NationStates Jolt Archive

With US soldiers dying c900 a year in Iraq, would it be correct to say that the Army and the US public can just about tolerate that figure almost indefinitely? At what sort of figure would one start to see demonstrations, if any?

Would a massive single loss like the 253 marines killed in Lebanon cause the US to immediately withdraw just like it did then?

With US soldiers dying c900 a year in Iraq, would it be correct to say that the Army and the US public can just about tolerate that figure almost indefinitely?

They can most likely tolerate it until the US is satisfied that Iraq can defend and police itself.

I don't know, I mean we are starting to see rumblings of dissent here. There are demands in high places for a speedy exit strategy. I'd say the causalties are biting.

And the US can't tolerate those casualties indefinitely.

There have been demonstrations against the war, some large, some not so large, since before the war began. What will it take for Vietnam-era style demonstrations? I don't think it will be a number. I think there will just be a tipping point, and I think it's close, where the people just decide enough is enough. Bush's popularity on Iraq is at about 40% right now--if it goes below 35%, I think you'll see regular demonstrations in the streets.

When would casualties start to bite? How about at number one?


And if any single one of them were YOUR father, or brother, you would consider that one a real tragedy too.

I do not have a number at how many it would take for us to begin a withdrawal. With this President

I agree with Bush the Liar. One casualty was one too many.

Support for this war is very thin. It will only take the right incident to bring this to a head and it needn't involve a great number of casualties. Right now the American people, IMHO, are asleep, mainly because it's not their relatives asses on the line in Iraq. But the each death, especially those involving Reserve soldiers or a National Guard soldiers eats away at an already weak base of support for the war.

I think that one of the reasons the war continues is that a lot of Americans frankly are too busy trying to make a living to pay attention to it.

Past few weeks have been quite deadly, and if the trend continues it will at least arise some discussion, maybe.

What's the number for wounded? I recall it was somewhere around 10 000?

... the US can't tolerate those casualties indefinitely.
Oh for God's sake! Look at the casualty figures from WWII and Korea. There were no idiots protesting in the damned streets then. It was only after the damned media starting giving the noisy rabble a voice that Americans began to turn to mush.

I
I think that one of the reasons the war continues is that a lot of Americans frankly are too busy trying to make a living to pay attention to it.
It's because most of America realizes that Bush is right in at least one instance: immediate withdrawal would only embolden the terrorists. It'd be Somalia 1000 fold.

Past few weeks have been quite deadly, and if the trend continues it will at least arise some discussion, maybe.

What's the number for wounded? I recall it was somewhere around 10 000?
14000 last I heard.

In the korean war, we lost 115,000 KIA. I think we have a bit of a backbone to stay the course.

Oh for God's sake! Look at the casualty figures from WWII and Korea.
No, it "hasn't been that bad", because it is not your ass on the line.

Oh for God's sake! Look at the casualty figures from WWII and Korea. There were no idiots protesting in the damned streets then. It was only after the damned media starting giving the noisy rabble a voice that Americans began to turn to mush.
Of all people on this board, you ought to better than to try that kind of comparison. This war is not WWII. It's not even Korea, and you know it. This is a war that was never popular, largely because too many people knew it was unnecessary. WWII was necessary. Korea was necessary. Vietnam wasn't, and when the public figured that out, it became very unpopular. The people who opposed this war from the beginning saw the Vietnam parallels and have said "one soldier is too many," and slowly, the rest of the country is starting to agree with us. We'll never convince everyone, but almost 60% of the country agrees with us now and that number will get bigger.

It's because most of America realizes that Bush is right in at least one instance: immediate withdrawal would only embolden the terrorists. It'd be Somalia 1000 fold.

Somalians never attacked us after our withdrawal. Are you saying we'll just be a 1000 times more embarrassed? I personally could deal with that.

In the korean war, we lost 115,000 KIA. I think we have a bit of a backbone to stay the course.
You mean to say you've got the backbone to see 115,000 of your fellow Americans die for this war?



That's cold, man. Those are people.

You mean to say you've got the backbone to see 115,000 of your fellow Americans die for this war?



That's cold, man. Those are people.

You twisted my words. In no way in hell would I like to see 115,000. :mad: Don't you fucking twist my words in such a sick, dastardly way...

The saddest part, apart from all these mostly young guys losing their lives for no real reason at all, is that it would take a miracle for Bush or anyone in his whole administration to ever in any way be held accountable for leading the US into a war under false pretenses and causing the completely unnecessary and utterly pointless deaths of almost 2,000 American soldiers and 20,000 wounded, some of whom are maimed for life. These people are dying every day over there for absolutely nothing, and I doubt if anyone is ever going to have to answer for it. It makes me want to puke to think of Americans voting to reelect a man whose lies have gotten almost 2,000 of its soldiers killed, and counting every day. Does he have to shoot them himself before people wake up? And the herd moseys along as though nothing is happening.

Somalians never attacked us after our withdrawal. Are you saying we'll just be a 1000 times more embarrassed? I personally could deal with that.
Withdrawal from Somalia emboldened Al Qaeda. It portrayed us as a "paper tiger". Just read some of Osama bin Laden's rhetoric after our retreat. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq will be the same only worse. It will give the terrorists there a victory. Could you deal with that?

In the korean war, we lost 115,000 KIA. I think we have a bit of a backbone to stay the course.

Sorry for your quote Bushrep.But it fits more here:
No, it "hasn't been that bad", because it is not your ass on the line

Sorry to for your quote Bushrep.But it fits more here:

Yeah, but i know plenty of people there including two of my family members.

Just read some of Osama bin Laden's rhetoric

Allways been sure that the extreme right had acces to its friends lecture :D

The saddest part, apart from all these mostly young guys losing their lives for no real reason at all,
Not true at all.
Those 1800 soldiers died deposing a vicious dictator. They died giving 26 million Iraqis a chance at freedom they would not otherwise have. In two days Iraq will have written a Constitution that would not have been possible if not for those heroic soldiers.

Yeah, but i know plenty of people there including two of my family members.

Easy talk, all extreme rightwingers here seem to have so called victims in the family. Sorry, that I don't believe you.

My parents were killed in 9/11*? Is that a argument here? No it is not, just like yours.

*example

Allways been sure that the extreme right had acces to its friends lecture :D
Oh Lord.
Are you declaring my claim as false?
Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda was emboldened by America's withdrawal from Mogadishu. True or False?

Easy talk, all extreme rightwingers here seem to have so called victims in the family. Sorry, that I don't believe you.

My parents were killed in 9/11*? Is that a argument here? No it is not, just like yours.

*example

Fine don't believe me.... you can continue being a jerk.

I'm withdrawing from this thread because of hypocrites as yourself.

I think it would be good for us all to remember that more Iraqi civilians would have been killed this year alone than American soldiers if this war hadn't happened. Yes, the soldiers are people, but so are the Iraqis. Also, the soldiers understand and accept a risk when they volunteer, and that's why we have an all-volunteer army. The Iraqis are at risk simply by living, and that is what is truly wrong.

Also, whether it was started for the right reasons or not is irrelevant now, at least to everyone in Iraq. This war will have very far-reaching consequences, like it or not. If we can establish a true working democracy in Iraq, then eventually, it will probably happen in other Middle East nations. If we can't...

Oh Lord.
Are you declaring my claim as false?
Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda was emboldened by America's withdrawal from Mogadishu. True or False?
You are Corneliu. True or False?

