SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 4 of 4 123 4
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   US military casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=101686)

CCIP 12-07-06 12:50 AM
I think both figures are highly debatable.

Tchocky 12-07-06 01:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCIP
I think both figures are highly debatable.
Which two figures CCIP?

My figures for Baghdad are from here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...l/nn2page1.stm

Figures for D.C. from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dchomicidechart.svg

185,000 figures closely with what I've heard, but I'm not going to go searching now. Also, if it was in reply to my post, I don't see how it relates. But I was off-topic, so.....yeah :)

flyingdane 12-07-06 01:09 AM
Do not know you even ask ...DEATH.. TO.. IRAC.. DEATH to THINE ENEMY sayithh the lord, JC.:up:

Iceman 12-07-06 02:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinB
To our cousins across the pond, what are your thoughts on the casualty rate amongst the military in Iraq and Afghansistan.

Why I ask is, we rarely ever hear or see anything in the media about US casualties anymore unless it's a say helicopter coming down. Nowadays if we seen anything reported it's usually in the third or fourth page of the newspaper
The Brit casualities are a minority to what the US is suffering. I think we have something like 120 killed since the end of the Iraq war and the US is creeping up to the 3000 mark.

What is the feeling back in the US regarding this?

PS Any of you guys ever been there?
Back to the "Original" topic...We or I think of my brothers in arms every single day as do many many Many people I meet and see in a day here in my little part of the world....Many are hurt and divided over the reasons but All... All I know always support the guy on the ground...or air.I see something in the news here Every Single day about the casulities military And civilian....guess you just have to be paying attention.Over here---> in Mesa Arizona it is not 4th page news....Mesa AZ is "Home" of the Apache Helicopter...Home of the best damn soldiers in the entire world....how can you forget that ???

http://www.fallenheroesmemorial.com/

This is a post from one of my online buddies from gaming days a few months back...

"For those of you who don't know, I am in the military and serving in Afghanistan at this time. This past Friday, you probably read or heard about in the news about the VBIED that exploded outsied the American Embassy in Kabul. I was literally standing roughly 200 meters away at the time. I am fine and safe, but that was a rather hectic time. Good to see that all is well back home though. http://www.deepsix-online.com/phpbb/.../icon_wink.gif"


My Brother Santee...
http://assassinsalliance.com/images/stories/santee.png

Enigma 12-07-06 10:18 AM
Quote:
The causualty rate doesn't change the fact that D.C. has just as bad a reputation as Baghdad
I'll comment on this when I stop holding my belly and laughing....:damn:

Tchocky 12-07-06 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma
Quote:
The causualty rate doesn't change the fact that D.C. has just as bad a reputation as Baghdad
I'll comment on this when I stop holding my belly and laughing....:damn:
Argh, it's off-topic. I regret shooting off on that tangent. thanks Iceman :)

Quote:
Why I ask is, we rarely ever hear or see anything in the media about US casualties anymore unless it's a say helicopter coming down. Nowadays if we seen anything reported it's usually in the third or fourth page of the newspaper
I went throught his in an earlier post - it's not news anymore (see my hunger deaths example). US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been dying in horrendous numbers since 2003. When a particularly bloody event takes place, like your example of a helicopter shootdown, this is news, and gets reported with a higher profile.

The current focus of debate over the casualty levels (especially since October) seems dubious to me. It's almost as if people are surprised that war brings death and destruction.

Enigma 12-07-06 04:58 PM
Quote:
It's almost as if people are surprised that war brings death and destruction.
Nope. Its that people are hurt and disgusted that 3000 american soldiers are dead for a war the people at large dont support, have no good reason why we are there, or trust the men who sent them there with the highest office in the land.

SUBMAN1 12-07-06 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma
Quote:
It's almost as if people are surprised that war brings death and destruction.
Nope. Its that people are hurt and disgusted that 3000 american soldiers are dead for a war the people at large dont support, have no good reason why we are there, or trust the men who sent them there with the highest office in the land.
THey are doing a job that needed to be done. Plain and simple. Support or not, what they are doing is insuring future generations of the world. Like it or not, Western Civs have become soft and that softness willultimately destroy you and everyone else you know. History shows you what happens to those that ignore threats upon their world.

The strong did what they could, and the weak must suffer what they must.

-S

PS. Freedom is not free - people have died defending the very freedom you enjoy, and people will continue to die forever more.

Cpt. Stewker 12-07-06 06:07 PM
My opninion on the war:

I support it. I support it now for different reasons from when we first went in though. At first I first supported it for the reason, that according to most of the world (not just the US), that Saddam had WMDs. We eventually found out that he did destroy them all and didn't have any, which was bad intel on the part of a lot people. And just so I can clarify, BAD INTEL IS NOT THE SAME AS LYING, no one was lied to. When Bush said there were WMDs in Saddam's hands he honestly believed it, as did almost everyone.

Now since the world discovered that there were no WMDs, we couldnt just leave the country the way it was: no government, no real social order, etc. So now I support us completing the mission. That is getting the Iraqi government on their feet and able to support themselves. I can tell you that, Bush will not have our forces moved out of Iraq until that is assured. I agree with that.

And besides leaving Iraq now would be the worst thing the US can do for our reputation, both politically and militarily... Leaving before the job is done only invites disaster for us down the road, it emboldens(sp) those that would like to see the US be no more, it tells them that we can be beaten, pressured to give up, and that we are weak.

Yahoshua 12-07-06 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma
Quote:
The causualty rate doesn't change the fact that D.C. has just as bad a reputation as Baghdad
I'll comment on this when I stop holding my belly and laughing....:damn:
So we have a difference of opinion of the issue. so what?

Tchocky 12-07-06 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
THey are doing a job that needed to be done. Plain and simple. Support or not, what they are doing is insuring future generations of the world.
What tense are you speaking in? Do you mean to say that the job does not need to be done any more? Is that because it has been done?
How is the current conflict ensuring (is this the word you meant to use?) any future generations? Surely the continuation of humanity is best ensured by staying away from war.

Quote:
Like it or not, Western Civs have become soft and that softness willultimately destroy you and everyone else you know. History shows you what happens to those that ignore threats upon their world.
Can you back this up this conjecture? Using the word "history" does not bring history to your side, or indeed anyones. I don't think the West has become weaker; the adversaries of this century are possibly more subtle than others, leading to less strongman imagery. You can't say "tear down this wall" to every terrorist group individually.

Iceman 12-07-06 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt. Stewker
My opninion on the war:

I support it. I support it now for different reasons from when we first went in though. At first I first supported it for the reason, that according to most of the world (not just the US), that Saddam had WMDs. We eventually found out that he did destroy them all and didn't have any, which was bad intel on the part of a lot people. And just so I can clarify, BAD INTEL IS NOT THE SAME AS LYING, no one was lied to. When Bush said there were WMDs in Saddam's hands he honestly believed it, as did almost everyone.

Now since the world discovered that there were no WMDs, we couldnt just leave the country the way it was: no government, no real social order, etc. So now I support us completing the mission. That is getting the Iraqi government on their feet and able to support themselves. I can tell you that, Bush will not have our forces moved out of Iraq until that is assured. I agree with that.

And besides leaving Iraq now would be the worst thing the US can do for our reputation, both politically and militarily... Leaving before the job is done only invites disaster for us down the road, it emboldens(sp) those that would like to see the US be no more, it tells them that we can be beaten, pressured to give up, and that we are weak.
This assessment is spot on and totally ignored by most it seems....whew thought I was the only one who saw this ...people act as if Bush was like Hitler in that he had "Absolute" control over people as well as allies...most jumped on the same bandwagon freely and with sound convictions....hard to know when someone like Saddam continually evaded UN Resolutions and demands to be cleared of all possible suspicions....Saddam is the one to blame .... if any one is ,for the state of affairs in Iraq not anyone else....he did'nt give a squat....period.

Tchocky 12-07-06 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman
This assessment is spot on and totally ignored by most it seems....whew thought I was the only one who saw this ...people act as if Bush was like Hitler in that he had "Absolute" control over people as well as allies...most jumped on the same bandwagon freely and with sound convictions....hard to know when someone like Saddam continually evaded UN Resolutions and demands to be cleared of all possible suspicions....Saddam is the one to blame .... if any one is ,for the state of affairs in Iraq not anyone else....he did'nt give a squat....period.
Wrong. It was asked earlier where the insurgents were getting their weapons from. Was it Saddam's fault that the Iraqi Army was disbanded? Was it Saddam's fault that the planning for the invasion aftermath was so poor? Notice where the blame is placed in this interview.

I'm not trying to defend Saddam Hussein in any way, but your statement is wrong.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 PM.
Page 4 of 4 123 4
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.