Originally posted by hazmats Average deaths per month in US wars (starting with World War I) World War I - 6,100 per month World War II - 9,200 per month Korea - 900 per month (all battle deaths, non-battle deaths not included) Vietnam - 600 per month Gulf War I - 300 in one month (this is less than peace time death rate per year) Iraqi Freedom - 63 per monthPulled from an article last yearhttp://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_27_05_JN.htmlNot really saying anything here. Just putting perspective on it.
And again, what was the average troop level per month?
All these wars you mentioned had a higher troop level then the current one, even Gulf War I. Rumsfeild's war on the cheap doctrine probably takes the lower troop levels = lower death rates fact into consideration.
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
Originally posted by outfctrl Just curious. That really supports our troops, doesnt it.
Ya, it's much better to support a war that is already lost while american casualties are 100/month. You sir, are a real american idio.. I mean american patriot... no wait, american idiot was right.
Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo Originally posted by hazmats Average deaths per month in US wars (starting with World War I) World War I - 6,100 per month World War II - 9,200 per month Korea - 900 per month (all battle deaths, non-battle deaths not included) Vietnam - 600 per month Gulf War I - 300 in one month (this is less than peace time death rate per year) Iraqi Freedom - 63 per monthPulled from an article last yearhttp://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_27_05_JN.htmlNot really saying anything here. Just putting perspective on it.
And again, what was the average troop level per month?
All these wars you mentioned had a higher troop level then the current one, even Gulf War I. Rumsfeild's war on the cheap doctrine probably takes the lower troop levels = lower death rates fact into consideration.
Ok, i'm not really trying to make a point on what people were better at fighting, just saying that people are swayed by hard numbers. 63/mo < 600/mo. Less soldiers are dieing now than in previous wars, that's all i was trying to say.
Even more telling than the size of the armies IMO is the fact that the death rates per injury are so much lower now because of body armor and medical methods. I think in WWII it was not even 2 injuries per death. Now it's like 8 injuries per death.
Again, just stating that less soldiers are dieing in Iraq than any previous US war.
Fewer soldiers are dying for a variety of reasons...medical knowledge has something to do with it, but I would argue that the theatre of this war is the real reason that there are such fewer casualties...injury/death ratio can be increased or decreased by the sheer size of the territory's being fought upon, and in Iraq, the areas being fought in are relatively small compared to those in World War 2. Not to mention it is city fighting, without massive land raids like in World War 2...there was no huge invasion, it was just "Hi we're here, how's your mum?" *bang bang*
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
The casualties are low because Iraq was easy. We can do the same to any other country in the region, or all of them. One by one.
We don't want the troops to pull out of Iraq, just out of the cities. Fence off a piece of America next to the airports and a port. Preferably on the Iranian border.
It's pretty pointless to make a comparison between Iraq and WWII. In WWII they were facing maybe the best military force of it's time, Nazi Germany. In Iraq you have mostly untrained iraqis who are just fed up with americans, or religious zealots who just want to die and get some virgins. In Vietnam they were facing somewhat trained army that didn't care about casualties and was packed up by maybe the biggest arms producer, Soviet Union.
Casualties are low because of body armor, pure and simple. No other reason, just body armor.
They didn't wear body armor in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Hell, in Vietnam you weren't even required to wear you're Steel Pot (helmet).
Pretty much every infantryman I know that's been to iraq has been shot or hit by an IED and just brushed it off and kept going. Very few were actually injured. (I am in an infantry unit that got sent over when I was in training)
As a matter of fact while I'm writing this one of the guys I know that almost took a direct hit from a mortar (a mortar direct hit radius is very large) just asked me a question on Yahoo about the program we are working on for Computer Science class tomorrow. He's fine and still drilling, not even a purple heart because he didn't even get scratched.
Body armor, pure and simple. No two ways about it.
If it wasn't for body armor, I can garuntee that our casualties would be multiplied by AT LEAST 10.
