Interesting Figures

nochawk

nochawk

Moderator
Messages
2,979
Below is some very interesting data reference deaths in the
military. I guarantee you will not read this in your local newspaper nor
will you see it on the daily news broadcast. I pray this will encourage
you to enlighten folks around you to the brave and courageous young people
serving in our military. You may want to print the web site at the bottom
and read the numbers in detail. I haven't found this data wrong thru
Snopes.
>
> Deaths in the Military
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1980 .......... 2,392
>> >>>> 1981 .......... 2,380
>> >>>> 1982 .......... 2,318
>> >>>> 1983 ......... 2,465
>> >>>> 1984 .......... 1,999
>> >>>> 1985 .......... 2,252
>> >>>> 1986 .......... 1,984
>> >>>> 1987 .......... 1,983
>> >>>> 1988 .......... 1,819
>> >>>> 1989 .......... 1,636
>> >>>> 1990 ......... 1,508
>> >>>> 1991 .......... 1,787
>> >>>> 1992 .......... 1,293
>> >>>> 1993 .......... 1,213
>> >>>> 1994 ......... 1,075
>> >>>> 1995 .......... 1,040
>> >>>> 1996 .......... 974
>> >>>> 1997 .......... 817
>> >>>> 1998 .......... 826
>> >>>> 1999 .......... 795
>> >>>> 2000 .......... 774
>> >>>> 2001 .......... 890
>> >>>> 2002 .......... 1007
>> >>>> 2003 .......... 1,410 [534*]
>> >>>> 2004 .......... 1,887 [900*]
>> >>>> 2005 .......... [919*]
>> >>>> 2006 .......... [920*]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Figures so noted with an asterisk (*) indicate s deaths as a
>> >>>> result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You may initially feel confused when you look at these figures
>> >>>> --especially when you see that in 1980, during the term of President
>> >>>> Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities. What this
>> >>>> clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> choose and tend to present only those facts that support their
>> >>>> agenda
>> >>>> driven reporting. Another fact our left media and politicians like
> to
>> >>>> slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are
>> >>>> minorities. Wrong again - The latest census shows the following:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> European descent (white) ..... 69.12%
>> >>>> Hispanic .... 12.5%
>> >>>> African American ..... 12.3%
>> >>>> Asian ..... 3.7%
>> >>>> Native American .... 1.0%
>> >>>> Other ..... 2.6%
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> European descent (white) .... 74.31%
>> >>>> Hispanic ..... 10.74%
>> >>>> African American ... 9.67%
>> >>>> Asian ..... 1.81%
>> >>>> Native American .... 1.09%
>> >>>> Other ..... 2.33%
>> >>>>
>> >>>> These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Pass this on, Semper Fi.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
 
Truth is those on the left could give a rats a$$ how many military men die protecting them. Their numbers dead is a mere tool to propagate their hatred for Bush and anti war sentiment. Truth be told the more that die the better they like it. That is FACT..........DUDE!!!!!









?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
"What this
>> >>>> clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> choose and tend to present only those facts that support their
>> >>>> agenda
>> >>>> driven reporting."

What this clearly indicates is that the author of this didn't include the rest of the information in the DoD document...hmmm...who is choosing to present only those facts that support their agenda???

The response this clearly indicates is another big fat..."SO WHAT???".

I read the report and there were nearly 1 million more soldiers on active duty in 1980 than there were in 2006. Other data I've found indicates there were 1888 military deaths in 2006...not just deaths from Operation Enduring Freedom.
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf
That's a difference of 524 soldiers between the years 1980 and 2006. That also makes the death rate per 100,000 serving .5% in 1980 and .7% in 2006,
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates1.pdf

Also, the peak in military deaths from 1980-1999 was in 1984, while Reagan was in office. Again...SO WHAT??

What is the point of the post?
 
Even if your figures are correct TK it shoes without a doubt that our military is doing a dang good job and that the death rate for being at war is extreemy low. This hinges into my previous post on how the Left uses the death number as a tool and that they could care less how many die. So I would no say "So What"




?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
I don't understand your way of thinking 202. The Left is who wants the military OUT of Iraq so no more soldiers die. The way I'm seeing it, they don't WANT more people to die in a war they simply don't agree with. So they are using the death count to their advantage for their cause. To ME...it seems the right doesn't care how many more die...just as long as we WIN....so send MORE troops (which is what we've done).

