The War in Iraq: 6 Years Later
 

Talk about whatever comes to mind.

Policies

Friends and family that served or are serving there

Ramifications and reprecussions.

I was driving to work this morning when they mentioned the anniversary....and the number of dead soldiers...

I pounded the steering wheel....

I will never forget the start of the war, I was driving to Tennessee for a college visit, and we listened to the whole thing on the Satellite radio....

I have friends who have already served 3 tours, others just finished their 1st, and more are planning on joining this summer after school is done....

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ira...s/2009.03.html

4,578 Coalition deaths.

4,621 Americans

Crazy.

Countless Iraqi death that seems to be under reported by the mainstream media or just plain ignored.

Billion of dollar corrupted by corporation and mismanagement by the viceroy Bremmer.

The rise of the Mercs and due to viceroy's Bremmer inability to see what's right and wrong, they get away with literally murder.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

That link just has some interesting data for comparison.

The table that reports active duty deaths by year (1980-2006) is interesting to me as are the tables that present numbers of how many served, were wounded, or died per conflict.

While I'm sad when almost anyone dies under any circumstances (and even the rare exceptions don't make me happy or anything), from a numerical standpoint it's hard to argue that it's a particularly deadly war or even a particularly dangerous (in terms of the percentage wounded) war as wars go.

Even if you aren't crazy about why we went to war, unless you were just exceptionally pissed about Arch Duke Ferdinand, we're still doing much better in Iraq than we did in WWI. It's hard to think of much more senseless slaughter than WWI. We lost more than 100,000 guys in less than a year and a half.

I hate that I'm probably coming off as all, "well whatever, it's no Pacific theater in WWII, who cares?" But when people want to discuss numbers in Iraq, I feel like they should have to mention that we lose 700-1000 people in the military in a year when aren't actually engaged in wars.

It's a dangerous job in the best of circumstances.

I'm all for the Iraqi war. I don't think Bush gets enough credit for his actions in Iraq. It's all negative bullsht. It's looks fked now, but give it another 20 years and watch his ratings go up. They said the same bullsht about Truman. He turned out to be a good president. Think about it people. If Bush wouldn't have gotten rid of Saddam, then he would have attacked Israel and that's when the sht would have hit the fking fan. We're over in Iraq and will stay there from now on. Just like we are in Germany. We've been there since WWII.

Wha? I've herd of WMD and Democracy argument, but never herd of this one.

WTF??? You don't think Saddam would have attacked Israel???

Uhm, no . . . he couldn't even attack the Kurd area. You really think he could've attacked Israel? With what weaponry? Let me guess, the WMD that could've hit Europe in 45 minutes?

He probably wouldn't be successful at it, but all it would take is an attempt on his part to cause a war.

And it would take Israel less than 6 days to shut him down, we've been there 6 YEARS.

There really was a six day war back in 1967 (not with Iraq) I think, but that was then. The times are different now. We're there and we will stay there, and that's what you're not comprehending. It was that way post WWII. We went to Germany, fought in Germany, and stayed there, as well as other European countries. Bush is not getting enough credit for his actions in Iraq. Personally, I think Bush was way underrated and Obama is way overrated. C'mon, the dude got praised like he saved the whole fking world before he even made it to the white house.

I said that to make a point. I'm glad you at least got the reference, so why do you seem so uneducated about what is going on now?

I give Bush credit, credit for killing innocent Iraqi civilians. Credit for becoming the aggressor and making military moves based on false accusations. Credit for making America the laughing stock of the world. Credit for taking a balanced budget with a surplus, and turning it into a financial crisis. Is that the type of credit you think he deserves, because that is all the credit I will give him.

It's interesting watching two extremists go at it, haha.

I guess I will just list my family members that served (or getting ready to serve)

My brother
My brother-in-law
Nephew
Sister-in-law (She is going in April...and we are throwing her a big party next weekend!!!!)

As much as I do not like what is going on over there, we definitely cannot pull out now. My husband and I were talking about this the other day, and it will interesting to see how the economical downturn will affect the military/recruitment.

I don't give a shit why you said it, your fcking point still didn't change my opinion. You don't have a fking clue. Really you don't. Uneducated? That's laughable. You come on here posting bullshit about how it's a life or death situation if someone in your family has a different political perspective than yours. Well, FCK YOU!! After I read that shit you posted I don't even know why I read this post or responded to it. You don't like Bush's policies. So fking what. I do. If Bush never got rid of Saddam, I know the whole mideast conflict would be a lot more fcked up than it is now. I'll give it 15-20 years and ficktards like you will learn to appreciate Bush's decision making.

There is no evidence whatsoever that he had the ability or even the intention to attack Israel. There was more evidence that WMD was in Iraq and he could've sent the WMD to europe in 45 minutes, which was all false and close to lies.

Yeah, it was then. Who's to say what would happen in the future. kstar doesn't have a fcking clue. We've got bases set up in Iraq now, and we're not leaving. So far this has been the most expensive war in U.S. history, and right now, people don't agree. I can't say I'm all for every decision Bush has made, just like any other president. What I am saying is, this all seems fcked up now, but I think people will appreciate what he did in the future. You also have to take in account that the govt. isn't going to tell us everything. They know a whole shit load of stuff we'll never know. Bush wanted to go in and root out terrorism, and he started with Iraq. I think he should have started with Saudi Arabia. Those assholes are no allies of ours. Most of the countries in the mideast hate the U.S. anyway. Who was responsible for 911? Those guys were all fking Saudis, dude. What did you expect Bush to do? Sit on his hands and do nothing? Those fkers in the mideast have been fighting over the same bullshit since the beginning of time. I would like to take out that whole region. They're fcking evil.

