Iraq (a try to have some meanningful conversation...)

[T2k]

This is one of those silly arguments that people like to use from time to time. Presidents often have a "working vacation". Do you really think they are just fooling around and not taking care of any of the nation's business? Truman rode on a ship to meet Stalin and Churchill for the Pottsdam Conference and I'm sure he had a few drinks and enjoyed himself on the way.

Right, exactly that's why Bush's several weeks long vacation was outrageous in a midst opf a war and days after Katrina... or remember the tsunami... or...

 

[vurbano]

But Vurbano is stating exactly that.

Yes a casualty of 2300 over a 3 year period for a war is nothing. The numbers prove that. We lost 70,000 lives a year in WWII. In Iraq we are losing 767 a year.

According to info on wikipedia.org, approximately 418,500 Americans died as a result of WWII (including military and civilian deaths).

 

[Bob Haller]

LETS KEEP THIS CIVIL!

You better watch out, young folks may not enlist in the volunteer army if the public feels the military is being misused.

This could bring back the draft

How many here have friends or family of draft age? How you you like to see them conscripted annd come back in a coffin?

 

[T2k]

*Boring Technical Announcement*

[Boring Technical Announcement]
In case somebody is unable to recognise it - apparently there are quite a few -, I'm ignoring every idiotic post with zero substance, without comment on the subject at hand. THX
[/Boring Technical Announcement]

 

[vurbano]

So you're still stand firm behind your statement that 2-3000 dead people is nothing , right?

For a 3 year war it is nothing. 767 deaths a year compared to 7300 a year in vietnam. Thats a 90% reduction in casualty rate. This is not even remotely comparable to Vietnam no matter how many times the Liberals use the "Quagmire" word

How quickly we forget our roots, (well not yours comrade) when Mr Jefferson said

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants"

I dont think that only applies to our Republic, but to any circumstance where people desire freedom from oppression, such as Iraq.

 

[Chado]

For a 3 year war it is nothing. 767 deaths a year compared to 7300 a year in vietnam. Thats a 90% reduction in casualty rate. This is not even remotely comparable to Vietnam no matter how many times the Liberals use the "Quagmire" word

Then why are you comparing it to Vietnam? Feel free to edit yet another of your posts.

 

[vurbano]

Then why are you comparing it to Vietnam? Feel free to edit yet another of your posts.

It wasnt me that started the comparison. try reading.

You discount the toll on the survivors the sons fathers and husband who only come home in a coffin. Plus you ignore the 10 of thousands of innocent iraquis who die or lose body parts, arent they the ones we went to save? Let alone the mental harm to returning american soldiers.

Heck its one thing if you win, but just like vietnam we are in a war of attrition.

the coming congressional election is a slam dunk for the democrats provided they dont do something stupid

or 9/11. If I want to add a thought or correct a word in one of my posts I will do so.

 

[Chado]

Over 58,000 americans died in Vietnam from 1965 to 1973, 8 years. There is no comparison.

I have a hard time reading your posts when they are constantly edited.

But I think you started the comparison.... But actually I may be wrong, as I was still reeling from your comparison to automobile accidents...

 

[vurbano]

LETS KEEP THIS CIVIL!

You better watch out, young folks may not enlist in the volunteer army if the public feels the military is being misused.

This could bring back the draft

How many here have friends or family of draft age? How you you like to see them conscripted annd come back in a coffin?

I see no reason to bring back the draft at these low casualty rates.

 

[vurbano]

I have a hard time reading your posts when they are constantly edited.

But I think you started the comparison.... But actually I may be wrong, as I was still reeling from your comparison to automobile accidents...

You are wrong. Try reading the thread.

 

[Chado]

You are wrong. Try reading the thread.

Why? Some posts constantly change...

 

[vurbano]

Why? Some posts constantly change...

This was the first mention of Vietnam:

The bloodbath occurs daily in iraq for both soldiers who arent allowed to win, and citizens who never wanted us there in the first place.

the next blood bath will be the republican congress people massacred at the polls because Bush led them to slaughter.......

Time is wasting, that just means more deaths ands Bush appears detached from reality.

Sooner or later we will find our leader a draft evader himself has been on the booze bottle.