Not true at all.
Those 1800 soldiers died deposing a vicious dictator. They died giving 26 million Iraqis a chance at freedom they would not otherwise have. In two days Iraq will have written a Constitution that would not have been possible if not for those heroic soldiers.

Bullshit, the dictator was gone before most GI's died.They died after Bushes speach of "peace".
Freedom? Your freedom to kill Iraqi citizens? Come on you're 2 years late, even the Iraqi goverment wants you out (but you don't even respect the puppet government you installed).

Oh yes , Challabi, the by Interpol sought drugsdealer and ex-cia is installed there as a minister by the US, 99% of Iraq wants to see him where he belongs, in jail!

You are Corneliu. True or False?
False. Now will you answer mine?

You are Corneliu. True or False?

I see a pattern here, like allways with him.

Fine don't believe me.... you can continue being a jerk.

I'm withdrawing from this thread because of hypocrites as yourself.

That's unfortunate... I may now be the only supporter of the war on this thread now...

Fine don't believe me.... you can continue being a jerk.

I'm withdrawing from this thread because of hypocrites as yourself.

Ok morron, leave.BTW you are seen as a hypocrite on NS :D

That's unfortunate... I may now be the only supporter of the war on this thread now...

Euh, I think it is about the US victims, not the pro-contra. :rolleyes:

Withdrawal from Somalia emboldened Al Qaeda. It portrayed us as a "paper tiger". Just read some of Osama bin Laden's rhetoric after our retreat. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq will be the same only worse. It will give the terrorists there a victory. Could you deal with that?

As I recall, the last time a super power (USSR) withdrew from a third world nation it had invaded and occupied (Afghanistan) the result was 10 years of bloody civil war. Do you honestly believe the alliance between the ex-baathists and foreign jihadis in Iraq is some sort of blood brotherhood? I don't.

Ok morron, leave.BTW you are seen as a hypocrite on NS :D

Morron. That's a classic... hahahah... I'm laughing so hard... hahahahhahah.. you crack me up.... I'm no hypocrite. I'm honest and down to earth.. and a "morron".. whatever the heck that is.. hahahah

Bullshit, the dictator was gone before most GI's died.They died after Bushes speach of "peace".
Freedom? Your freedom to kill Iraqi citizens? Come on you're 2 years late, even the Iraqi goverment wants you out (but you don't even respect the puppet government you installed).

Oh yes , Challabi, the by Interpol sought drugsdealer and ex-cia is installed there as a minister by the US, 99% of Iraq wants to see him where he belongs, in jail!
I don't see Americans setting off car bombs in the middle of crowded markets. American GIs go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. If you don't know that, you're delusional.
Do you honestly believe peace would return if coalition troops packed up and left? If we left right now the terrorists and insurgents would be unchecked in their violence. They'd keep bombing and killing until a fanatical, terrorist state was in power. The torture chambers and rape rooms would re-open.
Tell me where I'm wrong. Please.

Morron. That's a classic... hahahah... I'm laughing so hard... hahahahhahah.. you crack me up.... I'm no hypocrite. I'm honest and down to earth.. and a "morron".. whatever the heck that is.. hahahah

Please go like you told him, you aren't posting something decent now, queer.

False. Now will you answer mine?
Answer your what? Your question to Velo? Why?

Please go like you told him, you aren't posting something decent now, queer.

How wonderful.. man.. I thought you guys were so accepting of gay people you have to resort to name calling....

I.
Tell me where I'm wrong. Please.

You told that they died in war.
He said that they died after the declaration of "peace". Simple, just go back and try reading Corny.

Hey guys--knock it off with the personal attacks. No need for that. This kind of thread always gets emotional, but leave the personal cheap shots out of it.

I don't see Americans setting off car bombs in the middle of crowded markets. American GIs go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. If you don't know that, you're delusional.
Do you honestly believe peace would return if coalition troops packed up and left? If we left right now the terrorists and insurgents would be unchecked in their violence. They'd keep bombing and killing until a fanatical, terrorist state was in power. The torture chambers and rape rooms would re-open.
Tell me where I'm wrong. Please.

How true, how true... If we pulled out now, then the deaths of those soldiers would amount to NOTHING. Consider that before using them as an excuse to leave Iraq.

How wonderful.. man.. I thought you guys were so accepting of gay people you have to resort to name calling....

Troll?

As I recall, the last time a super power (USSR) withdrew from a third world nation it had invaded and occupied (Afghanistan) the result was 10 years of bloody civil war. Do you honestly believe the alliance between the ex-baathists and foreign jihadis in Iraq is some sort of blood brotherhood? I don't.
Neither do I.
Immediate withdrawal would, without a doubt, lead to a similar civil war between those two groups with millions of civilians caught in the middle. That's why I vehemently disagree with it.

Hey guys--knock it off with the personal attacks. No need for that. This kind of thread always gets emotional, but leave the personal cheap shots out of it.

Yes, I agree. That kind of thing only weakens the arguments of both sides and engenders hatred, so please stick to rational, informed discussion of the issue itself.

Hey guys--knock it off with the personal attacks. No need for that. This kind of thread always gets emotional, but leave the personal cheap shots out of it.
Thank you, Nazz. I agree.

The interesting thing is that on this board, which one would expect to be generally conservative, so far not one American contributor has argued on this Thread that the war in Iraq is a legitimate and necessary war....

The interesting thing is that on this board, which one would expect to be generally conservative, so far not one American contributor has argued on this Thread that the war in Iraq is a legitimate and necessary war....

This board is mostly liberal/left leaning because most people here are not from the US... I think.

Erhm? Erhm? ERHM? I argued for the war in Iraq, and I thought it was legitimate and very necessary.

The interesting thing is that on this board, which one would expect to be generally conservative, so far not one American contributor has argued on this Thread that the war in Iraq is a legitimate and necessary war....

I am American and arguing for the legitimate and necessary war in Iraq.

Erhm? Erhm? ERHM? I argued for the war in Iraq, and I thought it was legitimate and very necessary.
...Because Saddam was just itching to spontaneously fire off a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles at random cities?

I'm withdrawing from this thread

You still are here and growning.
Just a constatation.

You told that they died in war.
He said that they died after the declaration of "peace". Simple, just go back and try reading Corny.
Ah, yes, I see.
You're right. Only about 500 died deposing Saddam. The remaining 1300 died afterwards ensuring that the Iraqi people have a chance at freedom.
<chuckle> Can't really prove to you guys that I'm not Corneliu, can I. Ah well, you'll just have to take my word on it.

...Because Saddam was just itching to spontaneously fire off a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles at random cities?
More like Bush wanted in on the oil market going over $60 a barrel in a big way.

I am American and arguing for the legitimate and necessary war in Iraq.

Euh you did not see the OP post? It is about the victims.What is your point :rolleyes:

Thank you, Nazz. I agree.
De nada.

Hey, I asked you in another thread, but you never answered--how goes the non-smoking?

More like Bush wanted in on the oil market going over $60 a barrel in a big way.

If we really were after oil, it would drive gasoline prices down, instead of up, like they've been going. Economics states that when a new supply becomes available (and this would technically be a "new" supply, even though we had some access before), the market shifts and a new, lower price is established.

Euh you did not see the OP post? It is about the victims.What is your point :rolleyes:

I was just replying to someone who pointed out that there were none of us here, that's all.

With US soldiers dying c900 a year in Iraq, would it be correct to say that the Army and the US public can just about tolerate that figure almost indefinitely? At what sort of figure would one start to see demonstrations, if any?

Would a massive single loss like the 253 marines killed in Lebanon cause the US to immediately withdraw just like it did then?
Would this be the amount of death it takes for America to give in to terrorism?

I'm convinced there will be some sort of draw down before the US congressional elections next year. There will be some Republicans who will communicate to the White House that if they want to maintain a Republican Senate and House majority the adminstration had better look like it's starting to wrap things up. I would think the White House and Congressional Republicans would like to have the US troop level down to about half of what it is now, about down to 65,000 troops ideally before the November elections or at least a promise that it will be at that level by the end of 2006. If that goal happens I feel terribly sorry for that half of the troops that would remain there because they would be severely undermanned even with a 200,000 man Iraqi security force. I think Iraqization seems to look a lot like Vietnamization. I would hate to see US troops (or any other non Iraqi troops for that matter) possibly being caught in the middle of a civil war there.

Of course before this happens I won't be surprised if we see another increase in the number of US troops in Iraq between now and December. This will probably be the result of an overlap of troops ascheduled to arrive and a delay of the troops scheduled to depart. This will be done to try and stabilize things as the Iraqis create and then vote on a constitution this year.

And yes, it is a shame to see the youth die before they have a chance but what I find even more shocking is that over 400 of the over 1,800 deaths have been reservists. Some of these people were raiing families; they were in their 30s and 40s and some in their 50s. These were people who were/are willing to serve their country and in some cases had served what they thought was their active duty and would only be called to active duty and combat in the most dire emergency or a major war. It is not fair to see these people who have given some commitment already being asked to give more when others, especially some who are profiting from this grave miscalculation, prosper. If the US is at war let's all make sacrifices. And if it is not at war then bring the troops home now.

so far not one American contributor has argued on this Thread that the war in Iraq is a legitimate and necessary war....

Got one here, in addition to the others who posted previously.

I was just replying to someone who pointed out that there were none of us here, that's all.
Ok, you're more then welcome :)

I'm convinced there will be some sort of draw down before the US congressional elections next year. There will be some Republicans who will communicate to the White House that if they want to maintain a Republican Senate and House majority the adminstration had better look like it's starting to wrap things up. I would think the White House and Congressional Republicans would like to have the US troop level down to about half of what it is now, about down to 65,000 troops ideally before the November elections or at least a promise that it will be at that level by the end of 2006. If that goal happens I feel terribly sorry for that half of the troops that would remain there because they would be severely undermanned even with a 200,000 man Iraqi security force. I think Iraqization seems to look a lot like Vietnamization. I would hate to see US troops (or any other non Iraqi troops for that matter) possibly being caught in the middle of a civil war there.

Of course before this happens I won't be surprised if we see another increase in the number of US troops in Iraq between now and December. This will probably be the result of an overlap of troops ascheduled to arrive and a delay of the troops scheduled to depart. This will be done to try and stabilize things as the Iraqis create and then vote on a constitution this year.

And yes, it is a shame to see the youth die before they have a chance but what I find even more shocking is that over 400 of the over 1,800 deaths have been reservists. Some of these people were raiing families; they were in their 30s and 40s and some in their 50s. These were people who were/are willing to serve their country and in some cases had served what they thought was their active duty and would only be called to active duty and combat in the most dire emergency or a major war. It is not fair to see these people who have given some commitment already being asked to give more when others, especially some who are profiting from this grave miscalculation, prosper. If the US is at war let's all make sacrifices. And if it is not at war then bring the troops home now.

That seems like a very reasonable and highly likely course of action for us to take. And I also agree that everyone should make sacrifices, because this is a war. No one should make a profit from it.

At what sort of figure would one start to see demonstrations, if any?

Meh! Quite frankly you would *and did* see demonstrations even before there were any casaulties. "Anti war" activists are not in favor of peace. They are merely on the Other Side. :p

My apologies I have not withdrawn.

...Because Saddam was just itching to spontaneously fire off a giant arsenal of nuclear missiles at random cities?

You just love taking cheapshots don't you? Going with your ridiculous strawman attacks? I had other reasons to support this war.

This is the last post I'll make. I had my reasons for supporting the war. Now respect them.

Can't really prove to you guys that I'm not Corneliu, can I. Ah well, you'll just have to take my word on it.

Don't understand, you have 17 post, and are just new here and you allready know that Corneliu has a nickname,called Corny?

Nice try Corny, but this puppet is burned, invent another one.

Jezus, in, fact we all give you to much information when you're busted once again. ;)

When would US casualties in Iraq start to bite?

Probably never, since the Bush administration has firmly associated the Iraq war (illegitimate, unnecessary etc) with the legitimate war against islamist terrorism.

Very simple really.

Those who oppose Iraq war will be accused of (and infact are being accused of) opposing war on terrorism and implied to be unpatriotic or a supporter of terrorism etc.

Oh for God's sake! Look at the casualty figures from WWII and Korea. There were no idiots protesting in the damned streets then. It was only after the damned media starting giving the noisy rabble a voice that Americans began to turn to mush.
That was a different day and age. Wake up. This is the 21st century. People were more willing to accept universal conscription then, and most of the Western world (America included, after the sacrifices of Vietnam) now see it as an abberation. In any case, you're veering off course. Don't turn this into a rant about the "damned media".

The thing about this is that these men and women who are fighting and dying in Iraq are part of a much smaller, all-volunteer force. As such, the smaller fatalities still have a great impact. Enlistments are falling, and casualties are rising. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something's going to break eventually.

Even so, the near-constant reporting of fatalities and the bare mentioning of wounded gives a false image. Fatalities are associated with being "worse", but the fact is that due to modern medical treatment, many of the men who would have died in previous wars where the ratio of dead to wounded was approximately 1:4, are now surviving, in a war where the ratio of dead to wounded is about 1:10. Many of the wounded return to service. But because many of these men would have died, their wounds are very serious, often resulting in amputations and serious defects in nervous systems, etc.

An army cannot sustain that pace for long. Dead or seriously wounded, many more American soldiers are being put out of service than is the common misconception: and the enlistments to replace them are falling.

You claim that the media is making things seem worse than they are? I disagree. I think they're whitewashing it. How often do you see them visit the military hospitals? How often do they show young men who've been seriously wounded, who will be disfigured the rest of their lives for a war they never expected to fight, for a man who changes his justification for that war on a regular basis, and for a country which would not aid them by sending them the help they need?

Keep in mind I'm not really anti-war, but Iraq is just an example of a terribly stupid, badly-fought, bloody and pointless war.

"Anti war" activists are not in favor of peace. They are merely on the Other Side.
The 'Other Side'? Other side of what? Is that like 'The Twilight Zone' or 'The Outer Limits' or something? If only we were characters from some alcohol-fuelled Rod Serling teleplay. I'd love it if I turned out to be an alien, or if the Republicans turned out to be robots, or even just waking up back in 2000 on election night and realizing the last five years were just a horrible dream...

This is the last post I'll make.
I don't believe you, much and all as I'm not complaining.

Neither do I.
Immediate withdrawal would, without a doubt, lead to a similar civil war between those two groups with millions of civilians caught in the middle. That's why I vehemently disagree with it.
That is probably why Bush should never have ordered an invasion of Iraq in the first place?

What has the US invasion accomplished so far?

1. 18,219 US casualties

2. 100,000 Iraqi casualties

3. Iraq on verge of civil war

4. Cost $175 Billion

5. Increased terrorism

6. Theatre conducive for training future terrorists

7. Violation of civil liberties

8. Loss of respect worldwide for US foreign policy

9. Iran and North Korea pushing forward on nuclear programs

10. Middle East more de-stablized

11. Cost of oil increasing

12. Abu Gharib and Guantanamo

13. Destruction of Iraqi cities and towns, especially infastructure

I probably could have put down more but it is late and I am getting tired.

