How many more body bags?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Craigbythesea, Aug 29, 2005.

  1. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    How many more body bags will our defense department have to buy before America decides that the war in Iraq is too expensive? :(

    [​IMG]
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would be folly to cut and run. We must have an orderly withdrawal as the new Iraqi government is elected and the Iraqis take over the defense functions. How ever many body bags there are during that time frame will be the number.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother KenH -- Preach it!

    I note the US Military death toll for 2½-years
    in Iraq is equal to the death toll in the
    American abortion mills for TEN HOURS.
     
  4. wtrsju

    wtrsju
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig,
    I surely respect your opinion, but this time I feel you wrong. That is of course if you are implying we should leave because soldiers are dying. If you are not implying that I apologize. I thank God everyday for our armed forces, but opposing a war in the basis of soldier deaths alone is fool hearted. Unless you would take an across the board ban on war, which would be nearly impossible due to World culture. Take a look at civilian and soldier deaths in WWI, II, etc. WWII had 19 million soldier deaths and 49 million civilian deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWII Was it worth it? How do you quantify human life vs war? It is nearly impossible. It would also seem that if modern news coverage was around in the 30's and 40's, the human resolve would have been much lower. Only time will tell if the war was worth it. Let me just say again, God Bless our Soldiers and thank you very much.
     
  5. elijah_lives

    elijah_lives
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    0
    if modern news coverage was around in the 30's and 40's ...

    ...we would have lost the war.
     
  6. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    In Viet Nam, we had 60,000 of them before we let the communists have the place and slaughter the south.
     
  7. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    This may just be the point. Wouldn't it have been better, since the North did eventually take over the South, to have had the U.S. withdraw earlier? At least then there would have been less soldiers dying.

    Why not withdraw our troops now and save lives. It is pretty obvious that there will be civil war in Iraq when we leave, weather it is now or later.
     
  8. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    This may just be the point. Wouldn't it have been better, since the North did eventually take over the South, to have had the U.S. withdraw earlier? At least then there would have been less soldiers dying.

    Why not withdraw our troops now and save lives. It is pretty obvious that there will be civil war in Iraq when we leave, weather it is now or later.
    </font>[/QUOTE]A myopic view. Our troops staying there for the forseeable future will prevent many lives being lost. Yes we'll lose some soldiers, but if we pulled out, it would embolden the terrorists into massive slaughter campaigns at home and further attacks in America.
     
  9. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    We compromised in Korea and in Viet Nam for no good reason. If we compromise in the Middle East, no one would ever help us again. That would be 3 strikes in 50 years. We would be out. The Arab League could strike without fear because the world would know that we would spend neither blood nor money for victory.

    As General Douglas MacArthur said of Korea, "There is no substitute for victory."

    We see that now as we are faced with a nuclear-armed North Korea.
     
  10. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    3000 US soldiers died on D-Day alone. Obscure Civil War battles that few remember had more casualties than 2.5 years in Iraq. Korea had about 50,000 US deaths in 3 years... to achieve a stalemate requiring US troops to guard a hostile border to this very day. In WWI, the US lost 116,500 people in just over 1.5 years.

    BTW, the Germans didn't attack us either time.

    The Koreans didn't attack nor even threaten us.

    The question isn't if there have been too many bodybags but if the US still has the resolve to be a great, world leading nation. The funny thing about American history is that the "peace" movement has directly caused war by emboldening our enemies and/or resulted in war being more severe by resisting the desire to stop a threat before it grows.

    It wasn't the war hawks that caused the gross destruction and death of WWII. It was the passive, "peace-mongering", appeasers. Hitler could have been stopped as soon as rearmament begin... but people not unlike those who condemn our actions against Saddam, got their way and let him continue. Saddam was just as mad as Hitler. It is a good thing we didn't let him go also.
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    This may just be the point. Wouldn't it have been better, since the North did eventually take over the South, to have had the U.S. withdraw earlier? At least then there would have been less soldiers dying.

    Why not withdraw our troops now and save lives. It is pretty obvious that there will be civil war in Iraq when we leave, weather it is now or later.
    </font>[/QUOTE]You want us to assume that we are going to fail as a justification for doing the wrong thing?... that seems to be the liberal mindset, granted.

    As CMG mentioned, we now face nukes in N Korea because we were afraid of broadening the war in Korea. The same kind of reasoning is behind this fear of alienating Arabs and Muslims by our actions in Iraq.

    Success silences critics... and is our only option in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader war on terrorists. That's why libs and Dems are so determined to refuse to recognize any progress, success, or legitimizing of Iraq. The minute the liberal media and libs in general admit that we are rebuilding the infrastructure, establishing the most "liberal" government in the region except for Israel, and destroying terrorists in their own back yard... they will lose credibility to criticize and spew negative propaganda.
     
  12. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is funny how some people want to pull out, while most military personnel want to stay and finish the job.
     
  13. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    This mis management of Iraq before and after will
    be the subject of hundreds of books but some important questions are being raised because voices and questions are being raised across a
    broad spectrum but one you are starting to hear
    from parents is.

    1.Either do it right or get out(which is very
    legitimate).


    2.Should American soldiers be dying for an Islamic
    state or a fig leaf paper stating civil rights but
    the reality on the ground is sharia is thriving.

    3.Quit! the deception and speak the truth..especially about costs,training,lives and armor.

    4.Should American soldiers referee a civil war and
    with a big bulls eye on their backs?

    5.Why do we allow Shias with American blood on their hands go free and in fact join the political
    process?

    7.Why is the Syrian and Iranian border porous?
    not to mention Jordon,Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

    8.Who will rescue the Christian minority in Iraq
    from oppression and persecution?

    9. Why did people get run off who spoke truth
    to power about Iraq but then reward people of
    failure with Congressional Medal of Freedoms?

    10. 25,000 Mercenaries in Iraq raking in money
    and soldiers doing the hard tasks?

    11. 7% of our soldiers over there not Americans
    but other nationals.

    12. Where are the right wing sons and daughter who
    speak of "stay the course" why are they not joining up.

    13. Why is the coalition of the willing bailing out?

    Iraq cost could reach in total a trillion dollars
    unless the American people weigh in and demand
    quality for their investment in blood and treasure.


    9 of 10 Americans believe their should be protests
    for and against the war and questions should be
    addressed instead of cheap soundbites that just get people killed.

    and Bush did hype quick resoluiton and gave
    the big impression it would be easy..but now
    look at the spin and they are backing away from
    that..more deception and spin from and administration that has abysmally mis managed this
    and now are breaking out more and more bandaids or
    100 holes in the dyke and they only have 10 fingers.

    Mark my words if bush/rove/cheney/rumsfeld ask for
    another 80 billion these questions will be asked
    perhaps not by special interests or congress but
    by those 9 in 10 of the American population wanting answers ..that is their right.

    So its not funny at all their are legitimate
    questions...Americans are very trusting and forgiving but they do not like bad performance
    from a President and his policies.The only
    saving grace is that the soldier is preforming
    above and beyond as they carry out orders it is
    not their fault the policy is bad.


    We mention body bags and compare other wars but
    no one mentions the wounded and maimed this insurgency is about building a car bomb in an
    hours time packed with 1000lbs of explosives and
    blowing people to smithereens ..technology has
    prevented deaths but instead we have a lot of
    missing limbs..so it is not so much body bags
    it is the living wounded and maimed as well.

    but back to my salient point I think the
    American people are saying this and from the
    middle.


    1.Either do it right or get out(which is very
    legitimate).


    If we decide to do it right and put more troops
    in ..the American people may support that
    if it means a secure Iraq,Non-Islamic state,freedoms for Christians,womens rights,etc..etc.
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like I said, I wonder why the majority of the military from top to bottom is behind the war?

    As for your complaint about Christian freedoms; any other time you would be complaining about "religious" freedom, it just happens the majority is Muslim.

    Finally, where do you come up with this 25,000 mercenaries making tons of money while American soldiers don't? Are you talking about the insurgents?

    I won't get into the technology issue. [​IMG]
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    298
    I don't remember Bush ever saying it was going to be easy or quick. I don't remember him even implying that it would be easy or quick. Seems he'd have to say it somewhere along the way to actually "hype" it , wouldn't he?
     
  16. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Another blatant &lt;edited - LE error&gt; by A-PAL. Or perhaps he'll suprise us all with a source. I remember him saying, from the beginning, that this would be a long fight.

    [ August 29, 2005, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]
     
  17. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]


    The government does not know how much it spends on private security contractors in total, the GAO said. But it is more than expected. "Contractor officials acknowledge that the cost of private security services and security-related equipment, such as armored vehicles, has exceeded what they originally envisioned," the GAO said.

    The Pentagon estimates there are 60 private security firms with as many as 25,000 employees in Iraq. Some elite personnel make $33,000 a month. But there are no industry standards, and soldiers are not taught in advance how to interact with the armed contractors, according to the GAO.
     
  18. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    No Bush quotes ? Oh well.

    Cheney says....(from that link)
    "My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."

    Hardly a promise of a quick war.

    Rumsfeld said...
    "And the people in Iraq need to know that: that it will not be long before they will be liberated."

    They were liberated very soon after the invasion.

    Richard meyers said...
    "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."

    The Iraqi regime has been eliminated, for quite some time, now.

    Richard Perle...
    "Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."

    "But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "


    And it did.

    All the quotes deal with Sadaam. He's been gone for a while. What we are doing is helping the Iraqi people deal with the insurgency, and the people fighting our forces are an extremely small percentage of the total population.

    We won the war against Sadaam a long time ago.
     
  19. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Still looking for more quotes Bro Curtis. That's what I've found so far. Might take a minute or two. ;)

    Saddam is gone and good riddance. I do seem to remember reading somewhere that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the reconstruction. Still looking for all that also. Busy day eh? [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...