Wrong, Wrong, wrong

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

"Less than 2700 troops have died taking out the largest military in the middle east, second largest in the world"

See if that statistic makes the friends and families of the ones who died feel any better.

[ChumpDumper]

I will make an observation about the number of dead. Simply using the total dead stat doesn't tell the whole story since medical advances and the quicker access to care for the wounded soldier in the field has cut down the mortality of battlefield wounds.

Though firepower has increased, lethality has decreased. In World War II, 30 percent of the Americans injured in combat died.3 In Vietnam, the proportion dropped to 24 percent. In the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 10 percent of those injured have died. At least as many U.S. soldiers have been injured in combat in this war as in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or the first five years of the Vietnam conflict, from 1961 through 1965 (see table). This can no longer be described as a small or contained conflict. But a far larger proportion of soldiers are surviving their injuries.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2471

We are better at keeping our own men alive as well as being better at killing the enemy.

[RandomGuy]

I haven't sidestepped anything...I consider the number of troops that have died in all aspects of the Iraq war....to be phenomenally low. Phenomenally.


And I haven't got a ing clue how anyone could argue otherwise.

Um, ok. Your comment implied that the casualties up until now were "to remove Saddam from power". If we had just done that and left the figure would have been around 175.

I would say that the casualty figures since the fall of Baghdad have been MUCH higher than they should have been, had any reasonable, competant post-war planning been done. I have no problem whatsoever with the planning for the nation-to-nation fight that ended with Saddam's ouster.

Is it your contention that the US-occupation of Iraq been executed well?

On an analytical level, does it make sense to lump together the actual nation-to-nation fighting that toppled Saddam, and the growing insurgency?

Did the war plan from the administration include having to fight a prolonged and growing insurgency for 3+ years after Saddam was deposed?

[RandomGuy]

To be sure, Iraq had a large army. Quibbling over the ranking is a bit silly. The only thing I find odd is that the figure included "reserves" of some 600,000+. I don't think any credible analysis would really include that figure in calculating what could feasibly be fielded by 2003 Iraq.

Intelligence may have declined in the period from 1991 to 2003, but there was some very good solid proof in the form of defectors that gave very good, detailed, accounts about the condition of that military force. In 1991 we had good intelligence, and after that the military numbers probably didn't go up much even though we knew he was diverting the oil-for-food money to his military.

The larger, and more militarily pertinant question is how combat-ready and willing that force was. Given the Mother of all Surrenders in 1991, it was reasonable to assume that the majority of the military would do exactly what it did: as soon as the cowardly officers were out of sight, change into civies and walk home.

[whottt]

See if that statistic makes the friends and families of the ones who died feel any better.

That statistic wasn't mentioned by me to make the friends and families of the ones who died feel any better...it was to judge the success of a military liberation compared to otherrs.

You are obviously too young and sensitive to handle an adult discussion...

I suggest taking a ing hike to the kiddie forum and stay out of this one...you might get nightmares if you stay here.


PS...there's no Santa Clause either, dip .

Damn...now I feel mean.


Oh yeah...you gonna die someday mother er and they aaint a ing thing you can do about it.

Ok I feel better now.

[whottt]

Um, ok. Your comment implied that the casualties up until now were "to remove Saddam from power". If we had just done that and left the figure would have been around 175.

175 is even more impressive than 2700.

I would say that the casualty figures since the fall of Baghdad have been MUCH higher than they should have been, had any reasonable, competant post-war planning been done.

Maybe...maybe not. The figure is low when you consider we are still basically fighting the Iraq military...not to mention Al Qaeda and what other sociopathic s have crawled out of the gutter there.

Is it your contention that the US-occupation of Iraq been executed well?

On an analytical level, does it make sense to lump together the actual nation-to-nation fighting that toppled Saddam, and the growing insurgency?

On an anlytical level the two can be tied together...

Did the war plan from the administration include having to fight a prolonged and growing insurgency for 3+ years after Saddam was deposed?

Well you are a liberal...what did you think was going to happen when we went into Iraq?


Let me guess...you were jumping for joy because you believed it was going to be easy right?

My head wasn't in the sand, was yours?