>Even if your figures are correct
>TK it shoes without a
>doubt that our military is
>doing a dang good job
>and that the death rate
>for being at war is
>extreemy low. This hinges into
>my previous post on how
>the Left uses the death
>number as a tool and
>that they could care less
>how many die. So I
>would no say "So What"
>
 
Gee, only 3815 dead Americans in Iraq so far ? why heck that's nothing. if it's this painless lets attack everyone! WHOO HOO!
go get'em guys! I'll hold your coat!
 
TripleK, I believe 202 is making the point that the left do NOT care how many soldiers die in Iraq, they use the dead soldiers to get their agenda sold to the 'average' American, by playing on their emotions(the SOP of the left). The left is against this war because they hate Bush, not because they give a rat's behind about our soldiers, just look at the comments these 'compassionate' politcians say about our soldiers, calling them cold blood killers/terrorists/rapists/torturers. etc.. If they truly care about the soldiers they wouldn't bad-mouth them DAILY.

These figures do NOT minimize the cost of war, they DO show how the left and the drive-by(has been) media distorts how bad it is over there in comparison to 'peace times'.

PRO
 
These figures only show how anyone can take a set of numbers and distort them to fit their own agenda.
 
You're right 3K. We should just surrender and let Iran and Syria split the spoils. Let them establish a foothold in the Middle East and then become world powers (a Islamist-Theocratic oligarchy) who could then dictate policy on a global scale with complete and utter control over one of the largest sources of energy on this planet. They will also be a nuclear power which really makes things interesting. Makes perfect sense.

Americans should capitulate and stick their collective heads in the sand (pun intended). We may have to try and take it again and that would cost many more thousands of lives, but hey, as long as we can bail out now and save our troops in the near term, we could then let THEIR kids deal with radical islam at a later date.

Thats it. I am voting for the surrender party candidate who can get us out the fastest. Any of you dems out there know who that is? Kucinich? Clinton? Hussien Obama?
 
>I don't understand your way of
>thinking 202. The Left is
>who wants the military OUT
>of Iraq so no more
>soldiers die. The way
>I'm seeing it, they don't
>WANT more people to die
>in a war they simply
>don't agree with. So
>they are using the death
>count to their advantage for
>their cause. To ME...it
>seems the right doesn't care
>how many more die...just as
>long as we WIN....so send
>MORE troops (which is what
>we've done).
>
>>Even if your figures are correct
>>TK it shoes without a
>>doubt that our military is
>>doing a dang good job
>>and that the death rate
>>for being at war is
>>extreemy low. This hinges into
>>my previous post on how
>>the Left uses the death
>>number as a tool and
>>that they could care less
>>how many die. So I
>>would no say "So What"
>>

Yes TK believe it or not folks die in war and inorder to WIN a war you have to kill more than the other side until they say uncle. WINNING is key to war. You do not go to war to lose. Nearly every single Democrat agreed to send troops into Iraq and now they wave around the death count as a battle cry to get out of war. They dishonor those that have died by doing this. It is completely political. They could care less about the death toll. As long as the toll keeps growing they keep waving it. Wars are not won by exhaulting a death toll day in and day out.
The right knows what it takes to win a war and they have the stomach and the courage to get it done which is what MUST be done to win.

Lets break it down to a more personal level.
Some bandits invade a mans property while he is having a family reunion. These bandits open fire killing several familly members. The mans family takes up arms to defend its self. The family in very short order takes out almost every single bandidt but it cost two more family members. However the last bandidt standing will not stop. He keeps firing away, killing another family member then another. So I ask you TK do you keep shooting until the last bandidt is dead or do you cut and run and let the bandidt not only take the lives of your precious family members but take over your land, your house your life and keep you on the run forever?


?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
"The right knows what it takes to win a war" 202, that's your best one ever, you say lots of dumb stuff but that's classic.

They've just been waiting for the right time to win in Iraq and kill Bin Laden right?

Your heart is pumping pure Kool Aid buddy.
 