Neither do I.
Immediate withdrawal would, without a doubt, lead to a similar civil war between those two groups with millions of civilians caught in the middle. That's why I vehemently disagree with it.

Yeah I suppose that makes it a tough call. But either way the Iraqi civilians are going to be engulfed in violence well into the future. That was one reason I didn't want us to invade. The world is already messed up enough, and the Iraqi civilians in particular had already witnessed more than their share of horror from wars and sanctions over the past 30 years. Another war was exactly what they didn't need, not to mention the prospect of a conventional, then guerilla, then civil war all back to back. Add another 10-20 years of hell to the last quarter century.

Must really suck to be an Iraqi :(.

De nada.

Hey, I asked you in another thread, but you never answered--how goes the non-smoking?
Really well, thank you for asking! I haven't smoked but maybe one or two cigarettes on any one day for almost two weeks now. So proud of me! :D

Probably never, since the Bush administration has firmly associated the Iraq war (illegitimate, unnecessary etc) with the legitimate war against islamist terrorism.

Very simple really.

Those who oppose Iraq war will be accused of (and infact are being accused of) opposing war on terrorism and implied to be unpatriotic or a supporter of terrorism etc.

And the association is really akin to tying an ankle weight around the war on terrorism. Because as the war in iraq goes downhill, people start to question whether we can defeat terrorists. The truth is that we can if we make smart moves, but invading Iraq was not smart at all.

Really well, thank you for asking! I haven't smoked but maybe one or two cigarettes on any one day for almost two weeks now. So proud of me! :D
Good luck on the non smoking stuff. I quit for 3 years once but got sucked in by a cigar that I got from some friends of mine on the birth of their first child. The rest as they say is history. :(

With US soldiers dying c900 a year in Iraq, would it be correct to say that the Army and the US public can just about tolerate that figure almost indefinitely? At what sort of figure would one start to see demonstrations, if any?

Would a massive single loss like the 253 marines killed in Lebanon cause the US to immediately withdraw just like it did then?

It started to bite when the President avoided the outline for war as stated by Article 1 of the Constitution. "Only Congress can declare war".

This "military action" by the president is illegal in my book. He didn't even follow the War Powers act.

What the Iraq war has accomplished:
bad:
nearly 2000 US soldiers killed and many more wounded
about 100 thousand Iraqis killed
Terrorist attacks on the rise
good:
A brutal regime, possibly worse than the terrorists, is basicly destroyed now
The Iraqis voted in real elections for a change
Terrorists coming out
The Middle East situation is a bit better now that the US basicly has Iraq(and Afghanistan) on its side

Keep in mind:
Very few of the terrorists in Iraq are actual Iraqis. Most come from neighboring nations.
Considering the total # of soldiers that actually fought in the Iraq war(some decided to not re-enlist, remember?), the cassualty #'s are not as horrific as anti-war people make it seem. What may seem like 2000 out of 200,000 might actually be 2000 out of 300,000 or 400,000. You can't compare one number from right now to another from throughout the last 2 years.
The US military is basicly 100% volunteer, which is different from Vietnam's drafts.
Many anti-war people are actually anti-Bush people. Get a life outside Bush foor a change, hippies

That was a different day and age. Wake up. This is the 21st century. People were more willing to accept universal conscription then, and most of the Western world (America included, after the sacrifices of Vietnam) now see it as an abberation.

But human courage in defense of one'snation is something that is a constant no matter what period of history we are talking about. Prior to WWI most American wars were fought without conscription. It wasn't until you get to the latter part of the American Civil War that this began to change.

The thing about this is that these men and women who are fighting and dying in Iraq are part of a much smaller, all-volunteer force. As such, the smaller fatalities still have a great impact. Enlistments are falling, and casualties are rising. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something's going to break eventually.

Hm. But it goes the other way too. A volunteer force, being there by choice, tends to 'know better why it is there and love better what it knows' to paraphrase Oliver Cromwell and thus be able to sustain a greater degree of loss than a conscript force would. Throw in the fact that the War against Terrorism *is* a war in self-defence and you can understand why it is that I think it is the Jihadis and their enablers who will break first.

Even so, the near-constant reporting of fatalities and the bare mentioning of wounded gives a false image. Fatalities are associated with being "worse", but the fact is that due to modern medical treatment, many of the men who would have died in previous wars where the ratio of dead to wounded was approximately 1:4, are now surviving, in a war where the ratio of dead to wounded is about 1:10. Many of the wounded return to service. But because many of these men would have died, their wounds are very serious, often resulting in amputations and serious defects in nervous systems, etc.

So given a choice between having only one hand and being dead you would choose being dead? I guess Larry Niven was right when he said old age is not for sissies. ^_~

But so far the casualty rate is actually not that much worse than in peacetime. The jihadis are a lot braver against civilians than they are against soldiers.

An army cannot sustain that pace for long. Dead or seriously wounded, many more American soldiers are being put out of service than is the common misconception: and the enlistments to replace them are falling.

I'll have to look again but my impression was that the June quotas were a lot higher than expected. Whether July's matched them is a different question but I've seen enough fudge with "the falling enlistment rate" meme to be sceptical of unsupported or unattributed claims. ^_^;

You claim that the media is making things seem worse than they are? I disagree. I think they're whitewashing it.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but with all due respect CBS certainly showed a leftward tilt with the Rathergate forgeries and the Manchester Guardian, the New York Times, the BBC or the AP have all had their moments when they let their leftward agendas blind their eye for the facts. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll be glad to point you in the direction of the "Oh That Liberal Media!" and "Biased BBC" websites to show you what I mean.

"How often do you see them visit the military hospitals? How often do they show young men who've been seriously wounded, who will be disfigured the rest of their lives for a war they never expected to fight, for a man who changes his justification for that war on a regular basis, and for a country which would not aid them by sending them the help they need?"

Let me get this straight. Do you seriously want TV crews barging in on *seriously wounded* people without so much as a by-your-leave for no better reason then to make cheap propaganda points for the political side you favor without regard as to them or whether that point is even necessarily true? If so then you may want to rethink your priorities. :rolleyes:

Keep in mind I'm not really anti-war, but Iraq is just an example of a terribly stupid, badly-fought, bloody and pointless war.

I have to admit that the jihadis are getting more inept as days go by. :D

But since that wasn't what you meant I'll just put in my own 2 cents that whatever you may think of it I regard Iraq as a campaign rather than a stand alone war. The larger war covers India, Thailand, the Phillipines, Sudan, and certain parts of Europe as the *current* hotspots but I expect those to shift with the passage of time and the various fortunes of war (The suicide bombing that's recently occurred in China may not have been the brightest thing the jihadis ever did!). That said, I think it certain that terrorism will go the way of piracy in terms of universal surpression when the dust has settled. It'd be a dull world that didn't have happy endings. :)

It started to bite when the President avoided the outline for war as stated by Article 1 of the Constitution. "Only Congress can declare war".

This "military action" by the president is illegal in my book. He didn't even follow the War Powers act.
Actually, he did follow it--the Congress passed the necessary authorization. However, the Government simultaneously did not follow the procedure outlined in the UN Charter, which is also a part of the US domestic law.

What the Iraq war has accomplished:
bad:
nearly 2000 US soldiers killed and many more wounded
about 100 thousand Iraqis killed
Terrorist attacks on the rise
good:
A brutal regime, possibly worse than the terrorists, is basicly destroyed now
It is? Then how come there are still many battles being fought?