We are still getting hit just a frequent as vietnam or korea. Mostly by IEDs and very few firefights, but we are still getting hit several hundred times a day in the whole theater combined. How many of those times make it on the news? Not many. Because the report goes to command, command sends out recon and nobody knows anything because IED are set off from a mile or more away. The news doens't hear anything becuase nobody is hurt. Even though IEDs are very deadly and usually killed 10-20 un-armored iraqi civilians.
Which brings me to another point: 99/100 Iraqi Civilian Causuaties are caused by insurgents trying to hit us.
The reason casualties are going up is because the insurgents are getting smarter while we are not. We are rotating too quickly, while the iraqis don't have a rotation.
The iraqis have actually recently developed a very easy way to cut through M1A1 Armor. It's called a plasma charge. Basically it's a cone shaped explosive in the bottome of a plastic bucket that's buried in the ground. They put spent brass (used ammo shells) inside the cone and when the charge is set off it turns the brass into an almost plasma like substance (get your science book out if you don't know what plasma is) and the cone shape shoots that plasma straight up in a very narrow jet stream. If the charge is set off right it cuts through M1A1 armor like butter.
If you don't know how strong M1A1s are, let me put it to you this way: There is not a hand held weapon on the face of the earth that can take out an M1A1 Tank. There are alot of crew served (stationary or mounted on top of HMMWVs) or mounted weapons (helicopters and airplanes or other tanks) that can take them out. But not a single one on the face of the earth that can take it out fired from the shoulder.
Casualties are low because of body armor, pure and simple. No other reason, just body armor. .
considering body armor isn't going to do shit against an RPG blast(or its equivelent) or any kind of high caliber rifle...I would say that you are wrong.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Casualties are low because of body armor, pure and simple. No other reason, just body armor. .
considering body armor isn't going to do shit against an RPG blast(or its equivelent) or any kind of high caliber rifle...I would say that you are wrong.
Did you miss the part about "very few firefights"? I think you did, please go back and read it.
Body armor does stop a 7.62 round quite effectively, it just shatters or bounces off and the soldier feels nothing but a very hard tap (like getting hit with a baseball). Which is what the Iraqis use. They have VERY few weapons that shoot above 7.62 rounds.
You're talking theory, I'm not... which you're not even really talking theory... you're just assuming. I am being trained to go over there by people who have been over there. They are getting deployed in 10 months for the second time. I'm not going, because I'm also training to be an officer, but I still have to train with my unit while they prepare to go over.
Originally posted by SnaKey We are still getting hit just a frequent as vietnam or korea. Mostly by IEDs and very few firefights, but we are still getting hit several hundred times a day in the whole theater combined. How many of those times make it on the news? Not many. Because the report goes to command, command sends out recon and nobody knows anything because IED are set off from a mile or more away. The news doens't hear anything becuase nobody is hurt. Even though IEDs are very deadly and usually killed 10-20 un-armored iraqi civilians.
Everyone I know who has been in a firefight say it's not nearly as scary as going through a convoy every single day. Because firefights are less frequent than IEDs and during a firefight you actually have someone shooting at you and you can shoot back. Where as while you're in a convoy, you just pray to god you're not the one who dies.
There are two big difference between what you think and what I know. I'm talking about reality, you're talking about stuff that you think is going on. I haven't seen it first hand yet, so I don't know the nitty gritty details of an encounter, but I have probably spoken with more peopple who have been shot and hit by IED than you know in the military.
Also, I have sat through more "How To Stay Alive In Iraq" classes than I can even count. That's not an assumtion either, I really can't count them all.
Yes, btw. The military does have classroom instruction. Quite alot of it actually.
And if you want to see alot of the visual training aids they use, alot if it comes from Ogrish.com. They post things from the insurgent POV.
**Warning Ogrish.com is REAL WAR VIDEOS! No US Censorship. People actually die**
Originally posted by Draenor wow...you are one cocky bastard. And I still don't believe that body armor is the only reason that we have fewer casualties, as you have stated.
Ok, that's fine. I'm not debating anything. I'm telling you.
There is a difference.
