Casualities of the Iraq War

$tinkle · Apr 7, 2004

Originally posted by N8
So, we loose 12 Jarheads in one action and the news re-reports it every 30 minutes... just think of the hand-wringing if the US military was to hit the beaches at Normandy today... a couple thousand dead in the first day. Or how about the first day Marine dead at Tarawa or Sipan or Iwo Jima...???

And these numbers pale in compairson to the numbers of dead in a single day during even the most minor Civil War battle.

Gag me... the US military will pound the Iraqi "rebles" into the dirt even if they suffer some dead of their own.... it's what Marines do.

similarly, ted kennedy's labeling this war as "bush's vietnam" is likewise intellectually dishonest. If there were 100X the deaths, then maybe he'd have a case...

BurlyShirley · Apr 7, 2004

Yeah, its rediculous.

Vietnam this is not.

Westy · Apr 7, 2004

Originally posted by N8
So, we loose 12 Jarheads in one action and the news re-reports it every 30 minutes... just think of the hand-wringing if the US military was to hit the beaches at Normandy today... a couple thousand dead in the first day. Or how about the first day Marine dead at Tarawa or Sipan or Iwo Jima...???

And these numbers pale in compairson to the numbers of dead in a single day during even the most minor Civil War battle.

Gag me... the US military will pound the Iraqi "rebles" into the dirt even if they suffer some dead of their own.... it's what Marines do.

Since when do we expect the media to report anything other than sensationalism. With several networks trying to pump out "news" 24 hours a day while maintaining profit margins through small headcounts you get mostly crap. I am sure just as much time is put into wardrobe, sound effects and graphics as research and fact checking.

bomberz1qr20 · Apr 7, 2004

No, it's nothing compared to Vietnam. It's still WRONG.

Dead is dead, and most of the 620+ troops that have died have been AFTER Bush declared an end to major conflict. This was the bloodiest week since we announced victory.

I think this will get much worse before it gets better. The whole country is pissed at us, and I think we'll see many more dead troops and mercenaries before it's all over.

But hey, they all signed on, right? That makes them all hired killers - US military and mercenaries alike.

derekbob · Apr 7, 2004

This isnt WWII, we arent going to be speaking "Iraqi" if we lose this one. Were setteling the Bush familys personal vendetta, were not saving the world from Hitler. And comparing this to the Civil War??? Have you been hittin up Rushs pill bottles n8???

$tinkle · Apr 7, 2004

Originally posted by bomberz1qr20
I think this will get much worse before it gets better. The whole country is pissed at us, and I think we'll see many more dead troops and mercenaries before it's all over.

But hey, they all signed on, right? That makes them all hired killers - US military and mercenaries alike.

although i agree it will get worse before it gets better, i'm not with you on the "whole country hates us", just the vocal minority in the sunni triangle. Recall they were propped up by saddam for years, whereas the rest of the country lived in fear.
to wit:

wash post
"Everyone is so happy," Kerkush said as he watched his son stand in a mashoof and steer it like a gondolier with a long wooden pole. "We are starting to live like we used to, not the way Saddam wanted us to live."

NY times
The manager of a travel agency said he is busy for the first time in more than a decade, primarily booking thousands of vacations to the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, where Iraqis had been forbidden to travel since 1991. "People feel free to travel now, and they want to go because there's amazing scenery up there, and it's clean and safe," said Ahmed Abdel Hamid, the manager.

usa today
Since the collapse of Saddam's regime, police Officer Gailan Wahoudi, 31, has bought a new television, a refrigerator and an air conditioner. ''It is a new freedom I never had before,'' he says.

Iraqi police Lt. Raad Rasheed says his salary is now the equivalent of $275 a month, up from $25 before the war. ''My family is happy,'' he says. ''I am also more focused on my job because I no longer have to worry about money.''

i cherry-picked these media sources for their known bias against the bush administration. Imagine if i had sought the opinion of bush lapdogs.

Originally posted by derekbob
And comparing this to the Civil War??? Have you been hittin up Rushs pill bottles n8???

pretty sure he was contrasting, not comparing.

bomberz1qr20 · Apr 7, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
i cherry-picked these media sources for their known bias against the bush administration. Imagine if i had sought the opinion of bush lapdogs

USA Today? NY Times? Exactly how are they biased?

Explain.

And while we're at it, here is another quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SFGATE

"We are united," he said, echoing his once and future Sunni rivals just across the river. "Saddam Hussein committed injustices against us for 35 years. It is impossible that we let America do the same. We will kill them with knives. We will eat them."