Dude's statement, "If it's this painless lets attack everyone! WHOO HOO! Go get then guys! I'll hold your coat".
Dude we have already figured out for ourselves that you will always be in the back some where holding the coat for the service men who are fighting for your country. We had alot of other ones like you during the years of 1965-1972, but then we, the guys in the military, just called them "yellow belly draft dodgers".
I learned a long time ago that during any war this country has, there will be ones like you who will be only willing to let others do the fighting so you can stand safely in the background and hold their coats, and use your rights to bad mouth our country as others die for those rights that you use.
Today we have no draft and the term "yellow Belly draft dodger" is outdated, but the term "yellow belly" still prevails in some areas.

RELH
 
Nuff Said!!


?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
You guys are so dumb I don't know why I try, if I don't think this war is a just cause and I didn't ask anyone to go to Iraq why would I consider going or wish for someone else to? again with the Iraq makes me safer BS, step the war down and end it, I'll gladly take my chances thank you, seems you're a bigger coward than me huh? I don't hide under the table and send someone elses kids to a hell hole sand box to fight people who MIGHT have MAYBE SOMEDAY TRIED to make an attemt to hurt me.

Unless your butts are over there what makes you one bit more patriotic or brave than me? the only danger to you is if your tv shorts out while watching the war on FOX.

If I were the only one thinking as I do then I might step back and question myself, since it's just you and what's left of the Kool Aid gang behind this thing I consider the source.
 
Your are right dude, er I mean Neville. Go bury your head in the sand, it is much safer there. I say AGAIN, when is it EVER a good idea to wage a war based on opinion polls? It is either right or wrong, regardless of it's popularity. Liberals and pinheads w/o direction look to polls for where to stand on issues, people of courage have something foriegn to you, it's called CONVICTION. You DO NOT pull out because some liberal weinies protest and say they are looking out for the troops. Ask the troops where they stand, not some granloa crunching illegal alien employeeing wuss! And guess what, the overwhelming majority of our troops voted for Bush in 2004, and EVERY single soldier over there has either re-enlisted since the war started or signed up after it started, that tells me they think we need to be there, and everyone of them I have talked to has said things are nowhere as bad over there as the liberal media portrays it to be.

PRO
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-10-07 AT 09:47AM (MST)[p] Thanks Pro you just proved my point, you're an idiot.

Every single solder over there has re-enlisted or signed up after the war started? now that's an amazing observation. unless they wanted to be over there illegally and not get paid enlisting would be a great idea. what about the ones who didn't re-enlist?


So we're going to run our country by what the military wants?
good idea, martial law seems to work great all over the world.

It's really great over there but the liberal media won't tell us? that's getting tired, try something new would you. might want to let Bush know how good it's going, then he could stop fighting for more troops and money. he'ld like that, give him a jingle.
 
Well I just recently talked to two gentlemen who came back from Iraq. I not knowing everything about this war, but what you hear on the news or read in the paper asked them : "So do you feel we need to be over there? " Both answered "yes" and these are the guys that are risking their lives every day for what they believe to be right. Who am I to sit in a safe room on a computer and say any different. I BELIEVE if OUR SOLDIERS are believing in the cause then by heck I'm with em 100% because they have seen the TRUE facts not the political facts.........not the medias facts.
Just my .02
 
I also have friends and family members who are either over right now or served and are now back home and all of them said that there isn't ANY network that shows the truth. A good friend of mine that I used to work with served in Iraq and Afghanistan and said as bad as it was, that we are doing great things over there and it is working. And they all agreed that leaving now would completely negate the sacrifices that 1000's of soldiers have made to help give a better life to a country that hates them. They have all basically told me this. War is a nasty ugly terrible thing that nobody wants to see, BUT I enlisted knowing that one day I may be called upon to lay my life on the line for my country and I made the decision to make that commitment. When Dude says "sending someone?s kid to this sandbox hellhole" I don't know anyone who was forced to sign up for the military and then handed a gun put on a plane and let loose to go "die for your country" it was a choice that they made. Don?t get me wrong, there is nothing that gets to me more than to hear about a soldier getting killed or hurt protecting my rights, but that is a decision that they made knowing that the military goes to war when war is necessary.
 
Huntn30inchers;

Very well said, but never in your wildest dreams expect persons like Dude to understand it, or to except it. When I think of persons with Dude's mentality, I also think of a qoute that I have heard before. "A brave man only dies once, a coward dies a thousand times".
Dude do not come back with your B.S. about if that is the way I feel, I should join up and be over there. UNLIKE YOU, I have done my service for my country. I joined,was not drafted, the U.S. Army in June of 1965 when things just got heated up in Viet Nam knowing I stood a very good chance of going over to the big pond since my M.O.S. was a combat engineer, and not one that would allow me to remain in the background holding a fighting man's coat like you stated you would do.
What in Hades have you done for your country except to badmouth it and pay taxes. Having relatives as former military members does not count either, DID YOU HOLD THEIR COATS AS WELL!
RELH
 
I've been over there in two different conflicts. Does my opinion count? I will write this so as not to insult anyones intelligence, on both sides of the arguement.

My opinion is this:

It was plain stupid from most (and mine) Americans point of view, to go into Iraq in the first place. But that is hindsight/Monday morning QB'ing. At the time, the intel suggested that there was an "active" program to procure and produce WMD's. I believe there was at the time, but there was so much dikkin' around before we did anything, Iraq had about 2 years to "sanitize" everything. They were very tight with Syria and have always been. The border is very close to some of the known storage facilities. It would be a hop/skip/jump to move them to Syria and some satellite photos suggest this in fact happened while Bush was beating the UN over the head to get more aggressive on inspections.

Remember also; BOTH sides of the aisle had seen the same intel that Bush was looking at and signed on completely.

Combat doctrine dictated to me back in the late 80's when Iraq was our ally, clearly emphasized that that they had and in fact used nerve agents (on the Iranians) and later on, on the Northern Kurds after the 1st gulf war (we've all seen the photos), because of the Kurdish alliance we had. We drilled our asses off in the Gulf for nerve and biological attacks.

We destroyed their oil platforms and raided others in the 1st Gulf War (actually the second) in 91,

#1. To make a political statement

#2. to protect shipping and allied Military Navies from Scuds and some Russian hardware (anti-ship cruise missiles) that were mobile enough to be used from said platforms.

Now, we have a tiger by the tail. Agreed, probably never should have grabbed it. The threat now is that Iran and Syria WILL control Iraq if we leave. That places vast amounts of oil reserves in their hands, giving them FINANCIAL/GEO-POLITICAL leverage on a GLOBAL SCALE.

I believe that Russia and/or China (especially the Chicoms) would love to have access to that oil for their expanding energy use, and would no doubt love to become Iran/Syria/Iraqs new best buddies. Make no mistake, China is not our friend. The US has vowed to protect Taiwan and China WANTS Taiwan, and has been posturing its military to take it when they want it. We are in cold war with them, despite the trade. (Think about that the next time you buy some cheap, China made crap from WalMart).

Now, I can totally empathize with those that want to get out of there (Iraq). But the hard realities are, it goes way beyond the loss of lives. Again, hard realities. I got people over there myself and am scared sick sometimes, but they understand. They volunteered, and they feel that U.S. "interests" over there are worth the occupation.

Think about this. We've been in Europe, Japan, and SE Asia ever since our conflicts with them. Hundreds of thousands of troops. We never left. We've maintained a presence. I've been to So. Korea and if you think our troops are livin' La Vida Loca over there, you've got another think comin'. They are eyeball to eyeball with a nuclear power over there that wants So. Korea badly. The US Military is all that stands in the way.

Sorry for the long-winded diatribe. But from someone who has "been there" and "done that" in some cold and hot war zones, this situation over in Iraq requires our presence. We would rue the day we didn't leave Iraq stable, and maintained a presence, however long it takes. No matter the cost. I believe, because of our dependence on the resources over there AND the leverage that we wield, Americas survival does depend on us being there.

Agreed, it probably never should have come to this. But its reality and its a much bigger picture than most of us can appreciate.
 
Well said Nemont and I agree for the most part. what I'm not sure about is that we will ever have a stabile Iraq, one thing is for sure the leaders in place in Iraq right now will never get the job done. so what do we do? we can't just clean house and start over. even the dems are admitting a quick pull out isn't a possiblity, we know that already but a everlasting occupation isn't going to happen so back to reality. we're going to draw down troop numbers and Iraq is going to have to take the ball and run with it, I feel they will fall apart. the end result works out the same no matter how you go about it.

RELH you're rambling again. your personal attacks must stir what's left of your brain and give you some much needed energy so go ahead, I can take it.

I'm taking a Iraq vet and his son out to shoot a buck tonight,the last night of the season. he's my sister's freind's new boyfriend and I've never met him. he lost part of his foot from a mortar two years ago I guess. he has a tag for my unit and can't get around real well so I told them the other day if he drove over from the valley I'd take him out and let him shoot a hay field buck, not big sport but he hasn't hunted much. I hope to get a little insight on what he thinks about the war, but unlike RELH I have enough class I won't grill him or ruin his hunt with an inquisition.
 
JimNV, God bless you for finally giving some rational insight into this debate. I have long felt the real objective in Iraq was to establish a military presence in that region. The problem I see with that objective is without a full scale invasion we are doomed to fail. That is probably why the best military minds at the time recommended a force of 500,000 to secure the area. It seems in hindsight that Bush, Cheney and Rummsfeld thought they could win through sheer arrogance.

So, now the question begs, what the hell do we do now? I hardly see the point in wallowing in the mess we created. Full scale pullout is not an option for the reasons you stated. The American people and economy cannot sustain a full scale invasion at this point. Perhaps it's time for Bush to really start talking to our allies instead of treating them like lap dogs. If we could occupy Iraq with a sustainable coalition force, maybe just maybe we could establish the kind of government and local military necessary to secure the country. I don't have the answers and unfortunately no one else seems to either. Hopefully the next administration whether republican or democrat can find a solution to this mess. One thing for damn sure, it would be hard to screw it up any more.

Russ
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-10-07 AT 03:01PM (MST)[p]

>Well said Nemont and I agree
>for the most part.

How did my name make it into this thread? I haven't posted anything on it until now.

My problem with figures is this: Figures lie and liars figure.

Not taking anyone viewpoint on this one because I don't really know what those figures quoted mean or if they are even accurate.

Nemont
 
I don't know why I said Nemont, must be because I never agreed with anything Jim posted before. guess I'll have to re think this.
 
Dude;
I did not ramble as you stated, I was just calling a "Spade a Spade". I am happy to hear that you have been gracious enought to take a wounded veteran hunting and do not intend to grill him on his beliefs if it was worth it for his service to his country.
I will give you another good pieace of advice, do not let that veteran see "ALL" your posts you have made in this campfire forum. He just may end up seeing you in a different light that may not appease you.

RELH
 
By that you mean I don't think he should have been sent in the first place? that's an awful thought. I don't see where a difference of opinion on any issue as controversial as this war should bring up such hostile emotions in people. if it was as clear and simple as you say there would be no debate, how much resistance have you heard about Afganistan or the failed hunt for Bin Laden? or do you even remember him? pick the right fight at the right time and I'm with you 100%, Iraq is not it.

My hunter should be here anytime and he has a 3 hour drive back home tonight, he seems like a super guy on the phone. I expect he'll be as nice in person. I only intend to ask him a few general questions and tell him none of my opinions unless he ask, that's only polite. besides that I'm not as obsessed with this as it may seem, it's just on MM the odds are not in my favor so there's plenty to argue about. there's been a some small bucks up to 3 points running the does the last few nights before dark, there isn't any good bucks around so it should be an easy hunt for what it is.
 
I believe dude rambles on just to hear himself think and to stir the chit,, not worth the time to debate with him,,,, he has no capacity to envision an opposing view,,,,, if only we could all just get along,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
Russ, thanks for the kind words. After my sarcastic retort to 3K's post, I had to shake myself. I thought maybe I should just try to explain my position instead of hammering it in with malice. Too much of that. I'll endeavor to not contribute in that kind of argument anymore.

I don't know what the civilian leadership was thinking when they made the decision to utilize half of what it would take to "secure" the populace after an invasion. I agree that if you are going to invade, then for craps sakes invade. Do it right (if there is such a thing). Perhaps they were thinking that 500,000 would more offend the Arab sensibilities. I often believe it might have been a braggadocio on Americas part to show the world we could take a country with a few divisions.

Absolute ignorance. Any layman could see that.