How am I cocky though? Because I'm actually IN the military and being trained on what goes on over there, learning everything I can from people who have expierienced it first hand, incase I actually do have to deploy with my unit in less than a year? While you're sitting on your couch watching BS News reports with overblown numbers of causalties? You're just getting all mad because someone tells you what is actually happening, rather than what you have dreamed up in your little head. (yeah that last statement was cocky)
The iraqis don't fucking shoot. They plant bombs, called IEDs. Improvised Explosive Devices. There was a 17yr old kid from my town that was killed by a dead donkey on the side of the road filled with 4 artillery shells.
If the iraqis do shoot, they take pop shots from a building and run.
If the iragis stay for a firefight, it's usually the crazy completely suicidal ones. Because they don't fight like we do. They fire their weapons randomly chanting "ALLAH ACKBAR" becuase they believe that if they are meant to win that Allah will guide the bullet into the US Troops. But, it's much more likely for the suicidal ones like that to get in a car filled with enough explosives to level a city block and drive into a checkpoint.
Firefights are VERY VERY rare. While IEDs are quite common.
There are smart insurgents, they are smart and still alive and very active. They are smart because they dont' blow themselves up and keep adjusting to our tactics.
If you go over there right now and spend 1 year in a red zone, the closest thing you will see to a firefight where there is actually somoene shooting at you... will be mortar rounds. Which are also quite common, but VERY few people are hurt becuase mortars take time to adjust. The iraqis fire a mortar round at a US Position and haul ass because they know a company of infantrymen are heading straight for them immiediatly.
Don't think insurgents are dumb. The ones that are still alive are very smart, they are not that ones blowing themselves up at checkpoints. Those guys are recruited by the smart ones becuase they are morons.
That's all well and good, and I am sure that you are correct about how the fighting is going on over there...but it is simply impossible that the only reason for fewer casualties is because of soldiers wearing body armor, by saying that you are taking out ALL other factors that make this war different from other wars.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor That's all well and good, and I am sure that you are correct about how the fighting is going on over there...but it is simply impossible that the only reason for fewer casualties is because of soldiers wearing body armor, by saying that you are taking out ALL other factors that make this war different from other wars.
You don't even make sense. How?
We had body armor in Desert Storm too btw. But not as good. But then again, Desert Storm was mainly mechanized and was a completely different fight from Iraq now.
You honestly don't understand why body armor simply cannot be the only reason for fewer casualties? Okay...Think about what kind of war this is...you said yourself that there aren't nearly as many firefights, and that most casualties come from things like boyscout rigged explosives...Think about the type of fighting that is going on, where the fighting is going on..what kind of medical care is available...think about the weapons being used, think about the proximity of US basecamps to the cities that are being patroled...you cannot tell me that NONE of these are factors in how many casualties we sustain.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Of course bodyarmor has a major impact to casualties, but still you can't compare Iraq to previous wars (except maybe Gulfwar), because in WWII you were fighting a foe with equal, or even better, arms technology, about equal forces and the methods were simply more 'toe to toe', hence MUCH more casualties. In Iraq you are using laser guided missiles against beduins with AK's, and THAT is the biggest reason for low casualties.
Its just we live in a democracy the main aim of our collective governments should be to protect its people. The "war on terror" fails to do that. Instead it makes us a big fat target and radicalises more people to act against us.
Besides its not really a war as such its more like a movement there are no battle lines other than the ones we made for ourselves by invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
I suppose as an after thought we should ask ourselves this. Other than beating off an aggressive country/state like Hitlers Germany should we ever go to war at all? And if we need to should we not make sure its done quickly and properly. Rather than what we have done in Iraq?
I think the horrors of war often mask the advantages of it. There's good things that come out of it, but because they're usually not as quick to effect us or as obvious, people hardly ever recognize any of the positives.
It'd be great if we could all hold hands and kiss and hug, but there comes a point where you have to be realistic. We're going to have wars, people are going to die, it's just how the cycle goes. I am of the personal belief that once we've gone into a war, it's the people's duty to support our government even if we disagree with it. Making your voice heard if you disapprove is acceptable, but bashing the government over and over after you've made your point is overkill and makes us as a nation look bad. It's kind of like having manners with the freedom of speech or right to protest, just because you have the physical ability to do something without repercussion doesn't mean that you necessarily should.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
It'd be great if we could all hold hands and kiss and hug,.....
