Discussion
1500 dead US troops is just going to be the tip of a very large iceberg. The US will be in Iraq for a long time to come, I would say indefinitely, as one of the reasons for the pseudo war in the first place was to gain a strategic hold on Middle East soil. The number of insurgents is estimated to be about 150,000 and you can take your pick from a host of countries which can supply replacements. Some are obviously more hardcore than others.
Bush and his cohorts are now making serious overtures towards Syria, they're privately eyeing 'regime change' but of course it will be under the banner of fighting terrorism. Then the Iranians will have to be neutralized before they develop a nuclear capability or it really is game over.
What we are looking at is a potential for many, many more numbers to be added to the deathtoll on all sides. Madness under the guise of freedom.
The deathtoll itself, 1500, is only one statistic. You're also looking at circa times 10 wounded, some with horrific injuries; amputees, double, triple I've even seen some quadruple amputees. The kevlar body armour is keeping a lot of troops alive that would almost certainly have been killed in previous conflicts.
Just seen Bush on TV, he says 'The world is now beginning to speak with one voice'.
Yes, quite and it has a Yankee accent.
Bush and his cohorts are now making serious overtures towards Syria, they're privately eyeing 'regime change' but of course it will be under the banner of fighting terrorism. Then the Iranians will have to be neutralized before they develop a nuclear capability or it really is game over.
What we are looking at is a potential for many, many more numbers to be added to the deathtoll on all sides. Madness under the guise of freedom.
The deathtoll itself, 1500, is only one statistic. You're also looking at circa times 10 wounded, some with horrific injuries; amputees, double, triple I've even seen some quadruple amputees. The kevlar body armour is keeping a lot of troops alive that would almost certainly have been killed in previous conflicts.
Just seen Bush on TV, he says 'The world is now beginning to speak with one voice'.
Yes, quite and it has a Yankee accent.
you must lay off those late night coffees .......you will end up having paranoid episodes.......
All is calm ,all is well
seriously though.......anything that Dubya & cohorts have got 'planned' for Iran/Syria and other 'enemies of freedom'......is highly worrying.......Especially as Putin is looking to get back to 'the good old ways' again and may use the US of A's world police cobblers to crank up a Soviet superpower re-generation to help with homeland security/sovereignty
All is calm ,all is well
seriously though.......anything that Dubya & cohorts have got 'planned' for Iran/Syria and other 'enemies of freedom'......is highly worrying.......Especially as Putin is looking to get back to 'the good old ways' again and may use the US of A's world police cobblers to crank up a Soviet superpower re-generation to help with homeland security/sovereignty
tinman0 said:
1500 dead US troops
if you want a safe job, don't join the army.
whats the quote about the king's shilling?
The problem is that they pay for your school. I know people who joined just for this, they don't see the potential to die, just a bunch of money towards the education we're told you HAVE to have, but can't otherwise afford. Of course, the recruiters are very, very good and very, very pushy. They gloss over the whole dying thing. All they talk about is the comradeship, the fun, and the potential for a career.
Not to mention that college money. They call me all the time. Why? I scored very well on standardized testing, and I come from a rural area. They ask how I'm paying for school(parents), "what would I do if it didn't work out?" (after I've been accepted), why I don't want to be a foot soldier making jack sh
t instead of a student, so on, so on. They even said I should drop out of school to enlist. Going on and on about how I could serve my country(I asked him to send me information on West Point and Anapolis, but he never did), and they'd pay for my school! Save my parents some money! Funny, I wouldn't doubt that my parents would pay double my tuition rates to keep me from enlisting. I HATE the recruiters, willing to say anything to meet their projections, they mislead people who are grasping at straws, and will outright lie to you. I told one to put a notation in my file stating that my father said he'd disown me if I enlisted(so maybe I lied), the next guy who called asked me about this first thing, the third guy said there was nothing to that effect in my file, and never had been. Lying bastard.
Sorry for the rant, you touched a nerve.
The US don't have the troops to support anything other than the activities they have already been involved in.
As far as I understand it they are merely helping the civilians to protest, through the use of a token force that prevents the civilian protestors being shot on the streets.
I'm not too worried myself, the place doesn't sound too democratic to me!
As far as I understand it they are merely helping the civilians to protest, through the use of a token force that prevents the civilian protestors being shot on the streets.
I'm not too worried myself, the place doesn't sound too democratic to me!
How would you feel if your Commander-in-Chief said you were going into battle to rid a tyrant of weapons of mass destruction which were an iminent threat to your homeland.
You go over there and have your arms and legs blown off by a suicide bomber, and then, a few months later, find out there were no weapons and no threat.
If it were me I think I'd feel a little peaved about the situation.
You go over there and have your arms and legs blown off by a suicide bomber, and then, a few months later, find out there were no weapons and no threat.
If it were me I think I'd feel a little peaved about the situation.
Gazboy said:
How would you feel if your Commander-in-Chief said you were going into battle to rid a tyrant of weapons of mass destruction which were an iminent threat to your homeland.
You go over there and have your arms and legs blown off by a suicide bomber, and then, a few months later, find out there were no weapons and no threat.
If it were me I think I'd feel a little peaved about the situation.
Good point- presume you sign an agreement to not sue the USA government for shit like this?
Yeah, we call it signing your life away.
los angeles said:
Hilts said:
1500 dead US troops
... and over 100,000 civilians. What price "democracy?"
