Thread: Did anyone really die for us in Iraq?

Another thing, why don't the soldiers that died(or the ones who didn't) deserve recognition. Just cause more die over here(for natural or unavoidable reasons) than in Iraq doesn't mean they didn't die for us.

"we carpet bombed baghdad."

Right...

Now where are you getting these civillian death counts? And are you aware that the majority of civy casualties aren't even caused by the US? They are caused by the insurgents who either hide in the population, or don't aim very well. And there seems to be a nasty tendancy in the middle east for civies to run TOWARD the fight instead of away from it. It's like it's a spectator sport. (Somalia was especially bad).

"You're telling me the Kuwait bombing didn't kill any innocent civillians?"

The Iraqi occupation [of Kuwait] killed more.

Originally posted by mopey
\"we carpet bombed baghdad.\"

Right...

Now where are you getting these civillian death counts? And are you aware that the majority of civy casualties aren't even caused by the US? They are caused by the insurgents who either hide in the population, or don't aim very well. And there seems to be a nasty tendancy in the middle east for civies to run TOWARD the fight instead of away from it. It's like it's a spectator sport. (Somalia was especially bad).

692 verified civilians died [u][b]due to america's military intervention in iraq.

Originally posted by mopey
\"You're telling me the Kuwait bombing didn't kill any innocent civillians?\"

The Iraqi occupation [of Kuwait] killed more.

more reason to stop it...

"due to" isn't the same as "caused by". If you shoot a rocket into a house and kill someone then you caused it to happen by shooting. If you get into a fight with someone across a street and they shoot a rocket at you but it flys way over your head and hits the house behind you then it happened due to you but it clearly not your fault, its theirs.

Its a war, we tried our hardest to keep the civilians out of it and I would say we have done a VERY good job at keeping them safe, however you can't save everyone.

I remeber before there was a story that the iraq army just started shooting into a crowd of civilians to try and kill as many as they could because they knew we would try to help the civilians(which we did). Its hard to have 0 deaths when the otherside uses people as human shields and could care less if half their country is burned to the ground as long as they get their way.

Originally posted by mopey

\"You're telling me the Kuwait bombing didn't kill any innocent civillians?\"

The Iraqi occupation [of Kuwait] killed more.

So? The fact is; a lot still died.

...competition for death counts is gross..

The whole point I was trying to make was Alric said that the US doesn't kill any innocent bystanders and that their bombings are 100% accurate to kill their specified targets - which is obviously argueable.

It is impossible to fight a war without killing innocent lives. Alric, I know we have accurate weapons and we take precautions but it is still impossible.

I never said it was 100%. I said we kill very few people and when people do die its normally because of the people we are fighting. What I did say was we don't carpet bomb anyone, and when I said that I meant anyone in iraq, which we have not done.

K i was mixed up. Well your right

Did anyone really die for us in Iraq? Us Americans? Technically... yes.

You see, if those people who went to Iraq and died never existed, those who never got called into Iraq would have went and many of those individuals would have themselves perished.

But, I know what you mean. Those who died in Iraq, did their sacrifice make America safer? Did they make this nation safer for the rest of us -- for out future?

My opinion? No.

I believe the war in Iraq was not necessary. The takeover of a single nation in the middle east will not make America safer, since terrorism is an idea and not a sovereign nation.

The arguement was that Iraq was an immediate threat. Now, Iraq was not an immediate threat. There were claims that Iraq definetely had WMD -- that was of course nothing more than speculation, although I myself did believe they did possess them.

We've already spent enough money for homeland security, and we're only going to spend alot more.

The U.S. still occupies two nations in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it seems, after doing some research and watching a documentary on Discovery Times, that much of the funds and effort is going towards rooting out Al Quieda in caves instead of effectively reconstructing the ravaged nations.

Originally posted by Alric
I think your risking a lot less people by sending troops over there than sitting around waiting for people to attack us. Terrorist would kill a ton more unsuspecting civilians than they do trained and armed troops.

In Iraq we are fighting the Iraqi regime and terrorists who probably would be poor farmers or workers had we not gone in there and stirred them up. Saddam's Iraq posed less of a threat to American life than it does now. Saddam knew that the moment he attacked the U.S., or aggrivated them significantly, he would be out of power and hiding in a rat hole.

When we deposed Saddam we let loose the islamic radicals within the country, who Saddam kept in controll.

As for Iraqi lives, I have no doubt the end result of Saddam's rule would leave more Iraqis dead.


"A single death is a tradgedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
-Joseph Stalin

We cannot underappreciate the sacrifice these men have given us, but we also have to look at it from a physical point of view. The number of casualties in the War on Iraq have an insignificant impact on the abilities of U.S. millitary forces. However there is a significant impact on moral.

The question which we must ultimately ask ourselves when evaluating the War on Iraq is whether the role of U.S. Armed Forces is to protect America and American lives, or to provide security for the world.

From an economic and physical standpoint, rather than an emotional one, it would be much better to choose the former.

The point was to keep iraq from being an immediate threat. No one wanted to wait untill it was to late so we acted sooner rather than later. I wouldn't say Saddam had control over any terrorist there. Yea they didn't run around iraq blowing stuff but they were still there getting money and planning attacks in other parts of the world.

The problem with your last point is both could be the same. So its not really black and white unless you want to like avoid everything in the world but that can cause some big problems with the economy and stuff.

Originally posted by Alric
The point was to keep iraq from being an immediate threat. No one wanted to wait untill it was to late so we acted sooner rather than later. I wouldn't say Saddam had control over any terrorist there. Yea they didn't run around iraq blowing stuff but they were still there getting money and planning attacks in other parts of the world.

The problem with your last point is both could be the same. So its not really black and white unless you want to like avoid everything in the world but that can cause some big problems with the economy and stuff.

Saddam wouldn't be a threat with nuclear weapons:

1. Israel would disarm him.

2. He doesn't have the political will to use them. They would make it very difficult to attack Saddam, because as an animal backed into a corner he could use one.

In reference to your second point, they can coincide, but I meant going beyond national security and into global security. One solid example of this would be the Kosovo debacle Clinton got us into.

I don't think anyone(who is informed?) was really to worried of him using nuclear weapons. If he had them he might sell one but he would never use one, not that I think he was any where near making one. It was more stuff like chemical weapons(to give or sell) and him hiding and giving aid to tarrorists, plus him being a huge pain by not follow the rules he agreed to from the last war and killing his own people(a ton!) and such. The last part is not as much of a defense thing but still valid reasons to attack.

I now step across the argument line and willing stand behind Alric.

The big problem I get, is that people acted like I had a chose to go over there. Whether I wanted to or not, I was given an order. Some of you believe that joining the military is a vacation and you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident. There was twenty infrantry guys with my battery in Iraq. Three are dead and five are serious injured. That's almost half you want your statistic. I am injured from Iraq, I've lost my full range of motion on my left side. Am I looking for simpathy? No. Respect, yes.

As far as the comment about me being afraid of death, hardly. Somedays I'd welcome it, but that doesn't dominish my respect for life.

A lot of you are passing judgement on the soldiers when it's not their decision to be some where. They follow orders, and that is all they can do.

My cousin is in the marines. He drives a hummer with a gun on top. And i think the gunner got shot. But he didn't move anywhere because he had orders. If you don't respect that then you are a souless selfish evil person.

Wait im confused about what you said, the gunner was shot but didn't move, or the gunner was shot and the driver didn't drive away?

The gunner was shot but my cousin followed orders.

SO there was a guy on top of the car who was shot (dead?) and your cousin did nothing to help? Now what was so important that he didn't help that guy?

There were three guys in the hummer the gunner(who was shot), the driver(my cousin), and a passenger(who helped the guy).You see the passenger helped the guy, my cousing had orders to stay.He was being shot at and he sat there because he had orders.