A sad time in american history. Hopefully just like Vietnam the publics pressure and coming revolt at the polls will keep it from happening again, at least in my lifetime, I am 49.

When you cant win a war, its time to admit defeat and go home

 

[Chado]

Agreed, but you miss my point. You continue to compare Vietnam when validating your casualty argument. You cannot say stop comparing when you are the one that is continuing to compare.

 

[vurbano]

Agreed, but you miss my point. You continue to compare Vietnam when validating your casualty argument. You cannot say stop comparing when you are the one that is continuing to compare.

I didnt compare anything. I contrasted the casualty rate it to WWII and Vietnam after they were introduced into the arguement by others. That data is necessary when contrasting casualty rates. The two wars are very different, NOT similar, NOT comparable, far less lives are being lost and the military forces were defeated long ago. That was not the case in Vietnam. This casualty rate is crucial in dispelling the myth that somehow this is as bad as Vietnam and we need public outrage to end the war.

-edited for Chado's understanding

 

[HokieEngineer]

Please stop with the personal attacks. This goes FOR EVERYONE. I'm not going to single anyone out.

If you do not agree with what someone has to say, either ignore it, or provide meaningful discussion. Name calling gets us nowhere.

 

[Chado]

I didnt compare anything. I contrasted the casualty rate it to WWII and Vietnam after they were introduced into the arguement by others. That data is necessary when contrasting casualty rates. The two wars are very different, NOT similar, NOT comparable, far less lives are being lost and the military forces were defeated long ago. That was not the case in Vietnam. This casualty rate is crucial in dispelling the myth that somehow this is as bad as Vietnam and we need public outrage to end the war.

-edited for Chado's understanding

Statistically, I completely agree with you although I do not believe that a pure statistical comparison is enough justification to consider Iraq a success. I also challenge you to present that argument to any person who lost someone in any war.

I do believe that Vietnam and Iraq are similar in a few areas. Both are/were fought out of fear of "isms", Communisim and Terrorism. I know that sounds like a stupid argument, but if you think about it, it really isn't. Both are generated from fear. Remember Joe McCarthy? Remember the Cuban Missle Crisis? One could argue that was just as frightening to run through daily air raid drills and the constant speculation that your neighbor was a communist. It's my opinion that this administration also used fear to validate the Iraq war and also to maintain the status quo in Washington during times of election.

Both wars are/were fought without an understanding of the cultures within the location of where they were fought. This is a very important point that really doesn't get enough attention.

I also think both are/were unpopular wars and after all if the public does nothing to disagree with it, then nothing will be done to stop it. After all this is a government of the people, correct?

I will also add that Vietnam and Iraq cannot be compared on many levels due to the overall political climate of the world, but refusing to see what happened in Vietnam may be the downfall of our efforts in Iraq.

 

[Bob Haller]

I see no reason to bring back the draft at these low casualty rates.

Casulty rate doesnt matter. Publics perception of wether war is necessary and effective.

If the public loses confidence in the necessity for war volunteering will drop, whch we already see.

At some point draft may become needed.

Military doesnt JUST need to replace the dead, but the retiring injured and others who forwhatever reason are released.

like few would probably sign up for unlimited service, young folks want to get married, and start a family. Stop loss is just a temporary fix....

Vietnam and Iraq are the SAME in one important way

In both cases the military wasnt given the necessary tools to win.

when you invade a country you must overwhelm them, and not be concerened with looking too strong

 

[Chado]

If the public loses confidence in the necessity for war volunteering will drop, whch we already see.

At some point draft may become needed.

I think this is a valid point. Joining the armed forces is no longer viewed as an easy way to pay for college.

 

[vurbano]

when you invade a country you must overwhelm them, and not be concerened with looking too strong

Good point. Unfortunately the Liberals would never allow it. Its too politically advantageous to scream "Quagmire lets cut and run" and use that as a platform to campaign on since they have no platform. The more I see how mindless and gutless the liberals are the more I am convinced that soon we will all be on our knees 5 times a day facing east.

 

[Chado]

Good point. Unfortunately the Liberals would never allow it. Its too politically advantageous to scream "Quagmire lets cut and run" and use that as a platform to campaign on since they have no platform.

It's funny that the liberals are blamed when stuff isn't done right, when actually the liberals were not the ones making the decisions...