Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 1795012)

Yes, there are fewer deaths in the War on Terror than in previous wars, but that's due in part to the fact that there have been major advances in medical treatment. Injuries that may have proven fatal in WWII or even Vietnam are survivable now. Also, the nature of the combat has changed, where the weapons--on both sides--are far more precise in their target than ever before.

Also, for the generations born just after the Vietnam War or who don't live with the shadows of Vietnam, this is our "first war," so it may seem like a lot of people regardless of how you feel about the war.

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel (Post 1795022)

You are very correct about injuries and deaths. The two things that changed survival rates the most are helicopters and antibiotics (firstly penicillin). Vietnam was the first US involvement with regular use of helicopters and that changed the survival rate of soldiers immensely, also there are many other advances in technology (medical, transportation, and communications) that increase survival rates of injured soldiers.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1795167)

No doubt.

But it's still a low number of injuries or deaths especially considering the length of the US involvement. We don't simply have fewer deaths and an equal number of injuries. We have fewer casualties generally. I'd expect that we'd show that even if we adjusted for the number of people involved, but I'm not eager to do that math. (ETA: The data does have a ratio of deaths vs. injuries in one of the later graphics. What a morbid stat: but it was about 1:1.8 for WWI and it's 1:7.4 for Iraqi Freedom.)

This isn’t attempted commentary on the morality of the war, but quoting the number of injured or dead isn’t a particularly effective anti-war commentary, unless you're just an absolute pacifist.


EATA: it's interesting that the Vietnam survival observation doesn't seem to bear out compared to Korea, unless there were more helicopters in Korea than Vandal Squirrel was thinking. Look at CSR-9 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf.
Maybe that ratio isn't really showing what we're talking about. You'd need some measure of the seriousness of injuries survived, I guess.

Originally Posted by moe.ron (Post 1795104)

I don't disagree that leaving Iraq would be a disaster. Bush finally got it later on his administration, which is why you saw a lot of the neo-cons being swept out of power, with Wolfowitz being moved into the World Bank and Rumsfeld being replazed by Gates.

Listen, Hussein was a thug and he played chicken with Bush. He didn't factor in the psyched of the American mind after 9/11. If he played a long with Bush and open up, he would still be in power, right now or his son would've replaced him. Instead, he played chicken and lost.

Before 9/11, neo-con always had the plan to invade Iraq and try out this domino theory of spreading democracy in the middle east. The whole thing was written, look for it. However, back then they didn't have a reason to invade Iraq. Sanction was working and Saddam's army wasn't moving. Did you know that there was a deal between the regular armed forces and the Bush admin that when Saddam fell, the regular army would stay still and become the guard.

Remmember, Saddam himself didn't trust the regular armed forces, that is why he created the Republican Guard. However, when Bremmer came into power as the viceroy of Iraq, he didn't keep his word and instead broke a part the Iraqi military. Guess what happen, you have thousands of jobless, highly trained individuals with guns. They're all pissed that the promises wasn't kept. They became the insurgent. Not the same insurgents from Al-Qaeda though. Just pissed off, highly trained military folks.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek (Post 1795157)

I agree with kstar. I just want to also add that I think what Bush was trying to do was create a puppet government in Iraq. I don't agree with it, but that's basically what he's created. You just can't set up a government in another country and then leave. It just doesn't work that way. I still think it was a bad decision going into Iraq.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus (Post 1795331)

I don't disagree with any of this. The only part I'm not familiar with was Saddam playing chicken with Bush. I can see that now. Kruschev tried that shit with Kennedy during the Cuban Missle Crisis. I still feel Bush did the right thing. After 911, he said there will be a war on terror. I think to most people that it sounds like an intangible thing, and it is to a degree, but eventually people will see the progress. It just takes time. I know this sounds sick as fuck but I honestly think we need to take out a lot of the leaders in the Middle East one by one. Iran is another potential problem, and why is Saudi Arabia our friends? Those guys who hijacked those planes were all Saudis. No one in that region, with the exception of Israel, likes the United States, so why should we give a shit about them? Dude, I don't think he could have played along with Bush. I think Bush was ready to take him out long before 911.

Originally Posted by moe.ron (Post 1795335)

You see, to me the War on Terror was just propoganda, you can't defeat an method that been used by everybody, including the US government. Beside, the real threat had nothing to do with Iraq, it was in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's where the real danger lays. Bush was right in the beginning by going out and try to take out Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. However, he fumbled when he redirected the war toward Iraq.

By the way, not all the hijackers were Saudis, they were also Egyptians. Why should you give a shit about the area? Too many interest by the elite like Halliburton and the like in that area. Plus, lots of the US government debt are also own by them.

Bush always wanted to finish his daddy's mission. Before 9/11 he could've never pulled it of. He even said that nation building is not his forte. The neo-con were always looking for any reason. They got it in 9/11. Too bad they didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and it's getting worst there.

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel (Post 1795262)

Well look at the length of involvement, Korea was 3 years, Vietnam was 9 (according to that link). Just rough number, if Korea lasted as long, multiply the deaths by three, it would have been 109,722, and Vietnam for 9 years was at 58,209, almost half. In the ten years between the two engagements technology improved the use of the helicopter immensely. Just look at the difference between the size and capacities of a Korean era Bell H and a Vietnam era Huey.

http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft.../bell_h13.html

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/...otary/uh1.html

Originally Posted by moe.ron (Post 1795339)

Trust me, you don't want to go against Iran. It will wreck havoc in the world's economy. Plus, who do you think gave inteligence against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, it was the Iranian. Iran will not be doing anything stupid. The media might make them out to be brainless nation hell bent on war, they're far from it. All their actions are calculated against the threat they perceived the US have against them. Yes, they fear the US too.

Why are they going for the nuke? Simple, it's their ticket to not getting invaded. They saw what happen to North Korea and figured that they better get the bomb so there will be no war on their shore.

Nobody can afford to invade the whole region and its pure stupidity to even think about it. Iraq was a stupid move, big time stupid move. Now the payment is paid in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have re-taken over part of the country again. We can also blamed that on the corrupt Afghan government, but thta is another thread all together.

As for the debt, I think your mistake government debt with consumer debt. The two different concept. You see the deficit spendings, wars need to be finance somehow. The US government sell bonds to finance it. Guess who busy em, investors and foreign governments. Who own the biggest US debt, your friendly Chinese government. (Sarcasm in case you didn't notice) Middle Eastern governments also own many of those bonds.