U.S. Deaths in Iraq pass 1000

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 03 May 2007 05:24

I just clicked on the 8th page of this forum and saw the title of this post. Its pretty saddening. Considering the 3000 barrier was broken bout 5 months ago. Discussion?

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 07 May 2007 08:52

Blue_turnip wrote:I just clicked on the 8th page of this forum and saw the title of this post. Its pretty saddening. Considering the 3000 barrier was broken bout 5 months ago. Discussion?

Why not start a new topic you lame dumbass? Quit bumping old topics.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 07 May 2007 18:09

Well it wouldn't have been the effect i was looking for. I was trying to emphasize the distance we've come from the 1000 milestone.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 07 May 2007 20:39

That was more than two and a half years ago buddy. 2000 more deaths is not that bad. There's nothing to emphasize. Well, more like 2300ish.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 08 May 2007 03:24

I hope people can ignore the meaningless aggression in this topic, and focus on the issue.

I think it's becoming more and more apparent just how much of a disaster the war in Iraq is for the US. Not only has it killed lots of people, including more Americans than have died due to terrorist attacks, but it has cost billions of dollars, that have not resulted in any gains for American people - it's just wasted money, and it's significantly hurt relations with a lot of countries, while not strengthening relations with any countries. Even in a country like Australia, which is one of the US' strongest allies, people are more "anti-american" than they used to be because of this war (according to a newspoll about a year ago).

That said, it's hard to see a good solution. The best solution for America would be to pull out as soon as possible, but I am unconvinced that that is the best solution for Iraq, and I'd rather see Americans paying for the problem in Iraq than anybody else (since it's their problem).

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 09 May 2007 22:14

It wont be such a disaster in 50 years when we control the oil!

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 09 May 2007 22:39

Jeremy, I'm curious to know what you think about this article

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... iraq070401

Yesterday, I read that someone with the last name Schwab had died over in Baghdad in the 3rd brigade. I have a friend Willy Schwab in 3rd brigade. I was doing community service, and went into this big portable storage thing and bawled my eyes out for a bit. Turns out it was Kody Schwab, not Willy Schwab. Man. That sucks for Kody.

My brother left for Baghdad today. Also in 3rd brigade. I think he's in Texas tonight, but he might have left there already. He went and visited our old Dallas suburb this afternoon.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 May 2007 22:50

If it's posted by Jeremy O'Wheel, I give it a bad rating.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 09 May 2007 23:00

I don't care, you can do whatever you want with it. I just figured it was something you might be interested in and something I was interested to hear your opinin on. Don't need to get bitchy about it. I was only joking around.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 15 May 2007 01:56

crazylegs32 wrote:It wont be such a disaster in 50 years when we control the oil!

Too bad that by then oil will be an obsolete resource.

Double too bad that your economy will have crumpled and you won't have control over Iraq. Even if your economy doesn't end up licking balls you're still not gonna control Iraq, or any oil. You're not in control of Iraq now, and I can't see it happening anytime soon.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 15 May 2007 08:36

Blue_turnip wrote:
crazylegs32 wrote:It wont be such a disaster in 50 years when we control the oil!
Too bad that by then oil will be an obsolete resource.

Double too bad that your economy will have crumpled and you won't have control over Iraq. Even if your economy doesn't end up licking balls you're still not gonna control Iraq, or any oil. You're not in control of Iraq now, and I can't see it happening anytime soon.

The US is in almost complete control of Iraq, wth are you smoking? These attacks that occasionally happen on allied troops are not of another nation. They are rebellious cults is all. Control, is still held by the US in Iraq. An occasional explosion, attack, gunfight, etc, does not mean we do not control the country. We control the government, and we don't get over run, and we don't retreat from any of our primary outposts. Once any of this changes, you let me know, and I'll let you know when we're not in control of Iraq. Because right now, we have a vice grip on it (Politically).

The US, not in control of Iraq, that's the stupidest thing I've heard in this entire thread. I don't think you know what control is.

apoplectic · Post by **apoplectic** » 15 May 2007 09:43

Jeremy wrote:That said, it's hard to see a good solution. The best solution for America would be to pull out as soon as possible

thats probably the worst thing we could do right now.if we pull out now,thats only showing the terrorists that we can't beat them,and since we have the most feared military (supposedly),whats stopping them from global takeover?and plus,if we pull out now,the men who really beleive in this war who have died in it would have died in vein,men who were only trying to help.i personally cant have that on my conscience.

mizua_r · Post by **mizua_r** » 15 May 2007 11:46

I'm not going to say anything about the reasons and ethics of the war, but consider this, if you will. Take the number of deaths that have occurred in all U.S. wars up to 9-11, and compare that to the number of our own lives lost in a single day at the battle of Antietem in the American Civil War. There were more deaths in that single day than all combined. If we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it, even if we think we are too intelligent to make a mistake again. Take this post how you will.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 15 May 2007 17:55

apoplectic wrote:
Jeremy wrote:That said, it's hard to see a good solution. The best solution for America would be to pull out as soon as possible
thats probably the worst thing we could do right now.if we pull out now,thats only showing the terrorists that we can't beat them,and since we have the most feared military (supposedly),whats stopping them from global takeover?and plus,if we pull out now,the men who really beleive in this war who have died in it would have died in vein,men who were only trying to help.i personally cant have that on my conscience.

What evidence do you have that you can beat terrorists with force?

Before the Iraq invasion there were no terrorists in Iraq, now it's full of terrorists. What changed? The US started using force there.

When we look at places that had terrorist problems and now don't we don't see terrorists getting destroyed by force at all.

Northern Ireland is fantastic example. They obviously had a big terrorism problem, and now a former terrorist is part of their government. You may think that that's a bad thing, but people aren't getting killed in Northern Ireland any more.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 15 May 2007 18:02

apoplectic wrote:and plus,if we pull out now,the men who really beleive in this war who have died in it would have died in vein,men who were only trying to help.i personally cant have that on my conscience.

So instead you choose to have more deaths (all of the people who will keep dying while we're there) on "your" conscience by having more troops cycle in to die and kill people in a war that's not ours to fight? That seems like a waste of other people's lives to me.

Even (and especially) troops over there who have lost comrades want the US to pull out. If the soldiers want it, the people of that land want it, and many of the people here in the USA want it, maybe it's worth giving up a little pride to bring our boys back.

Guest_1 · Post by **Guest_1** » 15 May 2007 21:03

Jeremy wrote:The best solution for America would be to pull out as soon as possible,

Pulling out is hardly effective

American sexual education

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 16 May 2007 03:14

It would be great if people could stop quoting me out of context.

What I clearly wrote is that pulling out would be best for the US, but went on to say that it might not be best for Iraq.

So far the US has spent over $400 billion on the war in Iraq and have lost the lives of over 3000 citizens.

Given that, how have things improved for Americans?

The answer, of course, is that they haven't improved at all. In fact the risk of terrorism and the price of petrol have both gone up since the invasion.

I can't see anyway that this has been positive for the US, or that it has the potential to become a positive event for US interests.

It seems blatantly obvious that it will be completely to the US' benefit to pull out.

Of course some people would argue that the US has a moral obligation to stay, and I believe that is true if their presence is making things better for Iraq. As I went on to say in the same sentence that has been cut up and quoted twice, I don't know if it's in Iraq's interests for the US to leave, and I think that's the important question.

If you read my whole sentence, and just not the start of it, you'll see I wasn't advocating that the US pull out at all.

I don't think it is that hard to read a whole sentence and not just half of it, although I did make it past primary school, so perhaps I'm being too harsh.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 16 May 2007 03:46

Switch Kicker wrote:
Blue_turnip wrote:
crazylegs32 wrote:It wont be such a disaster in 50 years when we control the oil!
Too bad that by then oil will be an obsolete resource.

Double too bad that your economy will have crumpled and you won't have control over Iraq. Even if your economy doesn't end up licking balls you're still not gonna control Iraq, or any oil. You're not in control of Iraq now, and I can't see it happening anytime soon.
The US is in almost complete control of Iraq, wth are you smoking? These attacks that occasionally happen on allied troops are not of another nation. They are rebellious cults is all. Control, is still held by the US in Iraq. An occasional explosion, attack, gunfight, etc, does not mean we do not control the country. We control the government, and we don't get over run, and we don't retreat from any of our primary outposts. Once any of this changes, you let me know, and I'll let you know when we're not in control of Iraq. Because right now, we have a vice grip on it (Politically).

The US, not in control of Iraq, that's the stupidest thing I've heard in this entire thread. I don't think you know what control is.

I'm not smoking anything, but it sounds like you are. You're clearly blinded by patriotism. "An occasional explosion [etc]" my ass. You are not in control of Iraq - it's an absolute mess. Face reality.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 16 May 2007 03:48

Switch Kicker wrote: The US, not in control of Iraq, that's the stupidest thing I've heard in this entire thread. I don't think you know what control is.

You've said so much stupid stuff before that i'm not even surprised when you pull shit like this out of your ass.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 16 May 2007 10:49

Blue_turnip wrote:
Switch Kicker wrote:
Blue_turnip wrote: Too bad that by then oil will be an obsolete resource.

Double too bad that your economy will have crumpled and you won't have control over Iraq. Even if your economy doesn't end up licking balls you're still not gonna control Iraq, or any oil. You're not in control of Iraq now, and I can't see it happening anytime soon.
The US is in almost complete control of Iraq, wth are you smoking? These attacks that occasionally happen on allied troops are not of another nation. They are rebellious cults is all. Control, is still held by the US in Iraq. An occasional explosion, attack, gunfight, etc, does not mean we do not control the country. We control the government, and we don't get over run, and we don't retreat from any of our primary outposts. Once any of this changes, you let me know, and I'll let you know when we're not in control of Iraq. Because right now, we have a vice grip on it (Politically).

The US, not in control of Iraq, that's the stupidest thing I've heard in this entire thread. I don't think you know what control is.
I'm not smoking anything, but it sounds like you are. You're clearly blinded by patriotism. "An occasional explosion [etc]" my ass. You are not in control of Iraq - it's an absolute mess. Face reality.

Right, it's a total mess. Forget the fact that they have running water in more parts of Iraq now, and that they've got fiber optic internet flowing around in most of the major cities and what not. But no... it's a total mess compared to what it was before, right?

And Jeremy, we have not lost 3000 citizens.

And not to be picky... Moxie, but it's not just guys over there. I'm sure you know that. "Boys in blue." "Bring our boys home." They're all lines we're really trying to steer away from. There's just more and more women signing up lately. Half of our RSP Platoon (New recruits getting pretraining before they ship to basic.) is made up of women right now. I have two other women, one I work with, the other I just met at a party last month, who want to join in the next couple of weeks. (Woot, $4000 in my pocket if they do.

) I've assisted in recruiting more women than I have men in the past year.

You know.. it's funny. No one wants this war to continue... However, recruitment rates are at their highest lately. Every fuckin' month, there's always 6 or 7 new members in the RSP Platoon. It used to be 2-3 new recruits every 2 months.

I always approach each new recruit, and ask them to tell me what they think of Bush, and the war. Only 1/10 people actually like the war in Iraq, 9/10 want to go to the war in Iraq, and 8 or 9 out of 10 want the war in Iraq to end.

This tells me, that there are people out there, that want this war to end, so badly, that they're signing up, to help get it over with. That's just what I see when I look at this.