If you are a liberal who did think was going to be easy and was therefore in favor of it...

Where in the did you come up with that from?


It's going to take as long as it takes...and the bigger war is going to take decades. As long as it takes...

And I'll say something else...I am not necessarily a big time Bush guy...I just like him better than anything you guys are offering up...

It took a colossal up to lose the last election...but you guys managed to pull it off...and it looks like ya'll are on track to do it yet again.

Oh...and who said it was supposed to be easy?

[whottt]

Was that so hard?

No...if I'd been certain I damn sure would have defended it vociferously...I didn't...I just got annoyed with the badly handled attempts to refute a sidebar...and I never said it was fact.

In the future...if you'd like detailed insight into the mind of a genius...just ask...don't beat around the Liberal...

Well, he did an immediate about face when I told him.

Doesn't change the fact the he's a dip .

That number at least was well-sourced.

...

Count to ten?

I did...and he was still stupid when I finished.

[Guru of Nothing]

I have a better idea than you do.

Answer these TWO questions:

When was the last time you talked to a muslim about US foreign policy?

When was the last time you talked to anyone from the Middle East?

I would be willing to bet a bit of money that the answer to both questions for you is "never", am I right?

Where were you the last time you spoke to a Muslim? Describe the environment.

Have you traveled to the Middle East?

I'm merely curious. Please don't think I am being antagonistic.

Thanks.

[ChumpDumper]

...

The number he got in the wiki article had a link to its source, which is how I could tell the year that it was estimating; some of the numbers didn't have their sources linked.

[RandomGuy]

175 is even more impressive than 2700.

Yes it is. It also makes the 2500+ casualties fighting an insurgency that has been excerbated by administration blundering all the more inexcusable.

Maybe...maybe not. The figure is low when you consider we are still basically fighting the Iraq military...not to mention Al Qaeda and what other sociopathic s have crawled out of the gutter there.

No we aren't "basically fighting the Iraqi military". This is a very common misconception among those who think Iraq is/was a good idea. I would simply point out that we rounded up almost all of the "deck of cards" bunch within a few months, and that Zarkawi was not an Iraqi (Jordanian), as are most of the suicide bombers.

The insurgency is being fueled not by Saddam loyalists, but rather by high unemployment, boredom, and no small number of non-Iraqi nutjobs who suddenly have an easy chance to kill Americans. This is according to the US military.

On an anlytical level the two can be tied together...

Not if you want to declare a victory of some sort. We did indeed get rid of Saddam, but ended up with a much more intractable problem, as well as a strengthened Al Qaeda.

A victory in one sense, and a loss in another.

Well you are a liberal...what did you think was going to happen when we went into Iraq?
Let me guess...you were jumping for joy because you believed it was going to be easy right?
My head wasn't in the sand, was yours?

I knew that exactly what would happen. The problem is that the people in charge not only had no clue, but actively dismissed those who did. That screams negligence on the part of the administration.

If you are a liberal who did think was going to be easy and was therefore in favor of it...

Where in the did you come up with that from?

I knew the whole thing had a very high chance of being a fiasco. I knew that the easy part would be invading Iraq and deposing Saddam. I also knew that the post-war construction would be very hard. The sucky thing about it was that I was also pretty sure that this administration wasn't up to that task. It was like a train wreck that you can see coming, but can't do anything about.

It's going to take as long as it takes...and the bigger war is going to take decades. As long as it takes...

And I'll say something else...I am not necessarily a big time Bush guy...I just like him better than anything you guys are offering up...

It took a colossal up to lose the last election...but you guys managed to pull it off...and it looks like ya'll are on track to do it yet again.

Oh...and who said it was supposed to be easy?

I agree with you on all points here. I wasn't the only democrat who inwardly groaned when Kerry got the nod, and who is really cheesed with the national leadership of the Democratic party for f***ing things up on a continual basis.

I kind of like the brutal satire of the last election done by the two guys who write "South Park" on comedy central. The kids in the South Park elementary had an election for class president, but instead of real candidates, they were forced to choose between a "giant bag" and a "turd sandwich".
I don't remember which of them won.