The War in Iraq: 6 Years Later

DaemonSeid · #1 03-19-2009, 09:08 AM

Talk about whatever comes to mind.

Policies

Friends and family that served or are serving there

Ramifications and reprecussions.

Thetagirl218 · #2 03-19-2009, 06:08 PM

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....

KSUViolet06 · #3 03-19-2009, 06:37 PM

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

4,578 Coalition deaths.

4,621 Americans

Crazy.

moe.ron · #4 03-19-2009, 09:33 PM

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.

UGAalum94 · #5 03-19-2009, 10:14 PM

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.

Zephyrus · #6 03-20-2009, 01:19 AM

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.

Munchkin03 · #7 03-28-2009, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

Educatingblue · #8 03-22-2009, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Talk about whatever comes to mind.

Policies

Friends and family that served or are serving there

Ramifications and reprecussions.

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.

moe.ron · #9 03-28-2009, 07:59 AM

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.

Zephyrus · #10 03-29-2009, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moe.ron

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.

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.

moe.ron · #11 03-29-2009, 07:40 AM

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.

cheerfulgreek · #12 03-29-2009, 02:32 PM

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.