No offense Awakened, but unless you're female, that ain't gonna happen. Nothing personal you understand, I'm just not interested in holding hands, kissing, and hugging another guy....
Of course, it would be nice that our country's leadership could continually evaluate their strategy, and react when it starts to come apart, rather than continually saying "stay the course". The Titanic stayed the course....
Originally posted by Awakened I am of the personal belief that once we've gone into a war, it's the people's duty to support our government even if we disagree with it. Making your voice heard if you disapprove is acceptable, but bashing the government over and over after you've made your point is overkill and makes us as a nation look bad. It's kind of like having manners with the freedom of speech or right to protest, just because you have the physical ability to do something without repercussion doesn't mean that you necessarily should.
Very good post. I agree 100%. When the world sees people in the US protesting and marching against the war, it does make our Nation look bad. Especially when you see some of our movie celebrities bash our president and personally protest the war. Sometimes it just makes me sick.
I know Bush's term is almost up, but hopefully our next president will have the strength and fortitude that Bush has now. Actually, I think Bill O'Reilly should run for President.
Originally posted by Draenor You honestly don't understand why body armor simply cannot be the only reason for fewer casualties? Okay...Think about what kind of war this is...you said yourself that there aren't nearly as many firefights, and that most casualties come from things like boyscout rigged explosives...Think about the type of fighting that is going on, where the fighting is going on..what kind of medical care is available...think about the weapons being used, think about the proximity of US basecamps to the cities that are being patroled...you cannot tell me that NONE of these are factors in how many casualties we sustain.
Oh ok, I understand what you're talking about now and you're right. Those are major factors as well. My point was that body armor is the #1 factor for low casualties.
Yeah, if the iraqis DID have crew served weapons such as our M240b (shoots same rounds as AK47, except 10 times faster), our MK-19 (40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher), or the M2 (.50cal machine gun) then our casualties would be much greater than they are now. Which they did have simliar version of each before we went in.
One thing people do not understand. They dont' understand what "smart bombs" are used for. Smart bombs aren't war. Smart bombs are support weapons. They "soften" targets for the infantry to come in on foot. Same with artillery, mortars, and other missiles. Then we even have softening weapons used by the infantry, like the Javeline. The Javelin is such a beautiful weapon. It actually takes a thermal picture of the target and when it's launched, it takes something like 5 more picutres a second contantly readjusting itself to the target and can put itself through a small window from 800yds+ away.
Originally posted by outfctrl Originally posted by Awakened I am of the personal belief that once we've gone into a war, it's the people's duty to support our government even if we disagree with it. Making your voice heard if you disapprove is acceptable, but bashing the government over and over after you've made your point is overkill and makes us as a nation look bad. It's kind of like having manners with the freedom of speech or right to protest, just because you have the physical ability to do something without repercussion doesn't mean that you necessarily should.
Very good post. I agree 100%. When the world sees people in the US protesting and marching against the war, it does make our Nation look bad. Especially when you see some of our movie celebrities bash our president and personally protest the war. Sometimes it just makes me sick.
Actually, that's the one thing that makes USA look good. Shows that not all americans are brainless puppets.
I know Bush's term is almost up, but hopefully our next president will have the strength and fortitude that Bush has now. Actually, I think Bill O'Reilly should run for President.
Pronunciation: 'for-t&-"tüd, -"tyüd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin fortitudin-, fortitudo, from fortis
1: strength of mind that enables a person to encounter danger or bear pain or adversity with courage
I just got an email back from my Brother who is an E-9 in the Navy. I sent him a link to this topic. Here is his response:
One things for sure though, and this ain't just my opinion it's from friends over there and friends in high places... We sure ain't winning and if we ain't winning what are we doing? We need to start drawing down and it's time for the Iraqi's (shia and sunni) to start carrying the load because they aren't. Period. They aren't.
The only reason we are there now is to prevent another Rwanda Hutu-Tutsi slaughter and protect the oil. I'm sure we have noble sentiment, at least I'm sure the troops do. The Kurds are doing great up north but the rest of the country is barely under control and probably even worse. I could go on and on because I read about it and talk about it with people who are there or spent alot of time in theatre.