Bush doesn't want democracy, he wants a pro-american Irak, he wants oil and the control over it, and a "democratic" market for Coca Cola and mcShit and co....you don't really think that Saddam was a threat to the US, do you? he just wasn't the flavour of the month with money grabber Bush
>> Edited by JMGS4 on Tuesday 8th March 07:29
sirtophamhat said:Just the opposite to when I signed up over here. Both recruitment and training made it perfectly clear what you were there for, what you were expected to do if 5h1t came to pass, and what could happen to you in the process. All crystal clear. Makes me wonder about recruiting standards anywhere if the folks they end up with can't work it out for themeselves anyway.
The problem is that they pay for your school. I know people who joined just for this, they don't see the potential to die, just a bunch of money towards the education we're told you HAVE to have, but can't otherwise afford. Of course, the recruiters are very, very good and very, very pushy. They gloss over the whole dying thing. All they talk about is the comradeship, the fun, and the potential for a career.
greenlandy said:
Not trying to hijack this thread but: When I joined up many years ago :cough: 1987. It was made very clear that you could be expected to go to war and die for you country. You sign the dotted line etc etc.
>> Edited by greenlandy on Tuesday 8th March 08:52
Fair enough. But, supposing your son or daughter joined up and had their legs and arms blown off by the enemy. The reason given for the war by the top man was that he/she was ridding a tyrant of WMD - but it turns out that there wasn't any threat or WMD. I think you'd have every right to feel a little narked!
1500 soldiers is a drop in the ocean compared to the 50,000 killed in Vietnam. If anything I actually find it reassuring that the yanks have accepted that soldiers can die - you recall their hurried pull out of Somalia because of 15 (ish) deaths? Welcome to the real world - if they still had the "no yank soldiers must die" attitude then they'd try and do everything with bombing campaigns and kill even more civilians.
dilbert said:
The US don't have the troops to support anything other than the activities they have already been involved in.
There are currently 2 pending legislative draft bills which will sort that particular problem out. The US reservists are feeling the strain hence the draft, how many fronts can the US fight on it's global war on terror ?
The US will be in Iraq indefinitely given a continuation of the present political incumbency's policies, this old chestnut about stabilising the security situation is a smokescreen. They want a strategic base and they've now got one.
Yes 50,000 died in Vietnam but they were there for 10 years, also like I said before the Kevlar is keeping a lot of troops alive but with horrific injuries. In 10 years I wonder what the deaths total will be especially if Syria and Iran are next on the agenda.
This is from one of the draft bills.
Universal National Service Act 2004 HR163 said:
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
Still I won't be signing up any time soon to fight his phoney wars.
nel said:
1500 soldiers is a drop in the ocean compared to the 50,000 killed in Vietnam. If anything I actually find it reassuring that the yanks have accepted that soldiers can die - you recall their hurried pull out of Somalia because of 15 (ish) deaths? Welcome to the real world - if they still had the "no yank soldiers must die" attitude then they'd try and do everything with bombing campaigns and kill even more civilians.
You can't compare Iraq to Vietnam. The soldiers who went to Vietnam were fighting a real enemy supported by the Russians. However, the nature of the terrain and country meant it was impossible to win such a war. Iraq is different - there was no threat. So, in Vietnam soldiers knew why they were going. However, in Iraq the entire premise for war has been proven to be wrong.
srebbe64 said:
You can't compare Iraq to Vietnam. The soldiers who went to Vietnam were fighting a real enemy supported by the Russians. However, the nature of the terrain and country meant it was impossible to win such a war. Iraq is different - there was no threat. So, in Vietnam soldiers knew why they were going. However, in Iraq the entire premise for war has been proven to be wrong.
I agree absolutely that you can't compare them - that was one of the things that has always annoyed me in press coverage over the past couple of years - drawing parallels where they don't exist.
By the way, "Iraq is different - there was no threat" - what was the direct threat to the US in the case of Vietnam? None at all, it was a part of the war against communism in general.
So, here's a question. If the Tories were in power and had taken The United Kingdom to war under false pretenses, would Tony Blair (leader of the opposition) still support the action? Somehow, I think not.
Here's the tragedy though, despite this monumental cock-up the Tories haven't made political capital out of it. It beggars belief!
>> Edited by srebbe64 on Tuesday 8th March 15:59
Here's the tragedy though, despite this monumental cock-up the Tories haven't made political capital out of it. It beggars belief!
>> Edited by srebbe64 on Tuesday 8th March 15:59
srebbe64 said:
So, here's a question. If the Tories were in power and had taken The United Kingdom to war under false pretenses, would Tony Blair (leader of the opposition) still support the action? Somehow, I think not.
Here's the tragedy though, despite this monumental cock-up the Tories haven't made political capital out of it. It beggars belief!
But given that they were pro-war, they were poorly placed to chuck stones at the Labour govt. They did their best to raise the noise levels on no WMDs and the Kelly affair, but given their lack of a credible leader it didn't get them very far.
nel said:
So, here's a question. If the Tories were in power and had taken The United Kingdom to war under false pretenses, would Tony Blair (leader of the opposition) still support the action? Somehow, I think not.
Here's the tragedy though, despite this monumental cock-up the Tories haven't made political capital out of it. It beggars belief!
But given that they were pro-war, they were poorly placed to chuck stones at the Labour govt. They did their best to raise the noise levels on no WMDs and the Kelly affair, but given their lack of a credible leader it didn't get them very far.
They were only pro-war because, like the rest of us, they believed the intelligence was beyond question.
Another tragedy is this: The next time the Government claim that they have irrefutable information that another country is a threat, no one will believe them.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff