Iraq war: 5 years later

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not going the play the guessing game with one who doesnt talk straight. You tell me what is your point if not that there are comparatively fewer deaths in in the Iraq war?

Allow me to quote myself:

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?

 

[mattskramer]

Allow me to quote myself:

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?

Okay. Then it is a question that you are asking. That is simple enough for me to understand.

My answer: No. The number of casualties is just one factor among several in determining whether or not a war is a disaster.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My answer: No. The number of casualties is just one factor among several in determining whether or not a war is a disaster.

That doesnt answer the question I asked.

 

[mattskramer]

That doesnt answer the question I asked.

I thought that I answered your question. Anyway, here is my answer. It is a debacle because there should have been no loss of American lives because we never should have gone to war. It is a debacle because the soldiers should have been supplied with more armor than they were given. The hospitals should have been ready. I am no expert on war preparedness but I still think that this Iraq war should have been handled better. Yet, more importantly than that, we should not have gone to war.

Does that answer your question?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I thought that I answered your question.

Of course you did.

Lets recap:
My question:
Why, if Iraq is the debacle you keep saying it is, are casualties the lowest for any large-scale, long-tem military operation across all of recorded history?

It is a debacle because there should have been no loss of American lives because we never should have gone to war

This doesnt address the question.

It is a debacle because the soldiers should have been supplied with more armor than they were given.

This doesnt address the question.

The hospitals should have been ready.

This doesnt address the question.

Does that answer your question?

That should be apparent.

I am no expert on war preparedness...

We established that quite some time ago, thus my 'competent judge' comment.

 

[mattskramer]

Of course you did.

Lets recap:
My question:
Why, if Iraq is the debacle you keep saying it is, are casualties the lowest for any large-scale, long-tem military operation across all of recorded history?


This doesnt address the question.


This doesnt address the question.


This doesnt address the question.


That should be apparent.


We established that quite some time ago, thus my 'competent judge' comment.

It’s funny. Even though we seem to be communicating is simple English. I guess that we fail to communicate. I thought that my answers clearly addressed (answered) your question. Even if we accept as fact that casualties were the lowest for any large-scale, long-tem military operation across all of recorded history, it can still be argued that the Iraq war was a debacle. It was not necessary. It could have been done with even less loss of life. I just don’t know what else to say. I don’t get it. How does that not address the question? A debacle does not necessarily have to have a huge loss of life.

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

Cuz we're winning, and that upsets the libs, who hide the fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It’s funny. Even though we seem to be communicating is simple English. I guess that we fail to communicate. I thought that my answers clearly addressed (answered) your question.

My question is:

Why...are casualties the lowest for any large-scale, long-term military operation across all of recorded history?

YOU keep telling me why Iraq is a disaster.

Anyone that understand plain English will therefore understand that you are NOT addressing my question.

Perhaps the problem here is that YOU don't understand English?

 

[mattskramer]

My question is:

Why...are casualties the lowest for any large-scale, long-term military operation across all of recorded history?

YOU keep telling me why Iraq is a disaster.

Anyone that understand plain English will therefore understand that you are NOT addressing my question.

Perhaps the problem here is that YOU don't understand English?

No. That is not the question that you previously asked.

Look at post # 21. You asked a “yes-no” question. You said, “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?”

Now you are asking a different question. You are saying, “Why...are casualties the lowest for any large-scale, long-term military operation across all of recorded history?”

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. That is not the question that you previously asked.

Anyone with a basic understanding of English understands what I asked.
Now, you can address it or you can dodge it.

 

[mattskramer]

Anyone with a basic understanding of English understands what I asked.
Now, you can address it or you can dodge it.

Question: “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?”

Answer: No. I have not wondered why.

 

[mattskramer]

Question: “Why are casualties the lowest for any large-scale, long-term military operation across all of recorded history?”

Answer: I think that they are low due to modern USA technology, better trained soldiers, and apathetic attitude of our opposition. Also, the sandy terrain is better than the jungle-like terrain in other wars. Our opponents do not have as good weapons as we have. Also they are not as well trained. There are probably many more reasons that people could come up with.

 

[BrianH]

Question: “Why are casualties the lowest for any large-scale, long-term military operation across all of recorded history?”

Answer: I think that they are low due to modern USA technology, better trained soldiers, and apathetic attitude of our opposition. Also, the sandy terrain is better than the jungle-like terrain in other wars. Our opponents do not have as good weapons as we have. Also they are not as well trained. There are probably many more reasons that people could come up with.

No offense, but since WWII we've typically had better weapons than our opponents...with the exception of the Soviet Union, but we never directly fought them.

Not that loosing any soldier is good...but 4,000 in five years is low, compared with other conflicts. Vietnam lasted roughly 11 years for us (militarily) and we lost over 50,000. around 5,000 per year.

My own personal opinion, is the tactics being used by the enemy. You don't see large scale offensives anymore. Many of our troops are killed by roadside bombs. I'd be interested in finding the number of troops killed by bullets and IEDs. I also believe that the advancement in body armor has alot to do with it. Among other things.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No offense, but since WWII we've typically had better weapons than our opponents...with the exception of the Soviet Union, but we never directly fought them.

You are exactly correct.
What then is the difference between Iraq and, say, Vietnam?
Or, the difference bettween Iraq 2003/8 and Iraq 1991?

 

[BrianH]

You are exactly correct.
What then is the difference between Iraq and, say, Vietnam?
Or, the difference bettween Iraq 2003/8 and Iraq 1991?

I think there are alot of differences in Iraq 2003 and Vietnam.

1.) It was an entirely different situation. We were never directly attacked, therefore the public support for the war was not as great as it was for the Iraq 2003 war. Alot of the public supported the Iraq 2003 war in the beginning because of 9-11, even though we were never directly attacked by Iraq...however, Saddam did attempt to organize an assassination of the first Bush, and invaded Kuwait.

2.) There were many many many more of the enemy in Vietnam then there are in Iraq. (I believe the population of the enemy was signficantly higher). Hence you have large scale offensives. (such as the tet offensive)

3.) The North Vietnamese had already been fighting constantly since the
1940s, they knew what they were doing better than we knew what we were doing.

4.)THe U.S. Military strategy for Iraq was way better than the one in Vietnam, it has kept the casualties significantly lower IMO. The U.S. has done a better job dealing with the Iraqi people than was done dealing with the Vietnamese people.

5.) As far as I know, bullet proof vests were non-existent in Vietnam (if anyone has different knowledge on this, let me know,cause I haven't researched it.) Flak jacks were used, but are no where near the protection offered by body armor today.

There many more things that are different but it would take up alot of thread.

As far as Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003

1.) Our ally was attacked, therefore we interviened (Also had to do with the fact that Saudi Arabia offered our services to Kuwait, and since we get alot of oil from Saudi Arabia, we were happy to oblige. (this in turn pissed of Osama, because his services were turned down by Kuwait, because they got a better deal from the Saudis) However, it was the right thing to do. Aside from national interest, Saddam would have killed every last Kuwaiti if he had the chance.

2.) We never tried to invade Iraq on a large scale. (we did have alot of special forces inside Iraq, including Baghdad, during the 91 war). we should have invaded Iraq then, while the public support for the war was high. It was much simpler in 91 because all we had to do was push the Iraqis out of Kuwait, which we all know, didn't take long.



3.)I think the problem we're having in Iraq 2003-08, is because we invaded Iraq post 9-11, therefore, international terrorists were already pissed off at us from the 91 gulf war, therefore, they were more willing infiltrate Iraq to wage a Jihad. If you read military reports, for the longest time, we were fighting foreign terrorists rather than Iraqi insurgents.

 

[rayboyusmc]

To the 4000 dead, who gives a shit to the reason?

And now they can't even protect US in the Green Zone.


This is a war that wasn't needed, poorly planned and no fucking end in sight. No WMDs, no real threat, no drones to cross the ocean, no fucking mushrooms except what they were smoking.

Now Bush is trying to sign an agreement with the Iraqi government for an eternal troop presence.

As the Bush administration heads into months of negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on the future of US troops in Iraq, it aims to stretch the bounds of executive power to unprecedented lengths.

The administration plans to bypass Congress to forge a status of forces agreement (SOFA) that would grant US forces an unlimited permit to continue engaging in military action in Iraq, according to statements by the State Department's Coordinator for Iraq, David Satterfield, and Assistant Secretary of Defense Mary Beth Long, at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing last week.

Drafts of the SOFA, a binding pact, also provide legal immunity for US private contractors operating in Iraq, according to a late January New York Times article, which assertions were not denied by administration officials during the hearing.

http://tinyurl.com/2s3cg2