The Iraqis voted in real elections for a change
Which won't have any meaningful affect until the US is gone from the country.

Terrorists coming out
This is good? Iraq has become a breeding ground for new terrorists.

The Middle East situation is a bit better now that the US basicly has Iraq(and Afghanistan) on its side
How is Iraq being on the verge of civil war "better"?

Keep in mind:
Very few of the terrorists in Iraq are actual Iraqis. Most come from neighboring nations.
Terrorists yes, insurgents no, and there are more insurgents than there are terrorists.

Considering the total # of soldiers that actually fought in the Iraq war(some decided to not re-enlist, remember?), the cassualty #'s are not as horrific as anti-war people make it seem. What may seem like 2000 out of 200,000 might actually be 2000 out of 300,000 or 400,000. You can't compare one number from right now to another from throughout the last 2 years.
This is the same type of argument put forth by Corneliu and doesn't hold water. Look at the total picture and I think that you will find that over 18,000 US casualties is a lot especially when certain segments of US army recruitment are not meeting their enlistment quotas.

Probably the death of 1,800 US soldiers is acceptable to you but perhaps not to their families?

Many anti-war people are actually anti-Bush people.
That makes sense.

Get a life outside Bush foor a change, hippies
You don't like dissent? The world needs to stay focused on King George the Younger.

The Middle East situation is a bit better now that the US basicly has Iraq(and Afghanistan) on its sideHighly debatable. Islamic governments, not just in the ME are under intense pressure from the radical fundies because of the war. Iran, which is in the Middle East, has the US by the balls. If they want to, they can start brewing trouble with the Shia muslims, which make up the majority of Iraqis and have been rather calm so far.

Many anti-war people are actually anti-Bush people. Get a life outside Bush foor a change, hippiesI was against going in in the first place, not only because I'm anti-Bush. I still think it was a mistake to go in in the first place but now that we're there, I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-leave-the-mess-we-made-to-be-cleaned-up-by-someone-else.
I've got a life outside Bush, he just keeps interfering.

As to the original question: Casaulties would start to bite me when someone I know gets hit. Until then, those numbers really won't be able to convey any emotion to me...

What the Iraq war has accomplished:
bad:
nearly 2000 US soldiers killed and many more wounded
about 100 thousand Iraqis killed
Terrorist attacks on the rise
good:
A brutal regime, possibly worse than the terrorists, is basicly destroyed now
The Iraqis voted in real elections for a change
Terrorists coming out
The Middle East situation is a bit better now that the US basicly has Iraq(and Afghanistan) on its side

Keep in mind:
Very few of the terrorists in Iraq are actual Iraqis. Most come from neighboring nations.
Considering the total # of soldiers that actually fought in the Iraq war(some decided to not re-enlist, remember?), the cassualty #'s are not as horrific as anti-war people make it seem. What may seem like 2000 out of 200,000 might actually be 2000 out of 300,000 or 400,000. You can't compare one number from right now to another from throughout the last 2 years.
The US military is basicly 100% volunteer, which is different from Vietnam's drafts.
Many anti-war people are actually anti-Bush people. Get a life outside Bush foor a change, hippies

You're right on the money, but missed a few other good things:
* Scared the bejesus out of Kim Jong Il. He went into totally hiding for 2 months afterwards, and is back at the bargaining table.
* Libya rejoining the world. Col. Ghaddafi has come clean with his chemical and nuclear programs, turned his back on terrorism, and made peace with the West.
* Syria (with prompting from Egypt & Saudi Arabia) has left Lebanon.

...none of which wouldn't have happened without the US going into Iraq. In fact, the past two had been issues for 20 years.

Since Day 1.

You're right on the money, but missed a few other good things:
* Scared the bejesus out of Kim Jong Il. He went into totally hiding for 2 months afterwards, and is back at the bargaining table.Him managing to get his hands on nukes isn't exactly a good side effect of concentrating on nonexistent WMDs...

Here's some points:
It's better to die quickly with a bullet to the head or a car bomb explosion than to be basicly sentenced to be tortured to death without trial by a crazed dictator.
There are a few people who were anti-war just because they're anti-Bush. They need to get a dog and name it Life.
The Middle East now knows that the US is serious.
The terrorists are coming out from hiding in what appears to be a last desperate attempt to gain more power in the Middle East.
Some of you use the number of civillian cassualties in a way that makes it seem like the US did it. Sudaam would have killed that many more if he was still in power. Plus, the terrorists did it and Iraq still isn't any closer to Civil War. We see Iraqis vote under threat of death. We see Iraqis willing to die for democracy. They're dying for what they believe is right. Isn't that enough?
I think this war was more about taking a lunatic out of power(Bush's father didn't take him out of power because many of the coalition powers didn't want him to.) than getting oil or Bush's cover story. Plus, maybe Sadaam had ties to terrorists. Just not the ones you think.

That is probably why Bush should never have ordered an invasion of Iraq in the first place?

What has the US invasion accomplished so far?

1. 18,219 US casualties

2. 100,000 Iraqi casualties

3. Iraq on verge of civil war

4. Cost $175 Billion

5. Increased terrorism

6. Theatre conducive for training future terrorists

7. Violation of civil liberties

8. Loss of respect worldwide for US foreign policy

9. Iran and North Korea pushing forward on nuclear programs

10. Middle East more de-stablized

11. Cost of oil increasing

12. Abu Gharib and Guantanamo

13. Destruction of Iraqi cities and towns, especially infastructure

I probably could have put down more but it is late and I am getting tired.

I'm with you except for:
5,6: We will never know what the world would have been like w/o the Second Iraq War, but it's still MUCH too early to tell if Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorists. This is especially true since something like 70% of the terrorist attacks WITHIN Iraq are by foreign fighters.

7: Moot, since it was even worse under Saddam.

9: They were doing that before the war in Iraq anyway. Heck, NK got Clinton to still send them food while they were doing it!

10: Debatable. Libya is back in from the cold, Lebanon is free, and Afghanistan is still walking it's very long road. Iraq has had elections, and is working on a Constitution. Egypt is slowly liberalizing. Where is the instability? The terrorism? Been around for 40 years...

Him managing to get his hands on nukes isn't exactly a good side effect of concentrating on nonexistent WMDs...

Hindsight is 20/20... and no one on the PLANET knew any better. (And before you say "UN did", recall that Saddam was *still* not allowing open access for inspections as late as 3 weeks before the operation began.)

OK then: Would you have backed a 2002 war in North Korea?

I'm not saying that Iraq is the best thing to have ever happened. But it was done.

Really well, thank you for asking! I haven't smoked but maybe one or two cigarettes on any one day for almost two weeks now. So proud of me! :D
Good work. Keep it up. In case you hadn't seen it, CToaN and I said that we'd try to keep from yanking your chain while you were going through the worst of the withdrawals. Make sure to tell us when you're not niccing so badly so we can get back to fucking with you. :D

Hindsight is 20/20... and no one on the PLANET knew any better. (And before you say "UN did", recall that Saddam was *still* not allowing open access for inspections as late as 3 weeks before the operation began.)
I did. So did all the people who looked at Bush's track record for truth-telling, the fact that we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan, and who remembered that the people running the show had had a boner for invading Iraq since the early nineties.

OK then: Would you have backed a 2002 war in North Korea?