Hell, I've spent too much time in that shit hole myself. Honestly, though Barry - it's a f'ing mess and not much else. Best of intentions no doubt - but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
But I'm with you - I'd spit at the protestors. They don't have a right to protest shit. That ain't constitutional - thats just me.
Comments
And again, what was the average troop level per month?
All these wars you mentioned had a higher troop level then the current one, even Gulf War I. Rumsfeild's war on the cheap doctrine probably takes the lower troop levels = lower death rates fact into consideration.
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
Did it? Why would people be against it?
Because their homes all got destroyed and their friends and families died a lot more than usual. Not to mention everyone suddenly became hungry.
And again, what was the average troop level per month?
All these wars you mentioned had a higher troop level then the current one, even Gulf War I. Rumsfeild's war on the cheap doctrine probably takes the lower troop levels = lower death rates fact into consideration.
Ok, i'm not really trying to make a point on what people were better at fighting, just saying that people are swayed by hard numbers. 63/mo < 600/mo. Less soldiers are dieing now than in previous wars, that's all i was trying to say.
Even more telling than the size of the armies IMO is the fact that the death rates per injury are so much lower now because of body armor and medical methods. I think in WWII it was not even 2 injuries per death. Now it's like 8 injuries per death.
Again, just stating that less soldiers are dieing in Iraq than any previous US war.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
The casualties are low because Iraq was easy. We can do the same to any other country in the region, or all of them. One by one.
We don't want the troops to pull out of Iraq, just out of the cities. Fence off a piece of America next to the airports and a port. Preferably on the Iranian border.
It might be worth comparing it with the Allied invasion of Iraq in WW2. http://www.regiments.org/wars/20ww2/iraq.htm
Ummm no. You're both wrong.
Casualties are low because of body armor, pure and simple. No other reason, just body armor.
They didn't wear body armor in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Hell, in Vietnam you weren't even required to wear you're Steel Pot (helmet).
Pretty much every infantryman I know that's been to iraq has been shot or hit by an IED and just brushed it off and kept going. Very few were actually injured. (I am in an infantry unit that got sent over when I was in training)
As a matter of fact while I'm writing this one of the guys I know that almost took a direct hit from a mortar (a mortar direct hit radius is very large) just asked me a question on Yahoo about the program we are working on for Computer Science class tomorrow. He's fine and still drilling, not even a purple heart because he didn't even get scratched.
Body armor, pure and simple. No two ways about it.
If it wasn't for body armor, I can garuntee that our casualties would be multiplied by AT LEAST 10.
We are still getting hit just a frequent as vietnam or korea. Mostly by IEDs and very few firefights, but we are still getting hit several hundred times a day in the whole theater combined. How many of those times make it on the news? Not many. Because the report goes to command, command sends out recon and nobody knows anything because IED are set off from a mile or more away. The news doens't hear anything becuase nobody is hurt. Even though IEDs are very deadly and usually killed 10-20 un-armored iraqi civilians.
Which brings me to another point: 99/100 Iraqi Civilian Causuaties are caused by insurgents trying to hit us.
The reason casualties are going up is because the insurgents are getting smarter while we are not. We are rotating too quickly, while the iraqis don't have a rotation.
The iraqis have actually recently developed a very easy way to cut through M1A1 Armor. It's called a plasma charge. Basically it's a cone shaped explosive in the bottome of a plastic bucket that's buried in the ground. They put spent brass (used ammo shells) inside the cone and when the charge is set off it turns the brass into an almost plasma like substance (get your science book out if you don't know what plasma is) and the cone shape shoots that plasma straight up in a very narrow jet stream. If the charge is set off right it cuts through M1A1 armor like butter.
If you don't know how strong M1A1s are, let me put it to you this way: There is not a hand held weapon on the face of the earth that can take out an M1A1 Tank. There are alot of crew served (stationary or mounted on top of HMMWVs) or mounted weapons (helicopters and airplanes or other tanks) that can take them out. But not a single one on the face of the earth that can take it out fired from the shoulder.