$tinkle · Apr 7, 2004

Originally posted by bomberz1qr20
USA Today? NY Times? Exactly how are they biased?

Explain.

after researching at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), i would be well advised to revise my charge that the Times is anti-bush, even if some rogue reporters/columnists may be.

In response to emails from FAIR activists, New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent wrote on his web journal: "I urge The Times to report on it more fully -- not just on what the amendment really means, but also on the debate over what it really means." On February 25, the Times did just that, offering a short piece on the legal debate over the amendment: "Some conservative scholars who oppose gay unions and some gay scholars who oppose the amendment are arguing that it might effectively block any marital benefits for same-sex couples, no matter what name is used."

The jury's still out on USA Today, and i'm willing to concede they are no further right than dead center.

Originally posted by bomberz1qr20

And while we're at it, here is another quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SFGATE

"We are united," he said, echoing his once and future Sunni rivals just across the river. "Saddam Hussein committed injustices against us for 35 years. It is impossible that we let America do the same. We will kill them with knives. We will eat them."

obviously, this gentleman is deeply troubled.
but seeing how he survived 35 years of saddam, his life was certainly sheltered. Perhaps only one of his children was tortured & killed for dissent. Perhaps only one of his wives was raped, then tortured, then killed. Perhaps he thinks we're bringing the same to him.

perhaps not.

bomberz1qr20 · Apr 7, 2004

Originally posted by N8
One thing about this most recent combat, now our Marines and GI's will now be the ready anything having seen it up colse and personal.

Urban combat is the hardest scenero for a ground pounder that there is....

A hardy bravo zulu Devil Dogs URAHHH!!!!!

Forgive me for asking, what military background do you have?

Bonk · Apr 9, 2004

Originally posted by N8
The recent militant offensive has mounted 140 attacks on US troops which have resulted in 13 US casualties.

My friend was one of them.

drtbikrr · Apr 9, 2004

Originally posted by N8
He's a hero... parishing so that others might live.

Amen, N8 I would like to thank you for serving for our country, I'm sorry that not everyone is so gracious. I think that no matter how far left or right you are, everyone has to have respect for America's soldiers, can you imagine how hard it must be knowing that you are doing something that you believe is right and just and there are people IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY saying that you're a horrible person for protecting them? I say deport all of these hippies to one of those countries under the rule of a tyrant like Saddam, let them live in that world without tofu, bean sprouts and Daddie's money, maybe that will show them how people like Saddam need to be taken out. Sorry for the rant but I feel very strongly about our boys (and girls)
Nick

jimmydean · Apr 9, 2004

My unit flew in last Thursday at 2:00am. They were all over the news (local) last night. Glad to see everyone who left, return this time.

http://www.koin.com/webnews/20042/20040409_guardreturn.shtml

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66159

BN 1-162 IN of Forest Grove, OR.

jd.

KGW.com
-

The Oregon National Guard's 1st Battalion 162nd Infantry returned home Thursday night, after being away for 14 months so long that 32 babies were born in their absence.

Young mothers held up their tiny infants and hundred of others cheered as nine chartered buses carrying the 400 troops swept into the Salem fairgrounds, in what is the largest homecoming of the Guard since World War II.

"I suddenly became a single mother it was horrible," said Zoe Arnold, 29, of Warren, whose husband, Sgt. Jason Arnold was deployed with the 162nd Infantry when she was four months pregnant with their second child.

Wearing jeans and makeup, Tracy Wassenberg, 21, held up a "Welcome Home" sign and scoured the chaos, as the troops filed out of the buses.

"Say Daddy," she whispered to her eight-month-old son, as Isaac Wassenberg walked up, slid off his camouflage backpack and took his baby in his arms.

In Kuwait, Wassenberg had arranged to have a video conference with his wife as she began her labor but the message to call was delivered to him eight hours too late. "He called and tried to start coaching me," said Tracy, laughing. "I had to say, 'Honey, you have a beautiful baby boy.'"

The battalion was stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. They took part in Operation Rio, providing security to coalition contractors rebuilding the Ramallah oil fields.

The battalion suffered no casualties or serious injuries "a miracle," said Maj. Keith Ensley, the battalion's executive officer.

While there were no purple hearts, almost all of the arriving troops wore the discrete flintlock rifle logo of the Combat Infantry Badge and Combat Field Medical Badge honors given only to those who have come under enemy fire.

