Iraq war: 5 years later

[M14 Shooter]

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.

 

[midcan5]

I love these moral scales that justify not by examining whether an action is right or wrong but by comparison to another action.

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/07/trapped-in-wrong-paradigm-three-handy.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

I love these moral scales that justify not by examining whether an action is right or wrong but by comparison to another action.

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?

 

[midcan5]

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?

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Not sure how that's relevant in any way to what I posted.

I repeat: the entire war and occupation are immoral.

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.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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.

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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?

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.

 

[JimH52]

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

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]

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.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

While I would not argue your numbers, there are other factors too – including the necessity of the war.

Irrelevant to the issue.

 

[mattskramer]

Irrelevant to the issue.

Okay. Then what is the issue? So you are not debating whether or not Iraq is the debacle. You are just pointing out the fact that fewer people were killed in the Iraq war by day than were killed in other battles by day. (Shrug) As long as you don’t draw any other conclusion, I agree with that stand-alone premise. It is not a logical argument but merely a statement of fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. Then what is the issue?

I believe I already answered that.

 

[mattskramer]

I believe I already answered that.

Yes. You did:

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

That's it.

Yet, later, you throw this lillte bit in there: if Iraq is the debacle you keep saying it is....

So is the debate just about deaths or is it about whether or not Iraq is a debacle?
Such doublespeak.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So is the debate just about deaths or is it about whether or not Iraq is a debacle?
Such doublespeak.

Only for those that don't want to have to admit that the war isnt the disaster they wish it were.
I mean, if they were willing to admit it, why don't they?

 

[mattskramer]

Only for those that don't want to have to admit that the war isnt the disaster they wish it were.
I mean, if they were willing to admit it, why don't they?

Okay. Just as I thought, you did have an argument. You even change the terms in your argument. Is it not a disaster or is it not a debacle?


Your argument:

Premise 1: A war is not disastrous when there is less loss of life than in other wars.
Premise 2: The Iraq war has less loss of life than in other wars.
Conclusion: The Iraq war is not disastrous.

I take issue with your first premise. Other variables define what is disastrous or a debacle: Could there have been even less loss of life? Was the war necessary? Could it have been run better, etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I take issue with your first premise.

That's -your- first premise, not mine. You're arguing a strawman.

Other variables define what is disastrous or a debacle: Could there have been even less loss of life? Could it have been run better, etc.

However poorly you may think it has been run, the fact is the casualties are lower than any other war.

You can if you want, theorize on how it may have been run better, but you've deomstrated in the past that, in the realm of military operations, planning and logistics, you aren't a competent judge.

 

[mattskramer]

That's -your- first premise, not mine. You're arguing a strawman.


However poorly you may think it has been run, the fact is the casualties are lower than any other war.

You can if you want, theorize on how it may have been run better, but you've deomstrated in the past that, in the realm of military operations, planning and logistics, you aren't a competent judge.

Okay. Let’s go back to the beginning. Is it your only point that there were comparatively few deaths from the Iraq war? If so, then there is no argument. It is merely a statistical fact. You are not to draw any conclusion from it.

Yet, later you attempt to draw a conclusion saying that because of this, the Iraq war is not so disastrous. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yet, later you attempt to draw a conclusion saying that because of this, the Iraq war is not so disastrous. You can’t have it both ways.

So close, but yet no cigar.

 

[mattskramer]

So close, but yet no cigar.

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?