The coalition we had with our "Allies" in 91 was notably absent in 03 when this thing was taking off. The very pregnant absence of France and Germany didn't bode well for the invasion to begin with. A lot of that manpower was to come from them. It has since come to light that these two allies were up to there necks in trade with Hussiens' Iraq, even though the UN had sanctions against said practice. I think Bush had made his case to the Congress and the UN, set a time line and Saddam stuck out his tongue. By that time, FR. and GER. were no-shows, and the US had drawn the line.

Like I mentioned before...a tiger by the tale is an apt analogy. You can't let go, or the tiger will eat you. Its a wild situation. Damned if you do or don't.

I don't think were were trying to establish a military presence there as we already had it in the UAE (Bahrain) as well as places in the Indian Ocean. We are within Carrier force striking distance at all times almost everywhere in the world. I just think in light of the 9/11 attacks, with Bush feeling a credible and hostile threat sitting in the middle of one of the richest energy resources in the world, he felt he had to act. Iraq hated us big time, and its not much of a stretch to imagine them joining with the plethora of ME Wahabi-ist whack jobs over there and lending financial and logistical support in any further actions against us. You may disagree, and thats cool, but there is mechanizations going on out there that would scare the hell out of us.

History will tell us.

As far as a pull-out, I think we're screwed for the time being. A coalition force? Good practice, but I wonder if the radicals wouldn't view as more of an incursion than what is going on? I got to believe that if somehow, someway, the Iraqi's could see the light of commerce or trade; if they could see that maybe America could do for them what we did for Germany and Japan, we could realize this "victory" the pols talk about. I realize that this is empire building or what the real leftists may call imperialism, but I think its our ejection seat. Its worked before.

Everyone, good luck on all your hunts.

(Wood...w/o a keyboard, I'm a lousy argue-er. Just can't think as fast as my fingers)!
 
butthead, I am the opposing veiw. to get along everyone has to agree with you, that would make life simple but it will never happen.

We were hunting mule deer, no whitetail around this part of the state unfortunetly.

He and his boy showed up and we got him a decent 3 point. he hasn't hunted much but the guy learned how to shoot for sure. we were about 350 yards and I told him I could get him a little closer and to a rest, but he took the shot from the sitting position and dropped the buck instantly with one shot. it was his second deer and he was excited but I thought his 8 year old boy was going to pee his pants in my new pick up on the ride back in. I had 100 times more fun than I would have shooting a little buck myself

very very nice guy , we went to town to eat later and conversation touched on the war. I don't feel the war is quite as justfied as he does but we agree on most of the rest of it. he says removing Saddam was worth for the Iraqi people but he doubts very much we'll ever get Iraq to the place we want it no matter how hard or long we try, they don't like us and they're not like us. he did indicate he knows many fellow vets who don't share the pro war uphoria I keep hearing about around here, big surprise. that's about all I can say I gathered from our little time together, just one man's opinion but it's as valid as any other.
 
huntindude,

I certainly believe you're entitled to have and express your opinions.

Having myself lived in Japan for five years and seeing first hand the changes that have been made over there, especially knowing how the Japanese viewed us as an inferior race prior to and during WWII, I've got to believe that Iraq is at least worth a try. I know there aren't any guarantees, and I believe that changing hearts and minds is going to take at least a generation or two, if it's going to work at all. But I'm certainly glad that my grandparents generation decided to see victory through in Japan and Germany. If they hadn't, I'm not so certain that we would be enjoying the same freedoms that we do today.
 
I agree we owe everything to the greatest generation, but that has little to do with Iraq, in fact nothing.

Germany attacked our allies and we knew they wouldn't stop until they controlled the world, we had to fight.

Japan attacked us, we had no choice.

Vietnam didn't turn out so well but a line in the sand to communist during the cold war made sense, we could argue all day on that one too.


Some Saudi terrorist attack us so we attack Iraq, WTF?

If we had kept our eye on the ball and had Bin Laden and his organization crushed I might accept Iraq better. yesterday the US government said Al Qaida is expected to up their efforts to place members inside the US. Bin Laden and his organization are alive and thriving. Iraq has not made us any safer or advanced the war on those who did us harm. those who disagree are just like big foot believers, lots of talk and a few fuzzy pictures but no proof.

You have the right to believe if you wish, at least you have enough class not to attack those who don't, thanks.
 