"That's the badge that when you see, you say, 'Wow.' It's the one that says he was really there," said Maj. Arnold Strong, the guard's spokesman.

derekbob · Apr 9, 2004

Id just like to add that its possible to not support the presidents decision to get involved in Iraq, yet still support our troops. Im a liberal, and I want our troops to be as safe as possible. I cringe to hear of troops dying or being injured, and I do the same when I hear of Iraqis dying. It sounds like the biggest targets are the Iraqis working with coalition forces. Its a screwed up situation, I hope things turn out for the best. I give my deepest condolences to any family or friends of anyone killed in Iraq (or anywhere for that matter).

Damn True · Apr 9, 2004

In my uneducated opinion the Sunni's are targeting not our troops, but the civilian activities our troops are guarding. Their aim (this is my opinion mind you) is to send the message to the Kurds and Sheitte's that "Your people are dying BECAUSE the Americans are here (even though we, not the Americans are doing the killing here )"

....sounds like terrorism to me.

jimmydean · Apr 9, 2004

Originally posted by derekbob
Id just like to add that its possible to not support the presidents decision to get involved in Iraq, yet still support our troops. Im a liberal, and I want our troops to be as safe as possible. I cringe to hear of troops dying or being injured, and I do the same when I hear of Iraqis dying. It sounds like the biggest targets are the Iraqis working with coalition forces. Its a screwed up situation, I hope things turn out for the best. I give my deepest condolences to any family or friends of anyone killed in Iraq (or anywhere for that matter).

I agree 100%. I serve, but don't agree with us still being there right now. I would have shipped with my unit, but I am in Officer Candidate School right now, so they figure its best I finish that first.

Everyone should support our troops, no matter what. It's not a choice, it's a job. Like it or not.

BurlyShirley · Apr 9, 2004

Originally posted by N8

Seems the Marines have regained control of Fallujah and taken Kut today...

thems my boys!

Get em boys! Get em!

$tinkle · Apr 12, 2004

Originally posted by derekbob
Id just like to add that its possible to not support the presidents decision to get involved in Iraq, yet still support our troops. Im a liberal, and I want our troops to be as safe as possible. I cringe to hear of troops dying or being injured, and I do the same when I hear of Iraqis dying. It sounds like the biggest targets are the Iraqis working with coalition forces. Its a screwed up situation, I hope things turn out for the best. I give my deepest condolences to any family or friends of anyone killed in Iraq (or anywhere for that matter).

please detail for me just how you can arbitrarily decide where the line of support is? Do you rest it all at the president's feet? Bear in mind he has advisors, like the joint chiefs, who are all battle-hardened & war-minded. Do you stop the support with them? Or those who advise them? Or those who trained them at air war college & air command and staff college? The special ops guys who gather intel, the satellites showing bellicose development, foreign agencies who share their intel? All of the previous add up & cross a pre-determined military threshold, afterwhich it is the prime duty and responsibility of these leaders to make a pitch for war. Your congressman has a role, as well.

I have never heard a good argument for "i support the troops, but not those who lead them" If you have one, please offer up.

jimmydean · Apr 12, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle

I have never heard a good argument for "i support the troops, but not those who lead them" If you have one, please offer up.

I support the troops because I am one. I will go to Iraq if I am asked to because it's my job, not because I may or may not agree with why I am asked. I will do my job the best that I can because it's my job and it's what I have been trained to do.

Nowhere in my job description does it say I only have to go if I agree with it. It does say I will obey the orders given to me by the persons appointed above me. With that in mind, I do have a choice this November to change who is apointed above me.

I support GWB because I have to by law. But I don't agree with him, that is my right as an american. That right is the freedom I protect as a soldier, do you see the problem here?

So I support our leaders, but I don't agree with them, does that make sense? If I wasn't a soldier, I would still support our troops (who go there because that is the job they are trained to do, not because they may or may not agree with it) and hope for them to return safely, but I would not support GWB and his "Weapons of Mass Distractions".

$tinkle · Apr 12, 2004

Originally posted by jimmydean
I support the troops because I am one. I will go to Iraq if I am asked to because it's my job, not because I may or may not agree with why I am asked. I will do my job the best that I can because it's my job and it's what I have been trained to do.

Nowhere in my job description does it say I only have to go if I agree with it. It does say I will obey the orders given to me by the persons appointed above me. With that in mind, I do have a choice this November to change who is apointed above me.

I support GWB because I have to by law. But I don't agree with him, that is my right as an american. That right is the freedom I protect as a soldier, do you see the problem here?

i guess i can relate, as i served under G H-W Bush & both of clinton's terms. When it came re-enlistment time, i signed up for 6 more years b/c my bonus multiplier was forecast at 4 X Base Pay X # of years re-upping. Come time to ink the deal, & lo, clinton had slashed the military budget, which cut my bonus in half. Didn't cut my obligation in half, however. And with no prospects on the outside world (which i could have lined up if i had known my options), my choice was to take a sure thing, even if less sure than previously thought. Long story short, i was spurned.