I'm not saying that Iraq is the best thing to have ever happened. But it was done.
I wouldn't back any sort of preventive war, so the short answer is no. I'm far more of a carrot than a stick kind of guy, myself, and since an invasion of North Korea would require China's permission--and it would, because if they didn't go along with it, we'd find ourselves in a shitload of trouble over there--and that permission would be unlikely to say the least, then I'd be on the lookout for other options. And I'll give the Bush administration credit for this much on North Korea--since they stopped the saber-rattling, they haven't made the situation any worse, and that's saying something for these guys, given their propensity for fucking up whatever they touch.

You mean to say you've got the backbone to see 115,000 of your fellow Americans die for this war?
That's cold, man. Those are people.
And what about the 27,000,000 Iraqis that the US has brought out of totalitarian rule? Does one US person count more to you than one Iraqi person? What do you say to them?

"Yeah, so uh, we got Saddam out for you guys, and with the constant insurgent bombings and all we did kind of make a mess of this place...and now, we are just going to wave goodbye before we repair your infrastructure and ensure your military can defend you. So chances are some other despot will rise up and take control of your country, and you will go back to how it was before plus collateral damage. Later!"
It started to bite when the President avoided the outline for war as stated by Article 1 of the Constitution. "Only Congress can declare war".

This "military action" by the president is illegal in my book. He didn't even follow the War Powers act.
This guy knows big vocabulary like, "War Powers Act". Well, perhaps you should research this act and you will find that in all the police actions the US has engaged in, NONE have ever had anything to do with this legislation. Do you know why? Probably not, or else you wouldn't have mentioned it. The Act states that the President can send troops into a combat situation for 60 days without Congressional consent, with an additional 30 days for evacuation. Well, every President since that was passed has simply changed their vocabulary to "Peacekeeping mission," and viola, they can do what they please. If deployed forces happen to be engaged by people there, well, they can handle themselves.

Now, if you want to discuss Article 1, then you should recall Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War as examples. These were not formal declarations of war, but police actions. They were sustainable because Congress appropriated funds towards the effort, as they have with Iraq.

So, there is no violation of any US legislation or Constitutional statute. There is no illegality, in any way (just like with both of Bush’s elections, but no one seems to know enough about that one to understand it either).

I did. So did all the people who looked at Bush's track record for truth-telling, the fact that we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan, and who remembered that the people running the show had had a boner for invading Iraq since the early nineties.

You were 100% sure in 2002? I'm impressed!
How many nukes does North Korea have?

"Finish the job?!?" Are you talking about nationbuilding, or getting bin Laden?
If the former, that could take 5-15 years.
If the latter, we still don't have Pancho Villa. :D

I wouldn't back any sort of preventive war, so the short answer is no. I'm far more of a carrot than a stick kind of guy, myself, and since an invasion of North Korea would require China's permission--and it would, because if they didn't go along with it, we'd find ourselves in a shitload of trouble over there--and that permission would be unlikely to say the least, then I'd be on the lookout for other options. And I'll give the Bush administration credit for this much on North Korea--since they stopped the saber-rattling, they haven't made the situation any worse, and that's saying something for these guys, given their propensity for fucking up whatever they touch.

NK has been an international pariah for 50 years. They're so out of the loop and so poor, that they took Germany's mad cows.
What carrot are you going to offer them? Clinton tried to give them food and humanitarian aid. They responded by funnelling MORE into their nuclear program!!

NK will not end well. I have a bad feeling about it. It may not be next month. It may not be in 2010. But when NK does change, it will be radical, violent, and bloody. :(

And the association is really akin to tying an ankle weight around the war on terrorism. Because as the war in iraq goes downhill, people start to question whether we can defeat terrorists. The truth is that we can if we make smart moves, but invading Iraq was not smart at all.

Oh, it was a smart move. Smart if you consider it from the POV of those who started it. They ain't suffering. The suckers are those who bought the line that the Iraq war = Global war on terrorism.

War in Iraq will not go downhill. US can still pull it off. It will be messy and tiring, but it will be done. Besides there is too much at stake there. If worse (mainly sunni insurgency) comes to worst (full blown civil war with Shiites and Kurds participating), other countries will step in. Depends on how much "booty" the US is willing to share.

It was only after the damned media starting giving the noisy rabble a voice that Americans began to turn to mush.Media ownership is Key.

Whatever Special-Interests Groups Owns the Big Media Corporations...those groups have the Upper hand.

I look at it this way. Whenever an army fights an insurgency, either the insurgency wins, or the army occupies the country for a long period of time. So, I think after maybe 20 years in Iraq and 10,000 flag draped coffins, people may want to start thinking about thinking about leaving.

2. 100,000 Iraqi casualties
Love to know where you got this number. Are we speaking deaths or injuries? Iraqi civilian deaths stand around 25,000 as far as I know. If we've killed an additional 75,000 insurgents and terrorists we've done pretty well.

3. Iraq on verge of civil war
They've been on the "verge" of civil war for 2 years now. If they really were I think it would have broken out by now.

6. Theatre conducive for training future terrorists
You really have a tendency to look at the glass as only half empty. At the same time those future terrorists are training in that conducive theatre our soldiers are learning the skills to combat those terrorists. It's a two-way street. And their side is losing 30 times the number of men we are in the process.

9. Iran and North Korea pushing forward on nuclear programs
Those programs were in the works long before Iraq.

Media ownership is Key.

Whatever Special-Interests Groups Owns the Big Media Corporations...those groups have the Upper hand.
What, like the "Friends of the Lining of Rupert Murdoch's Wallet Society"? I don't see Amnesty International owning Time-Warner anytime soon.

Love to know where you got this number. Are we speaking deaths or injuries? Iraqi civilian deaths stand around 25,000 as far as I know. If we've killed an additional 75,000 insurgents and terrorists we've done pretty well.
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html)

The numbers come from research by:

The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went to the 988 households in the survey were doctors and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards.......

They found an increase in infant mortality from 29 to 57 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is consistent with the pattern in wars, where women are unable or unwilling to get to hospital to deliver babies, they say. The other increase was in violent death, which was reported in 15 of the 33 clusters studied and which was mostly attributed to airstrikes.

100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html)

Iraqi civilian deaths put at 100,000 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1230305.htm)

They've been on the "verge" of civil war for 2 years now. If they really were I think it would have broken out by now.
With all due respect, what you think is irrelevant?

Experts: Iraq verges on civil war (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

Sunday Times: Allawi: Iraq may be on verge of civil war (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050711/2005071134.html)

Is the Country Heading for Civil War? (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,366834,00.html)

You really have a tendency to look at the glass as only half empty.
Actually in reality, one of the reasons that I didn't want the US to invade Iraq way back in 2003, was due to this real possibility. That and the fact that many invasion forces over the centuries have tried to subdue this "birthplace of civilization", and have failed miserable. Most recently it was the British. When will people wake up to the lessons of history?

At the same time those future terrorists are training in that conducive theatre our soldiers are learning the skills to combat those terrorists. It's a two-way street. And their side is losing 30 times the number of men we are in the process.
And yet the insurgents keep coming and coming? At the kill rate that you state, you would think that this thing is just about over with, but the experts disagree.

Those programs were in the works long before Iraq.
However, they have intensified since Bush declared Iran and North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil". We already know what happened to the first country on the Axis of Evil list?

Iran removes UN's nuclear seals (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4136662.stm)

Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy (http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp)

January 29, 2002: In his State of the Union address, President Bush criticized North Korea for “arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.” Bush characterized North Korea, along with Iraq and Iran, as constituting an “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

March 15, 2002: Following reports that the U.S. nuclear posture review discusses the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea, Pyongyang's state-run press organ announces that, if the United States "tries to use nuclear weapons" against North Korea, it will be compelled to "examine all the agreements" reached with the United States. The report says that, "if the U.S. inflicts nuclear holocaust upon [North Korea], the former's mainland will not be safe either."

