequita guevara]

I remember arguing about it with the anti-war coalition too, trying to explain that lack of food and medicine kills you just as dead as bombs and bullets. To no avail.

[lord of the mark]

i of course recalled my own questioning of sanctions on South Africa. (I wonder if anyones done any studies on whether sanctions on RSA caused an increase in death rates) I was told way back when that sanctions were justified, since they were supported by the Iraqi National Congress - oops, the African National Congress, and they represented the people of south africa, and if they thought suffering to overthrow the regime was worthwhile, I had no moral standing to question it. When I asked about Buthelezi, who opposed sanctions, i was told he was a puppet of the regime. Oddly, hes still a factor in SA politics, even though the apartheid regime is gone.

Which is neither here nor there, wrt sanctions, necessarily. Just some thoughts.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DanS
I'd like my question answered, not evaded. I'd like to know what action you would take to correct these wrongs.

Don't worry Dan, you and Patroklos haven't answered any of my questions so what makes you think Che and AH should answer yours?

Personally I think they have - it's just you guys don't seem to be able to understand their answers...

As for a few points, over and above the ones that the pro Iraq invasion side have ignored...

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!?

So you can't really blame him for that - apart from being perhaps a bit more clumsy than the US attack on Falluja...

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!

As for BEFORE GWI, well those don't count because Saddam was our friend then - which basically means that whilst we ourselves might not haved gasses thousands of Kurdish civilians, we certainly stood by and supplied him with the means to do it...

So Saddam was basically contained with his wings clipped and not exactly causing anyone any problems at a time when say the Sudanese were already actively commiting genocide, or the North Koreans were putting the finishing touches on their nukes - or Bin Laden and the Taliban were in full flight and total disarray...

Sorry, but unless the pro Iraq invasionists were expecting as many US soldiers in Iraq years later as during the start of the war, 15,000 US casualties, an insurgency as strong as ever, worsening security, no WMDs, no Al Qaeda connection then they are dead wrong - especially considering this 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!!!

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! 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! How many Humvees and Bradleys have been destroyed in this war I wonder?

I remember just after the hostilities were officially 'ended' calculating that if things continued the way things were at the time that there would be about 2,000 killed in two years - I remember all the chickenhawks laughing at me at the time saying that things would quieten down and that would never happen...

I've also said that the thing that might eventually derail the US armies' efforts in Iraq is when their recruits dry up - after all the type of interventionist policies Bush is adopting these days, I can see the US needing more troops, not less...

The Iranians must be laughing their heads off right now...

[lord of the mark]

"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! 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! How many Humvees and Bradleys have been destroyed in this war I wonder?"


Its US policy to use reservists. Its called "one force" or something like that. And the amphibious vehicles are a Marine thing.

It might be helpful to discuss the MILITARY situation in Iraq, without going back over the question of the justification of the war, the intelligence of Dubya, etc. Youd think we have a good mix here to do that. However Ive long given up on that here - the desire to focus on politics is too strong.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DanS
I'd like my question answered, not evaded. I'd like to know what action you would take to correct these wrongs.

hey don't try and leave this turd in my in-tray. You supported the war - you tell us how you'd get out of it.