A Work in Progress.
Add Me
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Did you miss the part about "very few firefights"? I think you did, please go back and read it.
Body armor does stop a 7.62 round quite effectively, it just shatters or bounces off and the soldier feels nothing but a very hard tap (like getting hit with a baseball). Which is what the Iraqis use. They have VERY few weapons that shoot above 7.62 rounds.
You're talking theory, I'm not... which you're not even really talking theory... you're just assuming. I am being trained to go over there by people who have been over there. They are getting deployed in 10 months for the second time. I'm not going, because I'm also training to be an officer, but I still have to train with my unit while they prepare to go over.
Everyone I know who has been in a firefight say it's not nearly as scary as going through a convoy every single day. Because firefights are less frequent than IEDs and during a firefight you actually have someone shooting at you and you can shoot back. Where as while you're in a convoy, you just pray to god you're not the one who dies.
There are two big difference between what you think and what I know. I'm talking about reality, you're talking about stuff that you think is going on. I haven't seen it first hand yet, so I don't know the nitty gritty details of an encounter, but I have probably spoken with more peopple who have been shot and hit by IED than you know in the military.
A Work in Progress.
Add Me
Also, I have sat through more "How To Stay Alive In Iraq" classes than I can even count. That's not an assumtion either, I really can't count them all.
Yes, btw. The military does have classroom instruction. Quite alot of it actually.
And if you want to see alot of the visual training aids they use, alot if it comes from Ogrish.com. They post things from the insurgent POV.
**Warning Ogrish.com is REAL WAR VIDEOS! No US Censorship. People actually die**
A Work in Progress.
Add Me
wow...you are one cocky bastard.
And I still don't believe that body armor is the only reason that we have fewer casualties, as you have stated.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Ok, that's fine. I'm not debating anything. I'm telling you.
There is a difference.
How am I cocky though? Because I'm actually IN the military and being trained on what goes on over there, learning everything I can from people who have expierienced it first hand, incase I actually do have to deploy with my unit in less than a year? While you're sitting on your couch watching BS News reports with overblown numbers of causalties? You're just getting all mad because someone tells you what is actually happening, rather than what you have dreamed up in your little head.
(yeah that last statement was cocky)
The iraqis don't fucking shoot. They plant bombs, called IEDs. Improvised Explosive Devices. There was a 17yr old kid from my town that was killed by a dead donkey on the side of the road filled with 4 artillery shells.
If the iraqis do shoot, they take pop shots from a building and run.
If the iragis stay for a firefight, it's usually the crazy completely suicidal ones. Because they don't fight like we do. They fire their weapons randomly chanting "ALLAH ACKBAR" becuase they believe that if they are meant to win that Allah will guide the bullet into the US Troops. But, it's much more likely for the suicidal ones like that to get in a car filled with enough explosives to level a city block and drive into a checkpoint.
Firefights are VERY VERY rare. While IEDs are quite common.
There are smart insurgents, they are smart and still alive and very active. They are smart because they dont' blow themselves up and keep adjusting to our tactics.
If you go over there right now and spend 1 year in a red zone, the closest thing you will see to a firefight where there is actually somoene shooting at you... will be mortar rounds. Which are also quite common, but VERY few people are hurt becuase mortars take time to adjust. The iraqis fire a mortar round at a US Position and haul ass because they know a company of infantrymen are heading straight for them immiediatly.
Don't think insurgents are dumb. The ones that are still alive are very smart, they are not that ones blowing themselves up at checkpoints. Those guys are recruited by the smart ones becuase they are morons.
A Work in Progress.
Add Me
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You don't even make sense. How?
We had body armor in Desert Storm too btw. But not as good. But then again, Desert Storm was mainly mechanized and was a completely different fight from Iraq now.
A Work in Progress.
Add Me
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Its not so much that I'm anti war
Its just we live in a democracy the main aim of our collective governments should be to protect its people. The "war on terror" fails to do that. Instead it makes us a big fat target and radicalises more people to act against us.