Knowing full well that the US is preparing to invade Iraq, this is the response by North Lorea:

December 22-24, 2002: North Korea cuts all seals and disrupts IAEA surveillance equipment on its nuclear facilities and materials. An IAEA spokesman says December 26 that North Korea started moving fresh fuel rods into the reactor, suggesting that it might be restarted soon.

January 10, 2003: North Korea announces its withdrawal from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), effective January 11.

Due to Bush's aggressive foreign policy, Iraq was invaded illegally, and Iran and North Korea were put on notice. All of this has made the world a far more dangerous place in the past 5 years of the Bush Doctrine.

Actually, he did follow it--the Congress passed the necessary authorization. However, the Government simultaneously did not follow the procedure outlined in the UN Charter, which is also a part of the US domestic law.

Incorrect. Congress must authorize continue military action every 60 days for a military action to keep the troops in a foreign region.

Of all people on this board, you ought to better than to try that kind of comparison. This war is not WWII. It's not even Korea, and you know it. This is a war that was never popular, largely because too many people knew it was unnecessary. WWII was necessary. Korea was necessary. Vietnam wasn't, and when the public figured that out, it became very unpopular. The people who opposed this war from the beginning saw the Vietnam parallels and have said "one soldier is too many," and slowly, the rest of the country is starting to agree with us. We'll never convince everyone, but almost 60% of the country agrees with us now and that number will get bigger.



that line makes no sence in both casses the commies tryed to take over there capitalist "friends" next-door.what is difference between vietnam and korea?hell the americans lost more in korea.didnt they?

I agree with Bush the Liar. One casualty was one too many.

Support for this war is very thin. It will only take the right incident to bring this to a head and it needn't involve a great number of casualties. Right now the American people, IMHO, are asleep, mainly because it's not their relatives asses on the line in Iraq. But the each death, especially those involving Reserve soldiers or a National Guard soldiers eats away at an already weak base of support for the war.

I think that one of the reasons the war continues is that a lot of Americans frankly are too busy trying to make a living to pay attention to it.
I have relatives in there right now, but I am in full support of staying there. I was never for invading in the first place, but a half assed job is worse than never starting.

that line makes no sence in both casses the commies tryed to take over there capitalist "friends" next-door.what is difference between vietnam and korea?hell the americans lost more in korea.didnt they?
Nope--and you really ought to try to learn a little history. Vietnam was a case of insurrection against a colonial power, plain and simple. It was known as French Indochina before WWII, and they were already rebelling when France was invaded by Germany. Post-WWII, France tried to reclaim the land, and did to a certain extent, but was never able to truly solidify its hold on the country. The US took over for the French in the early 60s, Kennedy first and then Johnson and finally Nixon, and pulled out in 1975. A very short civil war ensued, and the north Vietnamese consolidated control of the country. There was no significant help from other major Communist countries, except perhaps in weapons sales, but I'm not even certain about that.

You were 100% sure in 2002? I'm impressed!
How many nukes does North Korea have?

"Finish the job?!?" Are you talking about nationbuilding, or getting bin Laden?
If the former, that could take 5-15 years.
If the latter, we still don't have Pancho Villa. :D
Like I said--it didn't take much to see that the gang who couldn't shoot straight, i.e. the Bush administration, didn't have a case. 12 years of sanctions on Iraq, inspections that had destroyed his pre-Gulf War I arsenal, the bombings in 1998 after Saddam threw the inspectors out, and the propensity for bullshit that this administration has led to a simple conclusion--no WMD, and no case for war other than that Bush wanted it.

As far as finish the job in Afghanistan is concerned, I was talking about nation-building primarily, with a dose of catching Bin Laden on the side, and yeah, I know it was going to take a while, and it'll take even longer now that we don't have the resources to put into the area because they're going into an unnecessary Iraq war.


NK has been an international pariah for 50 years. They're so out of the loop and so poor, that they took Germany's mad cows.
What carrot are you going to offer them? Clinton tried to give them food and humanitarian aid. They responded by funnelling MORE into their nuclear program!!

NK will not end well. I have a bad feeling about it. It may not be next month. It may not be in 2010. But when NK does change, it will be radical, violent, and bloody. :(
You may be right. My point about the carrot is that the carrot is really all we have, considering the global political situation. There is no superpower who would challenge us in a dispute in the Middle East, but China will get in our faces if we fuck around in their backyard, and Korea is certainly their backyard. And that's also another situation where we could probably win the war but lose the peace. Plus, there's always a chance that Kim Jong Il is just a thug like Saddam was--more concerned about holding on to personal power than about impacting the world stage. I could easily be wrong--I hope I'm not.

Like I said--it didn't take much to see that the gang who couldn't shoot straight, i.e. the Bush administration, didn't have a case. 12 years of sanctions on Iraq, inspections that had destroyed his pre-Gulf War I arsenal, the bombings in 1998 after Saddam threw the inspectors out, and the propensity for bullshit that this administration has led to a simple conclusion--no WMD, and no case for war other than that Bush wanted it.

I'm not disagreeing that they were wrong about the WMD. No question about it. But there were other reasons for the war: the Khurds, marsh folk and Shi'a that we abandoned when we called for a popular uprising back in the early 90s. Cleaning up the mess we made by backing Hussein in the first place. The fact that he WAS breaking UN resolutions and WAS supporting Palestinian terrorists.
I'm not saying the timing was good or that it couldn't have been handled much better. But it *did* have some good aspects going for it.

As far as finish the job in Afghanistan is concerned, I was talking about nation-building primarily, with a dose of catching Bin Laden on the side, and yeah, I know it was going to take a while, and it'll take even longer now that we don't have the resources to put into the area because they're going into an unnecessary Iraq war.

Hard to say. The US has always maintained the ability to fight two wars at once, along with various "peacekeeping" operations. Korea was always expected to be one of those, Europe the other. With the odds of another European war about nil that frees up resources.
No, my complaint is the artifical numbers of 10.000 in Afghanistan and 100.000 in Iraq. They should have followed Powel's doctrine of overwhealming force and deployed double or even quadruple the troops. As it was, the results the Allies had were fast. This would have had much better (and likely even faster!) results.

You may be right. My point about the carrot is that the carrot is really all we have, considering the global political situation. There is no superpower who would challenge us in a dispute in the Middle East, but China will get in our faces if we fuck around in their backyard, and Korea is certainly their backyard.

Unless China is uneasy about NK having nukes. Which, given they already have to live in a world with a nuclear Pakistan, India, Russia, and US, they may not really want to. (I'm ignoring France & UK since they really can't deploy much outside of Europe, and would be very unlikely to get into a unilateral war with China anyway).

The North Koreans are clever negotiators. If they know all we have it a carrot, they will keep taking bites until we go through a whole garden.
Consider how they played Madeline Albright like a fiddle.

And that's also another situation where we could probably win the war but lose the peace. Plus, there's always a chance that Kim Jong Il is just a thug like Saddam was--more concerned about holding on to personal power than about impacting the world stage. I could easily be wrong--I hope I'm not.

I though that Kim wanting to stay in power was a given?
I still have a bad feeling about it. NK will not go quietly or well, for anybody.

Oh for God's sake! Look at the casualty figures from WWII and Korea. There were no idiots protesting in the damned streets then. It was only after the damned media starting giving the noisy rabble a voice that Americans began to turn to mush.

