It seems minor conflict in Iraq is more deadly than major conflict.

[Reeder]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

(CBS/AP) The number of American troops killed in postwar Iraq surpassed the toll of those killed in major combat Tuesday, reaching 140 with the deaths of a soldier in a roadside bombing and another in a traffic accident.

So more of our brave men and women have died since Bush declared major conflict over.

And things will get much worse. How many more must die?

A pox on the cretins behind this war for money.

[World Eater]

More reasons we need to get back to "Shock and Awe".

[friedo]

So more of our brave men and women have died since Bush declared major conflict over.

And things will get much worse. How many more must die?



The war lasted for less than a month, beginning with the initial air strikes on March 20th and ending with the official declaration of the end of major combat on April 15th. (Cite (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_war_timeline#March_20,_2003). A total of 26 days.

The US led occupation has been in Iraq since that time, more than four months. What this tells us is that the rate of soldiers being killed in Iraq has in fact decreased, by more than 75%.


A pox on the cretins behind this war for money.


At least people who like money know how to count.

[Reeder]

Originally posted by friedo
snip...



At least people who like money know how to count.

I can count. 140 is more than 138.

Do you agree?

[World Eater]

Reeder, seriously now, what's the point of all this blather?

I can't wait for Bush to get out of office of only so you and December will shut the fuck up.

[Reeder]

Just venting. I read all of the shit Bush and his money grubbing buddies do to wreck our country and dishonor our troops.

I get so fricking mad I have to post.

I just keep in mind..that when the tyrant falls..his men fall too. And those facilitate his ways fall with him.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by World Eater
Reeder, seriously now, what's the point of all this blather?

I can't wait for Bush to get out of office of only so you and December will shut the fuck up. Hate to disappoint you World Eater, but I have the strong feeling that it doesn't matter who gets into office, both of these colon gophers will find something to bitch about.

What was that link someone posted in a thread which said the Allies fought Nazi-loyalists in Germany for two fucking years after WW II ended? The fact that nutjobs feel the urge to take pot shots at our men and women in uniform after a war should come as no surprise.

[Reeder]

If you truly believe it is only "nutjobs" taking "potshots" at our troops..you are sorely mistaken.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by Reeder
If you truly believe it is only "nutjobs" taking "potshots" at our troops..you are sorely mistaken. Oh, I see, it's Bush's oil buddies, who've raised an entire army of ex-Soviet soldiers to kill out troops in order to fullfill some Nineteen Eighty Four-style conspiracy. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

And here I thought it was a bunch of bastards who hated Americans for one reason or another and were under the misguided belief that the instant US forces leave everything in Iraq will be perfect.

[Reeder]

Show me where I have ever said we should leave Iraq.

[friedo]

Originally posted by Reeder
I can count. 140 is more than 138.

Do you agree?

Jesus H. Monkeyfucking Christ on a Pogo Stick With Vanilla Ice Cream on Top.

You are denser than a black hole.

[Reeder]

Show me where I have ever said we should leave Iraq.

[friedo]

Originally posted by Reeder
I can count. 140 is more than 138.

Do you agree?

Jesus H. Monkeyfucking Christ on a Pogo Stick With Vanilla Ice Cream on Top.

You are denser than a black hole.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by Reeder
Show me where I have ever said we should leave Iraq. Show me where I ever claimed that you said that.

[friedo]

Originally posted by Reeder
I can count. 140 is more than 138.

Do you agree?

Jesus H. Monkeyfucking Christ on a Pogo Stick With Vanilla Ice Cream on Top.

You are denser than a black hole.

[Lamar Mundane]

Welcome to the Straight Dope Second Grade Debate and Hair-pulling Club...

[El_Kabong]

Whew, deja vu all over again, in a couple of ways.

[Scylla]

Reeder:

Since you seem to have run away from your last exercise in ineptitude, I'll ask you here:

Do you have anything to contribute other than bitching and moaning? Do you have anything positive to offer, or are you as empty and shallow as your posts would lead me to believe?

[RedFury]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
And here I thought it was a bunch of bastards who hated Americans for one reason or another and were under the misguided belief that the instant US forces leave everything in Iraq will be perfect.

So you think they are "bastards" because they are fighting back the American invaders? How wonderfully simplistic of you.

[Tuckerfan]

One more time friedo and he might get that there's something amiss in his life.

[Reeder]

Watch your toes there scylla.

And what the hell positive is there in this god forsaken war? You are in the oil business aren't you?

[Michael Ellis]

Ah, they're 1920's style "Reeder Threads".

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by RedFury
So you think they are "bastards" because they are fighting back the American invaders? How wonderfully simplistic of you. Ah, RedFury, long time no see. How nice of you to drop in. I suppose you've been busy aiding in the rebuilding of Iraq? Perhaps you've donated money to Red Crescent (http://www.ifrc.org/WHAT/disasters/response/iraq.asp) to help with rebuilding Iraq?

As to why I think they're bastards, let's see, we've got reports of Al Qaeda fighters racing to Iraq in hopes of killing Americans. Not exactly like they're defending their homeland, now is it? Of course, that comes from US news sources, so no doubt you'll consider it to more propaganda from the US. Of course, there is that little matter of the truck bomb used to kill the folks from the UN, and the fact that the majority of Iraqis, no matter how they may feel about having US troops in their country aren't shooting at US soldiers every chance they get. Yeah, that makes 'em bastards in my book.

Still waiting for you to provide a peaceful solution for getting Saddam out of Iraq.

[Atreyu]

Originally posted by Reeder
I get so fricking mad I have to post.

Perhaps a blog would be more to your liking. That way, you can write whatever you like without fear of someone else coming along and challenging your asinine rants.

In the meantime, I'm wishing you into the cornfield.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
...Still waiting for you to provide a peaceful solution for getting Saddam out of Iraq.

Don't be so fucking hard-headed. It is obvious that if GW channeled love and hugs through a topaz crystal, augmented by a steady humming from the UNSC, Saddam would have seen the error of his ways, and left.

[Reeder]

Well..we went to war with Iraq. We saw the state of Saddams military. Not one aircraft went into battle. No WMD. No nukes.

No real uniformed military. I do agree the Fedahyeen put up a fight.

Not even any real weapons programs.

He was a threat all right.

Look!

Kim Jong Il!

[friedo]

You forgot the scented candles.

[John Mace]

Reeder:

Nice to see that you have begun posting more of your threads in the BBQ Pit. It's kind of like GD, without all the high falootin' politeness. Sometimes I find it very refreshing.

What senario could you envision in Iraq that would make it seem, if not worthwhile, at least a net benefit for the world that so many of our brave troops have given their lives?

[Sam Stone]

And since we're now counting accidents and medical problems in our death count, I wonder how many deaths there would be in a population of 175,000 other people engaged in physical work?

And I am SICK AND TIRED of the media's goddamned death count, with each one prefaced with, "And that makes X people killed since President Bush declared major combat operations over." You want to report the deaths, fine. I understand the media's need to be dramatic regardless of cost. But can we at least can the little cheap shot that follows every shooting? It isn't becoming supposedly non-biased news reporting.

And how come no one is writing about the positive stuff? Like the 65,000 Iraqi men that have been hired as police, and are being shipped to Eastern Europe for an 8-week intensive police training course? Or the fact that regional councils are now up and running in all areas? Or that Iraqi courts are up and running, and have been giving autonomy and authority to try the people the U.S. has captured (and have been releasing some according to their law, without complaint from the U.S.)?

Look, we all know there are problems in Iraq. Serious problems. But a BALANCED view should also include the things that are going right, so people can judge both and decide for themselves what the overall picture looks like. By only reporting the bad stuff, the media is creating a picture of Iraq as a totally chaotic violent hellhole. And that's just not the case.

[Enderw24]

Originally posted by Lamar Mundane
Welcome to the Straight Dope Second Grade Debate and Hair-pulling Club...
Where Reeder's not just the president, he's also a client.

[Reeder]

Mr Stone..where these troops not in Iraq at Mr Bushe's bequest..they would not be there for the accidents to happen.

As for the regional councils and courts..were they elected or appointed?

As for the police..the course is two years not 8 weeks.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Reeder
Watch your toes there scylla.

And what the hell positive is there in this god forsaken war? You are in the oil business aren't you?

Oh that's rich.

At least be accurate and accuse him of being on cahoots with the current administration.

There are plenty of oil companies that ain't making a dime off this war.

[Reeder]

Name one.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Reeder
Mr Stone..where these troops not in Iraq at Mr Bushe's bequest..they would not be there for the accidents to happen.


Of course other accidents would be continuing.

The real shame of it was there were some valid reasons to go in, it's just that Bush trumped up the wrong angle.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Reeder
Name one.

Russia’s Lukoil, which lost a fat contract because of the impending war.

[World Eater]

Is that tumbleweed blowing through your thread Reeder?

[Michael Ellis]

AAAAAGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=207403)

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by World Eater
Is that tumbleweed blowing through your thread Reeder? As usual, [b]reeder's (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3899748) packed his bags and moved onto another thread.

[Michael Ellis]

AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Read_Neck]

Hey Reeder,you're more likely to get murdered in California (6.6 per day) than Iraq (1.7 per day). It must be a "quagmire".

[friedo]

Not a good argument, Read_Neck. Your numbers account only for the Coalition military deaths in occupied Iraq and don't include civilian murders there. Further, the population of Iraq is about 24 million (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People), and the population of California is about ten million more (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html).

For an accurate statistic comparing murder rates in the two places, you need to count all murders (a number which, I am afraid, is likely unavailable in Iraq) as a percentage of the population as a whole.

[Read_Neck]

Sorry friedo,I thought this was the "Dump bullshit here" thread.

[Michael Ellis]

Well, considering this is a Reeder thread, it was a easy mistake to make.

[Finagle]

Without minimizing the tragedy that is the loss of any soldier, my feeling is that Reeder lacks any sense of historical perspective. Casualties among the American forces would be considered astoundingly light by military leaders of any other period in history. Consider a couple of examples:

http://www.napoleonguide.com/windies.htm

While there were very few major battles, casualties were extremely high among European troops as tropical diseases struck with regular brutality.

"Over a period of a decade, more than 45,000 British soldiers died while serving in the West Indies - with fevers being blamed for almost all of the deaths - and almost as many again were forced out of military service with debilitating conditions caused by the illnesses.

On San Domingo, where Napoleon Bonaparte sent some 60,000 men to topple the rebel black leader Toussaint l'Overture, more than 80% had succumbed to yellow fever - including his brother-in-law and expedition commander General Charles Leclerc."

http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/broadside2.html

"The Brunswick went out to the West Indies in 1801 and was almost immediately hit by yellow fever with 287 men on the sick list. The Hannibal lost 200 men in six months. "

And lest one argue that these are cases of disease, not actual combat, here's a typical siege from the Napoleanic wars:

http://www.ifbt.co.uk/san_sebastian.htm

(Vs. 3000 defenders)
"San Sebastian was taken soon afterwards although the castle of La Mota held out until September 8th. Allied casualties were 856 killed and 1,520 wounded. The aftermath of the storming of San Sebastian was much the same as that at Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz as the victorious troops embarked upon an orgy of destruction which was made worse by a fire that engulfed the whole town."


And too many other examples from more recent history to mention.

No matter what you think of the ethics of the Iraq war, losses were historically low.

[Jackmannii]

Finagle, I wish you hadn't posted all them historical facts.

Now there will be a new thread explaining why George W. Bush is exactly like Toussaint l'Overture.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by Brutus
Don't be so fucking hard-headed. It is obvious that if GW channeled love and hugs through a topaz crystal, augmented by a steady humming from the UNSC, Saddam would have seen the error of his ways, and left.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

BTW, anyone looking for a sig would do well to consider this.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Brutus
It is obvious that if GW channeled love and hugs through a topaz crystal, augmented by a steady humming from the UNSC, Saddam would have seen the error of his ways, and left.
Well, it wouldn't have gotten Saddam out of Iraq, but given the total lack of WMDs, banned weapons, or mobile chemical labs in Iraq, it seems George W. Bush could have neutralized Iraq's "imminent threat" to the United States if he had done the whole crystal-channeling schtick.

But then he wouldn't get all that Iraqi oil, would he?
Shhhhhh!

[Wabbit]

I'm not one of the people who thinks we shouldn't have taken out Saddam (he was an asshole, we've been fighting him since the end of Gulf War Mk1 by enforcing the UN-sanctioned No Fly Zones, and he was a major destabilizing force in the region). But, BUT, I think we went about it in the most half-assed, incompetent way possible, in my humble opinion, and our military strategy (which has been largely cobbled together by Rumsfeld, the first Sec. of Defense who has taken such an active part in military planning since, well McNamara and we all know how well THAT turned out) isn't much better.

Here are some general, commonsensical rules for any military engagement.
1) Figure out the maximum number of troops you'd need if the entire operation went south in a big way. Then double (or preferably triple) that number--that is the number of troops you should use to ensure success with the absolute minimum number of casualties. This is essentially what the Powell Doctrine stated, and it's served us well every time we've used it. When we haven't used it (in Somalia, say), things tended to go sour. So Rumsfeld, being the budding military genius he thinks he is, decides not to use it. Nice job, bucko.

2) Don't base your strategy on assumptions that the other guy won't fight and/or that his people like you because, darn it, you're an 'Merikan and everyone loves us. In other words, plan for a guerilla war after the conventional one. This makes a lot of sense because you can pretty much bank on the fact that every crazed Muslim fanatic that's not trying to send a bunch of Israelis to meet the Big G is going to be gunning for you. This goes back to the whole manpower thing--drones or fancy-schmancy artillery can't police a city--only humans can do that.

3) Avoid fighting on multiple fronts if at all possible (concentrate your forces, in other words). I know we did it in WWII, but that was an emergency. Now we appear to be fighting in two major theaters with the potential (please god, don't let the North Koreans get any ideas) for one more. I don't know that we've got the Reserves necessary to deal with another emergency and that, quite frankly, makes me uneasy. I don't know that we needed to rush into Gulf War MkII prior to finishing up in Afghanistan b/c it seems to me that Saddam wasn't going anywhere. In fact, it makes more sense to give him a year or two to dig himself into a hole so you can make the case to the UN for taking his dumb ass out.

4) Always rally as many allies as possible to your cause b/c that means more troops which means the bad guys have more targets to shoot at than just your citizens. In other words, don't go out of your way to piss off the UN unless you're facing a dire, nation-threatening emergency.

Rumsfeld and Bush have done none of these things. I think we, as American citizens, deserve the best, most competent leadership available and I don't think we're getting that. Of course I'm not exactly pleased with the choices the Dem's are offering up either (Dean just looks like a wanker to me). If only McCain would run....

[World Eater]

Wesley Clark seems to have a good head on his shoulders, which is why he'll never make it anywhere.

[Wabbit]

Agreed World Eater, which is a damn freaking shame.

[World Eater]

I seriously wonder if we are living in the turning point of this country going down the crapper. I mean, I can't really picture our problems getting better in the current political environment, and I don't picture the current political environment getting any better.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by World Eater
Wesley Clark seems to have a good head on his shoulders, which is why he'll never make it anywhere. I dunno, the guy made it to 5 star, and that ain't easy to do. If he's smart enough to do that, he might be able to figure out how to get into the White House.

Remember Alan Keyes who was running for the Republican nomination in double aught? I, and most of my friends, agreed that if he won the nomination, he would be the candidate that we'd vote for. Not because we agreed with him (we didn't), but because out of all the looneys running in all the parties, he seemed to be the only one who believed what he was saying. The rest of them came off as sounding like they'd say whatever it took to get them elected.

If Clark speaks from the heart, and the Democrats are smart enough to throw all their weight behind him, he'll clinch the White House for sure. Be Eisenhower all over again. (Well, you know what I mean.)

[World Eater]

True indeed.