Iraq war: 5 years later

Discussion in 'Iraq' started by M14 Shooter, Mar 20, 2008.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Online

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,115
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,487
    US KIA: 3263
    3263 over 1828 days. 1.78 KIA/day

    Compared to:
    Battle of Guadalcanal (186 days)-- 7,099 -- 38.16/day
    Operation Market Garden (9 days)-- 3,664 -- 407.11/day
    Battle of the Bulge (41 days)-- 19,276 -- 470.14/day
    Battle of Iwo Jima (39 days)-- 6,821 -- 174.89/day
    Battle of Pusan Perimeter (61 days-Korea)-- 6,706 -- 109.93/day

    And don't forget -- Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Bataan, etc, were all part of a disproportional response to an attack we provoked.

    The US military lost more soldiers in the first 5 years of the Clinton Presidency than the US military lost in the first 5 years in Iraq.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

    Of course, we dont hear too much about the war anymore.
    Wonder why that is.
     
  2. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,790
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,300
  3. M14 Shooter
    Online

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,115
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,487
    I dont recall making any moral statement.
    I believe I was commentng on the number of combat deaths in Iraq, compared to other actions we've seen.
    Pretty small by comparison, wouldn't you say?
     
  4. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,790
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,300
    If I am dead it would be hard for me to count don't you think? And if I could would that make me feel better.

    ....Iraq was no threat to us, and our leaders knew it. Therefore, the war and invasion were and are immoral and absolutely unjustified.

    I repeat: the entire war and occupation are immoral. If you criticize the Bush administration on the grounds that it "bungled" the war, this leaves one, and only one, inevitable implication: if they had prosecuted the war and occupation "competently," then you would have no complaints whatsoever. That is: you think the invasion and occupation of Iraq were justified and moral. If that's what you actually think, you belong in the Bush camp. You're arguing over managerial style, and about issues that are entirely trivial.


    from link above
     
  5. M14 Shooter
    Online

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,115
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,487
    Not sure how that's relevant in any way to what I posted.

    You can repeat yourself as many times as you want:
    -That doesn't make it so;
    -It doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on what I posted.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127

    This is just sad. Iraq war lovers desparately trying to minimize the cost of the war they started.

    Maybe you don't care about dead americans, but your war is now the most expensive in the history of the united states, outside of world war two. Maybe you like flushing taxpayer money down the drain on unneccessary and poorly mangaged wars.

    No WMD. No ties to al qaeda. No being greeted as liberators.

    My parents taught me to own up to, and admit mistakes when I made them. The fact you can't admit your war was a mistake, and that your cheerleading support of it was misguided, says a lot about you.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Okay. So then what is your point other than that the numbers are comparatively small? If your only point is that they are small, there is no argument.
     
  8. JimH52
    Offline

    JimH52 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    19,262
    Thanks Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    US
    Ratings:
    +8,246
    :clap2:
     
  9. M14 Shooter
    Online

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,115
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,487
    Or, perhaps, its an attempt to give people like you a little perspective.

    Have you ever wondered why, if Iraq is the debacle you keep saying it is, casualties are the lowest for any large-scale, long-tem military operation across all of recorded history?
     
  10. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    While I would not argue your numbers, there are other factors too – including the necessity of the war. I think that the battles with respect to WW II were warranted. Hitler was trying to take over the world. Japan attacked us. Iraq was an insignificant little sand castle. All that it did was try to take that little thumb-looking nation of Kuwait and harass Iran. It posed no threat to the world the way that Hitler did. It was not a threat to America. The Iraq was unnecessary – even with its relatively insignificant loss of life.
     

Share This Page