WWII was a very necessary war. It's sad that the US did not step in sooner, but now they are stepping in too soon.

Korea was a pointless war. NK still exists doesn't it?

Incorrect. Congress must authorize continue military action every 60 days for a military action to keep the troops in a foreign region.
No, the Congress must receive a presidential report every 60 days. Any vote is optional.

WWII was a very necessary war. It's sad that the US did not step in sooner, but now they are stepping in too soon.

Korea was a pointless war. NK still exists doesn't it?

So does South Korea, which was the whole point. North Korea invaded South Korea. :rolleyes:

WWII was a very necessary war. It's sad that the US did not step in sooner, but now they are stepping in too soon.

Korea was a pointless war. NK still exists doesn't it?

The purpose of the Korean War was to force North Korea and China out of the South; we followed the UN decision to stop at the 38th parallel, much like we did during the Persian Gulf War, stopping after forcing Iraq from Kuwait rather than going straight to Baghdad.

We could have eliminated NK (and the Communist regime in China) had we decided to continue the war beyond the UN resolution.

The purpose of the Korean War was to force North Korea and China out of the South; we followed the UN decision to stop at the 38th parallel, much like we did during the Persian Gulf War, stopping after forcing Iraq from Kuwait rather than going straight to Baghdad.

We could have eliminated NK (and the Communist regime in China) had we decided to continue the war beyond the UN resolution.

Maybe. It could also have triggered WW3. The Soviets & Chinese were still on good terms then, and Soviet pilots were flying in Korea.

While it wasn't the *best* end to the war possible, it turned out better than it could have.

Maybe. It could also have triggered WW3. The Soviets & Chinese were still on good terms then, and Soviet pilots were flying in Korea.

While it wasn't the *best* end to the war possible, it turned out better than it could have.

The Korean War ended July 27th, 1953 which was almost 4 months after the death of Stalin; his death prompted the breakdown in Chinese-Soviet relations that finally resulted in the 1959 split. The USSR had very few nuclear weapons (and no tactical nukes until 1954) and its military was overall weaker than the US. Had we continued the war, we could have easily knocked out NK and proceeded to China, with the Soviets being forced to intervene at high cost, with the end result being a possible collapse in the entire Communist world.

Of course, there are an infinity of "what ifs" but the possibilities are still fascinating. :)

The Korean War ended July 27th, 1953 which was almost 4 months after the death of Stalin; his death prompted the breakdown in Chinese-Soviet relations that finally resulted in the 1959 split. The USSR had very few nuclear weapons (and no tactical nukes until 1954) and its military was overall weaker than the US. Had we continued the war, we could have easily knocked out NK and proceeded to China, with the Soviets being forced to intervene at high cost, with the end result being a possible collapse in the entire Communist world.

Of course, there are an infinity of "what ifs" but the possibilities are still fascinating. :)

Ayep.
WW3 doesn't have to necessarily be fought with nuclear weapons. :D
I'm not convinced.... China is a much larger landmass than Korea: you don't have the luxury of fighting up a peninsula where the UN controls the seas.

Perhaps a high cost, perhaps not. Suppose the USSR invaded Turkey? Would the US launch nukes for a country that had *just joined* NATO? Tough questions. Also, remember that by 1953ish, the USSR still had the German slave labor out in the gulags, plus a fresh generation of conscripts. I'm not entirely sure that it would have gone so easily for the UN forces.

Fascinating? Yes. And also a bit frightening.

100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html)

Ya know, I'm really tired of this study being thrown around. The survey came to the conclusion there was a 95% chance the number of casualties fell between 8,000 and 194,000. Average them out and you get 100,000.
The sad fact is around 25,000 Iraqi civilians have died in this war.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


Experts: Iraq verges on civil war (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

Sunday Times: Allawi: Iraq may be on verge of civil war (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050711/2005071134.html)

Is the Country Heading for Civil War? (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,366834,00.html)
Yes yes yes. We've all seen these countless reports from experts around the world claiming Iraq is on the verge of civil war. These naysayers have been shouting this for 2 years. You can only cry "Wolf!" for so long before you lose credibility. The only thing Iraq seems to be on the verge of is writing their own constitution.

Ya know, I'm really tired of this study being thrown around. The survey came to the conclusion there was a 95% chance the number of casualties fell between 8,000 and 194,000. Average them out and you get 100,000.
The sad fact is around 25,000 Iraqi civilians have died in this war.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/



Yes yes yes. We've all seen these countless reports from experts around the world claiming Iraq is on the verge of civil war. These naysayers have been shouting this for 2 years. You can only cry "Wolf!" for so long before you lose credibility. The only thing Iraq seems to be on the verge of is writing their own constitution.
So what's the opposite of crying 'Wolf'? I'd really like to know, seeing as so many fans of the smirking chimp like to engage in that vein of mindless naive optimism.

Ayep.
WW3 doesn't have to necessarily be fought with nuclear weapons. :D
I'm not convinced.... China is a much larger landmass than Korea: you don't have the luxury of fighting up a peninsula where the UN controls the seas.

Perhaps a high cost, perhaps not. Suppose the USSR invaded Turkey? Would the US launch nukes for a country that had *just joined* NATO? Tough questions. Also, remember that by 1953ish, the USSR still had the German slave labor out in the gulags, plus a fresh generation of conscripts. I'm not entirely sure that it would have gone so easily for the UN forces.

Fascinating? Yes. And also a bit frightening.


Considering how the US Army garrison divisions from Japan performed initially in Korea, the US forces in Germany at the time may well have been at the same inadequate level of readiness if war broke out in 1953, and considering we had demobilized to a far greater extent than the Red Army, along with a closer match in quality of conventional equipment and the Red Army's perponderance of numbers, as well as the US not having Operation Reforger as a way to rapidly reinforce....we may well have considered ourselves lucky had we been able to stop the Russians at the Rhine river...

continue the interesting discussion

With US soldiers dying c900 a year in Iraq, would it be correct to say that the Army and the US public can just about tolerate that figure almost indefinitely? At what sort of figure would one start to see demonstrations, if any?

Would a massive single loss like the 253 marines killed in Lebanon cause the US to immediately withdraw just like it did then?
In the US, the best casuality rate for PR is 0. As we have exceeded 0, Americans are getting angry. I believe this country has had it, because most countries with these casuality rates would be elated that it wasn't higher. Americans have no stomach, yet from talking to some of them, it seems almost as if they prefer to die at the hands of terrorists, as opposed to the troops.

Alright hold up, I'm a youngster so I wasn't around back during the Vietnam war, but wasn't the purpose of that the same as Korea. To try to keep communist north out of the south. So how can one be necessary when the other isn't. Anyways my opinion is that America needs to stay it out in Iraq. At least until they know the Iraqi police can handle the insurgents well enough on their own. The south Vietnamese troops were vastly untrained, and the were crushed without America's aid, which kinda caused many Vietnamese to resent America. They had pledged to help, and while they were winning the war they pulled out because of strong protest from some citizens. But I also see a pull out in Iraq would cause more danger than the pull out of Vietnam, because this puts America in danger. The Islamic radicals would see this as a victory, a propaganda tool for recruitment, which could mean more terrorist attacks at home. I understand people are dying, but they're dying protecting their country. Isn't that the point of the armed service, to protect your country? If you choose to join the armed service, you're taking a risk with your life, if you are unprepared to make the ultimate sacrifice then why join. So I hope I didn't offend anyone too much, I just wanted to contribute my insight on this situation.