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, and the population of California is about ten million more.
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.
Sorry friedo,I thought this was the “Dump bullshit here” thread.
Well, considering this is a Reeder thread, it was a easy mistake to make.
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.
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.
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
BTW, anyone looking for a sig would do well to consider this.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
Wesley Clark seems to have a good head on his shoulders, which is why he’ll never make it anywhere.
Agreed World Eater, which is a damn freaking shame.
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.
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.)
True indeed.