My reasons were essentially selfish. I know i could not have honestly felt bitterness if the gov't had cashed in on what i had signed up to do, however (much how you stated above).

Originally posted by jimmydean
So I support our leaders, but I don't agree with them, does that make sense? If I wasn't a soldier, I would still support our troops (who go there because that is the job they are trained to do, not because they may or may not agree with it) and hope for them to return safely, but I would not support GWB and his "Weapons of Mass Distractions".

it's not clear to me why you have your position, just that you do. Is there a glass ceiling below which someone cannot be held in contempt, nor held accoutable, or be subject to your disagreement? Or perhaps everyone who is forward deployed gets a pass? Is everyone in the sit room full-o-crap? They are the best military minds of our time, using the best intel of all time, inflicting the least amount of collateral damage (i.e. surgical strikes). My point is this: everyone has a role, from the line cook, to the loadmaster, to the war gamer, to the JCS. With each of these roles comes responsibilities & choices they are obligated to make based upon available input.

If you think the bush team were ill-advised & chose correctly, or well-advised & chose instead to march to war, i reckon that's your call.

jimmydean · Apr 12, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle

If you think the bush team were ill-advised & chose correctly, or well-advised & chose instead to march to war, i reckon that's your call.

Well, to answer that, I say he was well advised and chose to go anyway. Yes, I think that Sadam was a bad guy, but he was not a direct threat. I don't like the idea of using Guard forces as active duty troops. They are (for the most part) poorly trained, poorly equipted, and worst of all, poorly treated. I know because I have been listening to my own unit since they came back (and some who came back early) about how it was and how they dealt over there.

I think 14 months is too long for most people. Troop rotation should be the same in the Army as it is in the Navy. 6 months is plenty to get a lot of things done. Shorter stays, deployed more often. Troops are fresher, more eager, more willing.

I think going after Sadam because you can't find the REAL threat was a bad idea. I think we had done SOME good, but we have overstayed our welcome and it's about to get worse. I think our military forces are spread too thin and because of that, we are less safe on our home front.

I will loose a lot of great soldiers because of this war. Some from death, some from walking away as soon as they can. If we as a nation continue to disregard the feelings of our guard forces (and families), we will loose them forever.

I am prior active duty Navy (desert storm), current Officer Candidate in the Oregon Army National Guard. I will be a leader some day and have to look at all these things as important.

But that is just my .02

derekbob · Apr 12, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
please detail for me just how you can arbitrarily decide where the line of support is? Do you rest it all at the president's feet? Bear in mind he has advisors, like the joint chiefs, who are all battle-hardened & war-minded. Do you stop the support with them? Or those who advise them? Or those who trained them at air war college & air command and staff college? The special ops guys who gather intel, the satellites showing bellicose development, foreign agencies who share their intel? All of the previous add up & cross a pre-determined military threshold, afterwhich it is the prime duty and responsibility of these leaders to make a pitch for war. Your congressman has a role, as well.

I have never heard a good argument for "i support the troops, but not those who lead them" If you have one, please offer up.

When I said Bush, I meant "Team Bush" and everyone who worked so hard to get us where we are today, sorry for not being more specific.

As far as the last question, I dont see whats so hard to understand, those are two different groups of people. Just because I dont think we should have went there in the first place, dosent mean I want our troops to die a horrible death. When Clinton, or any democrat president, took military action, did you wish the worst on our troops because you didnt agree with the president (& advisors)?

$tinkle · Apr 12, 2004

Originally posted by derekbob
As far as the last question, I dont see whats so hard to understand, those are two different groups of people.

i was just wondering if you had in mind a line of separation. It's one big gang in my view, each part at each level being inextricable from the rest.
We're in this love together

Originally posted by derekbob
When Clinton, or any democrat president, took military action, did you wish the worst on our troops because you didnt agree with the president (& advisors)?

never had i ever wished ill upon our troops. Well, there was this one guy, but that's another story.

Casualities of the Iraq War

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Expert on blowing

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

the teste

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Expert on blowing

Turbo Monkey

Expert on blowing

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Turbo Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Mike Bloss, Hero

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Monkey

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey

Monkey

Monkey Pimp

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Expert on blowing

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey

Expert on blowing

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey

Monkey

Expert on blowing