I'm amazed . . . truly amazed.

Actually no. The situation in the Middle East was tense, but had not escalated into outright war, and most likely would not have for a great period of time. There was an even power distribution. Because of Bush's LIES (that Saddam had WMDs) there is now a power vacuole which will be filled. Likely involving another war.

The US will not stay in Iraq like they stayed in Germany, they will pull out like they did in Vietman and Korea. The key difference is that the German people were not oppressed and most welcomed the occupiers because of that. Like in Vietnam, we have made the Iraqis second class citizens in their own nation. We have interrupted their democratic elections, we have detained their citizens and transported them out of their country, sometimes without proof of any wrongdoing. The Iraqis do not want us there, and I think that when we will be withdrawing from Iraq, it will be under gun fire.

Also, when you say that Saddam would have attacked Israel, most Israelis don't think that he would have. In fact, they were against starting a war with Iraq without further proof of WMDs. Yes, they did support the US once the war started, but they were against starting the war with the current proof. (P.S. I'm a dual US/Israeli passport holder. Right of return, ftw.)

It is a sign of the uneducated to resort to ad hominem attacks when someone provides a case against their side. That and the fact that you had to resort to swearing makes my point for me that you are uneducated.

Hominem attacks? WTF??? WTF was your bullshit fucking sarcasm about?

Do you even know what would happen if we left Iraq? Do you?

What? Send their WMD within 45 minutes into Europe? You do realized that most of the WMD inteligence was given by Challabi, who was a paid agent of the Iranian government. In another word, Bush was dupped into invading Iraq by the Iranian. Well, that is one of the theory out there.

Is it necessary for you to curse? What would your mother say young man?

Who said anything about sending WMDs into Europe? I'm talking about the consequences of leaving Iraq. This chick seems to think we will eventually leave Iraq. We won't.

People swear all the time on here. Don't just single me out, dude.

I think you're mistaken, the debate was about why Bush went in. I have argued that the Iraqi war was a mistake from the beginning. I have also argued that the rationale behind it was piss poor and the defense department didn't know what they got themselves into. Wolfowitz was using his experience in Indonesia to try to show they democracy can spread in a nation with Muslim majority. What he didn't realized is that the Arabic street and the Indonesian street are two totally different world.

Rumsfeld also came into Iraq trying out a new theory of a leaner attack force which can take over a nation and in the mean time conduct state building with minimal cost. Yes, a lot of people died because neo-cons were conducting an experiment on a theory. Well, the neo-cons were kicked out Bush's 2nd term.

Also, Bremmer did such a piss poor job, he made AIG executives look like a bunch of efficient managers. The whole mess can be blamed on Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl and Bremmer.

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.

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.

Should we mention the number of Iraqi civillians who have been killed? This web site has been trying to keep a count and have it at somewhere between 92,000 and 99,000.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

the website defines a civilian as a non-combatant but during this war most of the attacks on coalition forces were from people who wore no uniforms so how accurate can it really be? also, it just give a number of deaths since the beginning of the war, how many were from violent acts committed by other iraqis? between ied's and suicide bombers many civilians were killed and last i checked the army wasn't using either of those methods. not to mention that this website is propaganda for an anti-war movement so i'm not putting too much stake in it.

I don't disagree with all of this. However, I still feel we should have gone in and invaded Iraq. Yeah, true enough, Bush lied, but I think if he would have given the American people a different reason of going in, he would have gotten more support. The reason why we just can't pack up and leave, is because technically there really isn't any Iraqi armed forces left. We're not fighting an Iraqi army anymore. We are now fighting terrorist groups. If we leave, they come in, which is why I think we're there to stay. Saddam was a real asshole, a fucking madman. Dude, he had to be taken out. He was killing his own people. What kind of shit is that? A madman like that can't be trusted. Just give it time.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I disagree. I wouldn't call it a puppet government.

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.

Yeah, I forgot about the Egyptians. The bottom line is most of that whole region hates the US. that's why I don't feel we should give a shit about them. The debt? Dude, we're the biggest consumers in the world. If we stop spending, the rest of the world is fucked, including those Mid Eastern assholes. I think Bush spread himself too thin when he redirected the war on terror to Iraq. It should have been done one country at a time. Yes, the danger was in Afganistan and Pakistan, but Iraq was still a threat. Iran is also a threat. They should be next on the list.

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.

I'm just going to note that I'm editing this so I can take out the ETAs. I didn't change the overall point; I just added data.

I was just looking at the stat about the ratio of deaths to injuries for both conflicts. The ratio is very similar for the two conflicts in that it's 1:2.6 for Vietnam and 1:2.8 for Korea. For the sake of comparison and to see why I suggest they're similar, in WWII the ration was 1:1.7 and Iraqi Freedom is at a ratio of 1:7.4.

This ratio would probably stay the same if each conflict went on for the same length of time, unless there's some pattern to length of engagement and loss of life overtime, which I have no idea how to even speculate about. But again, we'd really have to know something about the type of injuries to make the comparison.

I wasn't second guessing the helicopter technology as much as wondering why the ratio was a low as it was for Korea compared to Vietnam, if helicopters had there first big success in Vietnam vs. Korea.

I do think that more soldiers are surviving with graver injuries in Iraq, maybe particularly brain injuries, which may both minimize my sense of how dangerous the war is compared to others AND make it much more expensive long term for their care, which is a factor that I think the VA is struggling with.

Thanks for clearing that up. It all makes sense, but we can't win a war on terror unless we invade the root of the problem, and it's coming from that region.