What is this an important day?
It the day that means we have been in Iraq longer
then we were in WORLD WAR TWO.
I find that impressive and quite scary.
Kropotkin
That is scary, Peter. But WWII was fought in a time when the US had an interest in winning.
I agree, but Iraq also seems to have been a government
give away to big business, as halliburton shows us.
Truman in 1946 held hearings as to any corporation
that bilk taxpayers were charge with a crime but he said
they were guilty of treason. I miss the good old days
of people doing the right thing.
Kropotkin
Peter - WWII made a great many fortunes. There are plenty of stories of profiteering from that time. Mostly, the government and the people looked the other way.
Iraq is just a stupid war. We have spent a lot of money for the opportunity to shoot a few of the enemy. If we are not prepared to exterminate the enemy, and we are not, then we are wasting our time. Even if no one made any money.
Sunni triangle + saturation bombing + bulldozers + scorched earth = the beginning of victory. What do you think the generals think?
Anything short of that and we don’t stand a chance. You don’t have to be MacArthur to know that.
Yes, the VP’s cronies are making money. If you had bought stock in Haliburton from the beginning, you wouldn’t be looking for a job. Who really owns Haliburton? We do.
Well, I don’t, because I’m stupid.
faust: Peter - WWII made a great many fortunes. There are plenty of stories of profiteering from that time. Mostly, the government and the people looked the other way.
K: including the bush family as gobbo has shown us.
F: Iraq is just a stupid war. We have spent a lot of money for the opportunity to shoot a few of the enemy. If we are not prepared to exterminate the enemy, and we are not, then we are wasting our time. Even if no one made any money.
K: agreed. The democrats have been labeled as the party
of Vietnam for 40 years (correctly) and 40 years from
now the GOP will be branded as the party of Iraq.
F: Sunni triangle + saturation bombing + bulldozers + scorched earth = the beginning of victory. What do you think the generals think?
K: generals are still the paid hands and they do what they are told.
F: Anything short of that and we don’t stand a chance. You don’t have to be MacArthur to know that.
K: Old generals instead of fading away become TV analyst instead.
F: Yes, the VP’s cronies are making money. If you had bought stock in Haliburton from the beginning, you wouldn’t be looking for a job. Who really owns Haliburton? We do.
K: We don’t own the stock, so no, we don’t own halliburton.
F: Well, I don’t, because I’m stupid."
K: you and me both.
Kropotkin
10.20.06.1590
I don’t really see the big significance… honestly, what’s so impressive? Also, why would you say we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII?? (I’ll catch up with that one at the end.) Let me elaborate a little…
In WWII, the United States had a total of 418,500 casualties (11,200 of which were civilians) [not exactly sure that number is completely accurate, but it serves the purpose of this elaboration…]. Now, that’s a big number in the span of a little more than four years (December 7th, 1941 to May 2nd, 1945 in terms of American deaths)…
Before I go on, let me elaborate further that time and attrition are very important. After WWII, the American military really took a step up in its training and proved it with the Vietnam War…
In the Vietnam War… a sick and disgusting affair lasting nearly 16 years (in terms of American deaths from July 8th, 1959 to April 30th, 1975), the United States lost 58,209 American soldiers although 153,303 were WIA. Now, obviously, comparing the numbers yields the clear reason why the military should be a purely voluntary matter… we lost so many in WWII for various reasons… one of which was a draft that no one could control. (One minute John Doe is an aspiring high school grad, ready to go to college… the next, he’s dogmeat in Europe.)
So… now we get down to the Iraq War… a rediculous war where 2,782 Americans have already fallen, with 20,687 WIA (and that includes soldiers who have limbs missing). It’s been over three years, and comparing the numbers… it’s nice to know that those who join the military recieve the best training in the world. I know, that’s a real sick way of looking at it, but it’s true…
Anyway… perhaps by late 2007 we will have out-lasted the length of time we were in WWII, but until then, we can at least attest to the fact that we surely will have less casualites when we compare the numbers of past wars. By the way, what’s up with November 25th? That date has virtually no significance in WWII… sure, V2 rockets… but significance to the United States? None.
How many Iraqi casualties ? Or does that not matter ?
I think it’s around 2,500 American troops dead. I don’t know right off hand how many wounded nor how many Iraqis have died.
600,000 people have died during this pointless war. Pointless and stupid. According to a recent article in a local newsaper.
A
That number is grossly (despicably, pathetically) exaggerated.
The Iraq war has saved more lives than it has cost.
-Thirst
How exactly has it saved lives?
A
Saddam Hussein was murdering people at a greater rate per day than the United States is “murdering” people.
It is estimated that the war has saved as much as 100,000 people that would have died under Hussein.
-Thirst
Same old same old Thirst. I am not going to argue this point again. If this war is indeed about Saddam Husssein then why does it continue? Argh…needless stupid pointless bloodshed. Innocent people’s lives wrecked…on the ground, it is the families that suffer in the name of what? I can’t remember, oh yes, hatred, greed, ignorance, intolerance.
A
I have not claimed that this war was about Saddam Hussein.
I am merely pointing out that the numbers you provided are:
- Greatly Exaggerated
- Misleading
- Pointless because a war should not be judged by numbers.
If wars should be judged by the numbers, your case for ending the war would fail outright.
-Thirst
I’m sorry, Thirst, if you have other figures please report them. Like I said, this is according to a local newspaper.
And no, war is not about numbers, but you are saying that it is about the number of lives it saves. That’s insane that we kill (innocents) to save lives. Mankind has lost it’s way man.
A
My numbers are from the UN, the Iraq Body Count Org (site whose sole purpose is to report civilian casualties), and a score of other sites…
Was your local newspaper the Lancet?
You misunderstood my mirroring your numbers with counter stats.
It is not about the number of lives saved.
It is not about the number of lives lost.
It is about whether or not it is a just/right war.
That cannot be decided by numbers.
Mankind has lost its way? When was this not its way?
I think we need to discover or create a new way.
EDIT: And yes, in WWII, people killed to save.
-Thirst
Thirst,
Think of it on a personal level. Take it all the way into your cellular make up. Now think about inflicting pain. Now tell me that this is the way.
A
When you put it that way… I think I understand your point about ‘the way’.
That still does not answer whether or not this is a just war.
-Thirst
My mom used to work for the government and had to do some statistical work. Because of that she has warned me quite a lot to never judge anything by statistics unless I personally came up with them objectively. Statistics can be so greatly skewed to fit any type of argument.
Exactly what would represent victory ? what would represent the “enemy defeated” and “the US has won the war” ? How could you notice if the US wins this war ? What is the goal exactly ? very confused …