# Iraq war:  5 years later



## M14 Shooter (Mar 20, 2008)

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 (Mar 20, 2008)

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 (Mar 20, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> 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 (Mar 20, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Mar 20, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> 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 (Mar 20, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> US KIA: 3263
> 3263 over 1828 days.  1.78 KIA/day
> 
> Compared to:
> ...




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 (Mar 20, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Mar 20, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> US KIA: 3263
> 3263 over 1828 days.  1.78 KIA/day
> 
> Compared to:
> ...



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 (Mar 21, 2008)

mattskramer said:


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


Irrelevant to the issue.


----------



## mattskramer (Mar 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  Then what is the issue?


I believe I already answered that.


----------



## mattskramer (Mar 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 21, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course you did.
> 
> Lets recap:
> My question:
> ...



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 (Mar 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> US KIA: 3263
> 3263 over 1828 days.  1.78 KIA/day
> 
> Compared to:
> ...




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


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 24, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


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



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 (Mar 24, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2008)

Question: &#8220;Why are casualties the lowest for any large-scale, long-term military operation across all of recorded history?&#8221;

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 (Mar 24, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2008)

BrianH said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 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 (Mar 27, 2008)

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


----------