Besides its not really a war as such its more like a movement there are no battle lines other than the ones we made for ourselves by invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
I suppose as an after thought we should ask ourselves this. Other than beating off an aggressive country/state like Hitlers Germany should we ever go to war at all? And if we need to should we not make sure its done quickly and properly. Rather than what we have done in Iraq?
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
I think the horrors of war often mask the advantages of it. There's good things that come out of it, but because they're usually not as quick to effect us or as obvious, people hardly ever recognize any of the positives.
It'd be great if we could all hold hands and kiss and hug, but there comes a point where you have to be realistic. We're going to have wars, people are going to die, it's just how the cycle goes. I am of the personal belief that once we've gone into a war, it's the people's duty to support our government even if we disagree with it. Making your voice heard if you disapprove is acceptable, but bashing the government over and over after you've made your point is overkill and makes us as a nation look bad. It's kind of like having manners with the freedom of speech or right to protest, just because you have the physical ability to do something without repercussion doesn't mean that you necessarily should.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
No offense Awakened, but unless you're female, that ain't gonna happen. Nothing personal you understand, I'm just not interested in holding hands, kissing, and hugging another guy....
Of course, it would be nice that our country's leadership could continually evaluate their strategy, and react when it starts to come apart, rather than continually saying "stay the course". The Titanic stayed the course....
Very good post. I agree 100%. When the world sees people in the US protesting and marching against the war, it does make our Nation look bad. Especially when you see some of our movie celebrities bash our president and personally protest the war. Sometimes it just makes me sick.
I know Bush's term is almost up, but hopefully our next president will have the strength and fortitude that Bush has now. Actually, I think Bill O'Reilly should run for President.
Oh ok, I understand what you're talking about now and you're right. Those are major factors as well. My point was that body armor is the #1 factor for low casualties.
Yeah, if the iraqis DID have crew served weapons such as our M240b (shoots same rounds as AK47, except 10 times faster), our MK-19 (40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher), or the M2 (.50cal machine gun) then our casualties would be much greater than they are now. Which they did have simliar version of each before we went in.
One thing people do not understand. They dont' understand what "smart bombs" are used for. Smart bombs aren't war. Smart bombs are support weapons. They "soften" targets for the infantry to come in on foot. Same with artillery, mortars, and other missiles. Then we even have softening weapons used by the infantry, like the Javeline. The Javelin is such a beautiful weapon. It actually takes a thermal picture of the target and when it's launched, it takes something like 5 more picutres a second contantly readjusting itself to the target and can put itself through a small window from 800yds+ away.
A Work in Progress.
Add Me
Very good post. I agree 100%. When the world sees people in the US protesting and marching against the war, it does make our Nation look bad. Especially when you see some of our movie celebrities bash our president and personally protest the war. Sometimes it just makes me sick.
Actually, that's the one thing that makes USA look good. Shows that not all americans are brainless puppets.
I know Bush's term is almost up, but hopefully our next president will have the strength and fortitude that Bush has now. Actually, I think Bill O'Reilly should run for President.
Pronunciation:
'for-t&-"tüd, -"tyüdFunction: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin fortitudin-, fortitudo, from fortis
1 : strength of mind that enables a person to encounter danger or bear pain or adversity with courage
I KNOW you meant that as a joke, right? RIGHT??
I just got an email back from my Brother who is an E-9 in the Navy. I sent him a link to this topic. Here is his response:
One things for sure though, and this ain't just my opinion it's from friends over there and friends in high places... We sure ain't winning and if we ain't winning what are we doing? We need to start drawing down and it's time for the Iraqi's (shia and sunni) to start carrying the load because they aren't. Period. They aren't.
The only reason we are there now is to prevent another Rwanda Hutu-Tutsi slaughter and protect the oil. I'm sure we have noble sentiment, at least I'm sure the troops do. The Kurds are doing great up north but the rest of the country is barely under control and probably even worse. I could go on and on because I read about it and talk about it with people who are there or spent alot of time in theatre.
Hell, I've spent too much time in that shit hole myself. Honestly, though Barry - it's a f'ing mess and not much else. Best of intentions no doubt - but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.