Dude, Are you calling for a complete removal of U.S. troops from everywhere or is Iraq just an issue fueled by your personal and more than likely grossly uninformed opinion. I don't mean that as an insult because most people, myself included, don't know nearly enough about the issue to be claiming that we "know" that the decision to go into Iraq was the right one or not. All I know is that had I served in ANY military action and all I ever heard was people telling me that what I did was worthless or unnecessary, I would be pissed.
 
Just Iraq, not complete removal , Bush screwed it up too well for that.


When the president has to use his veto power to defy the American voter and propagate a war just who's right? with most Americans wanting withdrawl or at the very least a time line doesn't that make you stop and wonder if maybe someone besides Bush and his bunnies know something? I understand I'm out numbered on MM but if you want to keep it interesting keep it real.
 
Dude, you made the comment that we went to war with Germany because they attacked our allies. Interesting that you then say we had no business going into Iraq, are you aware of the MULTIPLE attacks Sadaam made on our ALLIES? Do you pay attention to anything but MoveOn.org? Sadaam attacked atleast as many of our allies and Hitler did, in fact he fired at our pilots almost daily before we took him out. Good hell, even Clinton knew regime change was needed on Iraq, he just was to busy getting hummers and keeping his cigars moist to do what should have been done BEFORE 9-11. This whole mess could have been avoided if the peanut man wouldn't have been such a whimpy IDIOT back in the late 70's. He DID NOTHING, and Clinton DID NOTHING. Those are the ones to blame, those who DID NOTHING. Of course those who do NOTHING are most likely your role-models.

PRO
 
Dude, this is in response to what you said about the 70 or whatever percent of Americans that it was that wanted troops withdrawn. My problem is that the media in this country whether it be liberal or conservative, intentionally keeps people dumb and in the dark to push their views. So what you get is a whole bunch of people basing their opinion on this misinformation that has been twisted into being the way that they want it to sound. I said that most people are mis or uninformed on the subject, because unless you are over there seeing what is going on hearing what people have to say, you flat out don't know. But what is interesting to me is that everyone says that it wasn?t our business to go over there, it is costing too much money, why do we think that we are the world's police we should let things be. But then those same people get up in arms when we don't get enough money fast enough to a foreign country after an earthquake or hurricane or whatever. I halfway agree that we shouldn't be the world?s police, but I don't want to be the world?s foster parent either.
 
You have a point but where are we supoposed to get our information? I hope you don't think we should get it from the whitehouse, their track record sucks. if you're doubtful of the media then go to FOX news, I promise you they sugar coat it as best they can and it still doesn't look very good. asking returning service men will only get you so far, don't think the chain of command tells them everything , and what they do tell them isn't going to be anti war. keep in mind also they don't all say it's as sweet over there as we hear on MM all the time. last of all why does Bush need more troops and money if things are going great?

Pro , is an allie to you just any country we're not fighing with? why do you thing Bush Sr. stop at the border? because he knew what would happen, he's a bunch smarter than his son. if making Iraq our little buddy was as easy as you say then your own hero's dad had the best chance of anyone, yet it's Carter and Clinton's fault? you're predictable.

Your comparison to Germany is laughable. did Germany have weapons inspectors crawling all over it coming up empty handed? did they have satelites watching their every move? could we fly over them at will? were they boxed in and cut off from the rest of the world? did everyone else have nukes but them? was it just a matter of giving the go ahead to wipe them out? we won't even need to go into who they attacked and were beating up. maybe a comparison to something in Star Trek would be more believable? work on it.
 
Hey Dude,

Grab your seabag from under your armchair and lets go hang with the boys over there and see what you think then. You just might have a change in your "agenda"

Aim Center Mass
rifleman.gif
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_1811 (1).jpg
Wyoming 10-18-80 Alex's first buck.jpg
0D56803E-8134-41C5-81B7-39BD83B4D5F6.jpeg
20200307_165756.jpg
37416AEF-7CF3-4257-984D-A60D72D4E84F.jpeg
ED46A358-2862-4877-8E4B-2EFACEE841A6.jpeg
3E18A26E-5B27-4038-8A26-C586F7FEABBE.jpeg
CFECCB45-E9AB-4BBF-912F-064A3706AF4C.jpeg
6195imgp2419.jpg
IMG-3980.jpg
college 153 copy.jpg
C2ADC921-7606-4238-82B5-A70F9461A592.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom