How many more troops have to die?

Old_School · September 21, 2005, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Ida_Mann on September 21, 2005, 10:34:15 AM
just a thought, I spent the last 10 minutes cleaning up this post, please don't make any of the mods delete it.

I don't think any of us will spend more time than that.

Id@

Id@, have no fear the zilla is here. I'll just run them over with my dinosaur.

Cain, I respect your views...well kinda.

j/k. I'm just pissed at the death toll, and yes I know that with a war there's death. I don't know how I would of reacted when Truman gave the ok to drop the A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't know the exact number killed but I believe it easily excessed 100k. But it's how our troops are dying. Pu$$& a** suicide bombers, road mines, and snipers. What do we have to "finish"? What classifies the mission as complete? I thought that since now they have some type of government setup up that we just have to train their military and up their head count to allow them to fend for themselves? There will always be terrorism in the world, that will never be extinct. There's always gonna be some extreme Al Queida Ala Muhamad Isalmic Jehad El Crapo group with intention similiar to the cartoon "Pinky and The Brain" with plans to take over the world. So with that being said, to get the job complete the ETA is NEVER?

?? -Mark

cain73 · September 21, 2005, 11:10:12 AM

The death toll sucks, but it's a small sacrifice when you look strictly at numbers. There will always be bad guys in the world but that doesn't mean we turn out backs. We have criminals in the US and yet we pay cops to work all day every day. We don't give up in teh face of adversity. In the terrorist example we wipe out the main hordes and deal with the few stragglers as they come. We can't say oh well therre will always be terrorists so why bother. We knock out their main supports and make it harder for them to exist and attack. there is no eta in time but maybe in successfully supressing enough to make it ok to take a defensive posture. By installing democracy in Iraq and Afganistan we are well on our way. we have given two less places for terrorists to hide and plot against us. hopefully soon the gov in Iraq will be self sufficient and able to handle security there on their own. But for now we need to be there to help get things going in the right direction.

Old_School · September 21, 2005, 11:19:24 AM

Right but earlier you said "to finish the job" well finish what? Now you say there is no ETA. So realistically the US troops will be there for what 5 yrs, 10 yrs, indefinately? See my point. I most certainly don't agree with the mentality of "turn our heads" but d**n do something that has an impact against them. Since establishing a new government and Sadaam's downfall the terrorist haven't stopped. So what's next? We could send squadron after squadron of bombers and level the cities. But the innocient die, but that's war right? Innocent people died in 9/11, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. But sitting there like ducks in a pond is not what I call a War on Terror. -Mark

EDIT: all this is, is just another Veitnam. You have any friends or relatives that fought in Vietnam? Ask them if they think this war is similiar.

wilburz · September 21, 2005, 12:11:21 PM

Quote from: cain73 on September 21, 2005, 11:10:12 AM
The death toll sucks, but it's a small sacrifice when you look strictly at numbers. There will always be bad guys in the world but that doesn't mean we turn out backs. We have criminals in the US and yet we pay cops to work all day every day. We don't give up in teh face of adversity. In the terrorist example we wipe out the main hordes and deal with the few stragglers as they come. We can't say oh well therre will always be terrorists so why bother. We knock out their main supports and make it harder for them to exist and attack. there is no eta in time but maybe in successfully supressing enough to make it ok to take a defensive posture. By installing democracy in Iraq and Afganistan we are well on our way. we have given two less places for terrorists to hide and plot against us. hopefully soon the gov in Iraq will be self sufficient and able to handle security there on their own. But for now we need to be there to help get things going in the right direction.

There are all kinds of terrorists hiding in iraq and afganistan right now waiting to shoot an rpg at anyone. I don't think they are having any problem existing there and plotting. I think the us is taking a defensive posture right now and getting soldiers killed this way. the us has gone on offensive a few times but what they are really lacking is a whole lot more soldiers. They are undermanned and undergunned. If they would have brought in more soldiers in the beginning the place proballby would not be such a powder keg.

TRX350_On_The_Rack · September 21, 2005, 12:24:56 PM

Quote from: wilburz on September 21, 2005, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: cain73 on September 21, 2005, 11:10:12 AM
The death toll sucks, but it's a small sacrifice when you look strictly at numbers. There will always be bad guys in the world but that doesn't mean we turn out backs. We have criminals in the US and yet we pay cops to work all day every day. We don't give up in teh face of adversity. In the terrorist example we wipe out the main hordes and deal with the few stragglers as they come. We can't say oh well therre will always be terrorists so why bother. We knock out their main supports and make it harder for them to exist and attack. there is no eta in time but maybe in successfully supressing enough to make it ok to take a defensive posture. By installing democracy in Iraq and Afganistan we are well on our way. we have given two less places for terrorists to hide and plot against us. hopefully soon the gov in Iraq will be self sufficient and able to handle security there on their own. But for now we need to be there to help get things going in the right direction.

There are all kinds of terrorists hiding in iraq and afganistan right now waiting to shoot an rpg at anyone. I don't think they are having any problem existing there and plotting. I think the us is taking a defensive posture right now and getting soldiers killed this way. the us has gone on offensive a few times but what they are really lacking is a whole lot more soldiers. They are undermanned and undergunned. If they would have brought in more soldiers in the beginning the place proballby would not be such a powder keg.

Yes, but where are we suspose to get the soldiers from? Could of really used the UN's support, even though I think they would of needed a lot more evidence to help us out. Not the UN is all that, but at least we might be able to get some of our boys back here to protect us.

Old_School · September 21, 2005, 12:28:46 PM

Quote from: TRX350_On_The_Rack on September 21, 2005, 12:24:56 PM
Quote from: wilburz on September 21, 2005, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: cain73 on September 21, 2005, 11:10:12 AM
The death toll sucks, but it's a small sacrifice when you look strictly at numbers. There will always be bad guys in the world but that doesn't mean we turn out backs. We have criminals in the US and yet we pay cops to work all day every day. We don't give up in teh face of adversity. In the terrorist example we wipe out the main hordes and deal with the few stragglers as they come. We can't say oh well therre will always be terrorists so why bother. We knock out their main supports and make it harder for them to exist and attack. there is no eta in time but maybe in successfully supressing enough to make it ok to take a defensive posture. By installing democracy in Iraq and Afganistan we are well on our way. we have given two less places for terrorists to hide and plot against us. hopefully soon the gov in Iraq will be self sufficient and able to handle security there on their own. But for now we need to be there to help get things going in the right direction.

There are all kinds of terrorists hiding in iraq and afganistan right now waiting to shoot an rpg at anyone. I don't think they are having any problem existing there and plotting. I think the us is taking a defensive posture right now and getting soldiers killed this way. the us has gone on offensive a few times but what they are really lacking is a whole lot more soldiers. They are undermanned and undergunned. If they would have brought in more soldiers in the beginning the place proballby would not be such a powder keg.

Yes, but where are we suspose to get the soldiers from? Could of really used the UN's support, even though I think they would of needed a lot more evidence to help us out. Not the UN is all that, but at least we might be able to get some of our boys back here to protect us.

That's the other thing that doesn't make sense. If the UN was against invading Iraq then why did we go ahead and move in anyways? UN said no, Colon Powell was lied to then retired, what was the reason on why went in there again? Oh ya I forgot, WMD.

-Mark

Anoriginal · September 21, 2005, 01:30:44 PM

Great thread.

bigscrub79 · September 21, 2005, 01:35:14 PM

Quote from: Anoriginal on September 21, 2005, 01:30:44 PM
Great thread.

Thats all you have to say, i got so excited when i saw you replied then i get this. I am very dissapointed.

TRX350_On_The_Rack · September 21, 2005, 01:43:18 PM

Quote from: bigscrub79 on September 21, 2005, 01:35:14 PM
Quote from: Anoriginal on September 21, 2005, 01:30:44 PM
Great thread.
Thats all you have to say, i got so excited when i saw you replied then i get this. I am very dissapointed.

2:L That's what I was thinking

shulco · September 21, 2005, 01:55:50 PM

cain you might have a good point when you wrote Behavioral reinforcement dictates that any behavior that is demonstrated that is reinforced by positive meand or by withdrawl of negative or aversive stimuli will become reinforced and therefore more likely in the future.

IT all started when Kennedy left the Cubans with their stuff in the wind at the Bay of pigs, sence then half a-- withdraw from Korea, flat out abandoned nam , now its a toss up if we stay the course or not.
so I guess we did learn but not a he-- of a lot

Anoriginal · September 21, 2005, 04:15:51 PM

Quote from: TRX350_On_The_Rack on September 21, 2005, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: bigscrub79 on September 21, 2005, 01:35:14 PM
Quote from: Anoriginal on September 21, 2005, 01:30:44 PM
Great thread.
Thats all you have to say, i got so excited when i saw you replied then i get this. I am very dissapointed.

2:L That's what I was thinking

Actually, I haven't had time to read it all in depth. I like to really read carefully and think about things before I post. I can tell you this much, I don't see things in terms of party lines or in terms of liberal verses conservative. I think the extremes on both sides are equally foolish/dangerous. I'm more of a realist.
Anyway, with the brief review I've given this thread; it seems to be quite "spirited" to say the least. Cain is as eloquent as ever and always has some interesting perspective. I'll follow up. It's just that lately, my career has kept me so busy I've hardly had time to catch my breath.

cain73 · September 21, 2005, 05:44:12 PM

Anoriginal - I hope your career leaves time for some correspondence. I enjoy a good debate as you know. Mark is definitely a good one to discuss such an issue with, but hey , the more the merrier

I don't think we'll be there forever, but so far it's a relatively short time when you look at the overall picture. Remove a dictator that has destroyed the country over the last 30 years, begin the process of installing democracy, and help secure our country at the same time, while continuing to fight the terrorists of neighboring countries that flock to the battle due to religious beliefs.
We went in without the UN because they are and have been for a great deal of time, an impotent society of scholars that wish they had an impact. It's a joke. They all made resolutions about Iraq then backed down. And why? Um how about the billions of barrels of oil flowing into their countries while those governing the oil for food program and sadam got rich. Greed is a nasty thing and the UN is consumed by it. How about the pipelines to Russia and rance? Gee I wonder why they resisted any real action and were for more talk and useless resolutions. We as a nation stopped paying UN dues under the Reagan administration. As recently as a few years ago we still weren't paying. There's a reason for that.
Finishing the job means staying until we can stabilize the country and make sure that some oter nut won't come to power and pull a sadam. How long has there been a US military presence in Korea ? Is that job finished? If we walk away they regroup and attack. Now they are on the defensive looking for places to hide. Gorilla tactics are effective, but so is a war of attrition. I don't know the exact numbers but we kill many of them for every one of ours. It stinks but we need to stay until we can make sure a strong anti-terrorist democracy is installed and functioning. Yes that means a longer deployment for our troops. Which would you rather have? our troops there hunting down the terrorists and keeping them on the run, or our troops here waiting to see where we are attacked next so they can help clean up the dead bodies?

jwscroll · September 21, 2005, 06:11:23 PM

Here's one way to look at it, If our boys and girls weren't over there keeping them busy defending their own beliefs the terrorists would be over here making us targets and killing innocents.
I don't really agree with the reasons for going to war, but it's too late for that to matter considering how deep into this thing we are.
I do have to wonder about what the long term payoff will be. What happens if the country doesn't stabilize, do we stay or pull out? I agree that we should probably maintain a strong military presence even after we pull out, how else can we gaurantee that all the sacrifices this country has made to try and save Iraq will be worth while. In Korea we have maintained a presence since the end of the Korean war, in Cuba we own part of the island. If and when we do "pull out" we'll never be done with it because of how much Americans have already invested.

cain73 · September 21, 2005, 06:28:49 PM

Quote from: Raptor700R on September 21, 2005, 06:14:08 PM
Our nice persident wants to rob all the oil there thats why he needs troops there to guard the tankers. If it wasnt for oil we would'nt be there in the 1 place. Hope are troops come home ALIVE!!!!!

Not to be offensive , but that is a totally ignorant remark to make. If we were filling tankers and bringing them out would gas be $3.00 per gallon ? That's just a Bush hating, unfounded statement trying to blame his personal agenda for a war that started when we were attacked. Oil doesn't go into the equation. That's just anti-Bush propoganda. If you were already rich would you start a war to make a few more bucks? Bush doesn't have to worry about money. If that were the case it would make more sense to inverst wisely than to put up with the political grief it has brought. Please participate AFTER doing some research so that you may post relavent remarks. Opinion or facts are great, but at least have a reason for saying it. Going back to personal attacks are played out and old. If you personally have proof I would love to see it.

wilburz · September 21, 2005, 07:05:09 PM

Cain

What do you think the exceptable ratio of dead insurgents to dead american soldiers should be? 1000 to 1? Less? Evertime one American soldier dies over there for nothing is one time too many. The game plan, if you want to call it that, was and still is a joke. If we wanted to stabalize the region why not just up the troop count in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? Iraq has been stabalize for the last ten years until we intervened.

cain73 · September 21, 2005, 07:13:50 PM

would you send in 5 firefighters into a burning building to save 1 little girl? I would. I hate that any American soldiers or that any civilians die at the hands of terrorists, but that doesn't mean we should walk away. How aboutyou ask some newly freed Iraqi citizens if 1,900 deaths was too many to free a country. And stable ? I bet you would have thought it stable befor ehe invaded Kuwait too. Does that mean as long as he's only killing his people, promoting and funding terrorism, and doesn't actively attack us with his military that it's a stable territory ? American soldiers aren't dying for nothing. They are in the process of installing democracy where only brutal dictatorship was before. Does that mean that it's for nothing unless it is to save your life ?

wilburz · September 21, 2005, 07:35:55 PM

I don't think 5 firefighters saving a girl is much of a comparison to the invasion of Iraq.

What logic do you think the countries that did not support invading Iraq used to come to that conclusion? Maybe they did not think of Iraq as a global terrorist haven?

Would you send in 5 or so huge contracting companies with billions of dollars worth of contracts at stake to help out with the stabalization process? Seems as though Mr. Bush did. No bidding process either. Seems like the whole thing is about money to me.

cain73 · September 21, 2005, 07:38:51 PM

Would you rather we sent in all of our military to do the job that civilians can do? Then you would cry that our military should be doing other things. You're right the fireman analogy wasn't acurate, let me fix it. How about 1 soldier to rescue 5000 Iraqi little girls ?

wilburz · September 21, 2005, 07:43:53 PM

I'm tired. How about we have a drink?

cain73 · September 21, 2005, 07:45:30 PM

As long as it's not laced so you can get my pants off

wilburz · September 21, 2005, 07:53:20 PM

How high is your tolerance to rhohipnol or GHB?

cain73 · September 21, 2005, 07:55:40 PM

I donn knoouuw whhhy -a dooou I feeeeelllll sooooo sleeeeeepeeee ?

Jaskel · September 22, 2005, 02:17:59 PM

Quote from: Old_School on September 21, 2005, 10:53:52 AM
But it's how our troops are dying. Pu$$& a** suicide bombers, road mines, and snipers.

Not to reign on your train of thought too much here, but in perspective a bit, or to say that i condone anything that a terrorist would do, but death being death, the Brits probably said the same damned thing when we introduced our guerilla tactics during the revolutionary war...

I am not saying they should keep it up, far to the contrary, they honestly should all just get together and blow themselves and their compadres up, but, history tells us that anyway someone can fight, and try to gain some sort of advantage will be taken

apkkfx400 · September 22, 2005, 02:54:22 PM

How many more have to die-hopefully no more-but that's not realistic. The truth is however many it takes to get the job done. The US can not just up and leave that country in the state of turmoil it is currently in. Hopefully the radicals will soon see that they will not gain anything with their acts of violence/stupidity, other than getting dead-by themselves or by us!!

bigscrub79 · September 22, 2005, 03:29:36 PM

Quote from: Anoriginal on September 21, 2005, 04:15:51 PM
Quote from: TRX350_On_The_Rack on September 21, 2005, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: bigscrub79 on September 21, 2005, 01:35:14 PM
Quote from: Anoriginal on September 21, 2005, 01:30:44 PM
Great thread.
Thats all you have to say, i got so excited when i saw you replied then i get this. I am very dissapointed.

2:L That's what I was thinking

Actually, I haven't had time to read it all in depth. I like to really read carefully and think about things before I post. I can tell you this much, I don't see things in terms of party lines or in terms of liberal verses conservative. I think the extremes on both sides are equally foolish/dangerous. I'm more of a realist.
Anyway, with the brief review I've given this thread; it seems to be quite "spirited" to say the least. Cain is as eloquent as ever and always has some interesting perspective. I'll follow up. It's just that lately, my career has kept me so busy I've hardly had time to catch my breath.

Thank you i feel much better, I was gettin worried that you were afraid to "go off" like you have before. Glad to hear thats not the case.