Iraq Coalition Casuality and Fatality Chart - Page 3

Viracocha711 · 29-Jan-2007, 12:31 AM **#31**

Pull out of IRAQ and then what?

linskyjack · 29-Jan-2007, 08:18 AM **#32**

Focus your resources on destroying terrorists. Let the Iraqi's have a go at each other. Thin the herd.

Viracocha711 · 29-Jan-2007, 08:52 AM **#33**

...Thin the herd

The only problem(may not be a problem to some) is the "herd thinning" would spill out of Iraq and then what? I know some will try and say this is simply a Right Winged Wacko scare tactic but it is a real possiblity. So, if/when the violence spreads outside Iraq, at what point do we jump back in? Because at some point we will have to jump back in...To think we could or would sit back and watch large groups be exterminated is just not reality, we care about humanity! We will stay in Iraq for years to come despite the politicians words...Even Hillary, she is not dumb and she knows what the result would be if we cut and run in Iraq. If the "jihadist" movement was seen to have defeated the US Military it would be a nightmare for western civilization!

...It is all politics, we are not leaving Iraq anytime soon.

...All my buddies over there or who have been there are 110% against leaving...Of course they know this does not get much media and this troubles them. It troubles me too, but what can be done about it?

linskyjack · 29-Jan-2007, 09:27 AM **#34**

Enough with the humanity stuff. If its humanity you want to save then you would need an army of millions and be willing to deploy them throughout the world. As I said, let them fight it out within Iraq, and if they want to spill over the borders, then let the Syrians and Saudis take care of it.

As far as your buddies go, their service is admirable but their desire to remain in Iraq is a minority view (see the Army Times polls). As far as the media goes, I have yet to hear anyone on the media belittle the troops for the heroic effort that are making. One of the reasons we don't have lots of stories about the good they attempt is because the country is so dangerous (look at how many journalists have been killed) that it is difficult to move about without military support.

Viracocha711 · 29-Jan-2007, 10:15 AM **#35**

...As far as the "humanity stuff" goes...It is what it is! It has nothing to do with what I want, it has everything to do with our interest in the region. The US will not allow "thinning of the herd" or whatever the label was you put on it. I am not engaging in an emotional arguement, I am simply trying to be honest with you. Now you can take that how you want or label it as to comfort your own emotions, but the truth is leaving Iraq is simply not gonna happen.

As far as the Army Times poll goes, you need to read it again...I have no idea if you allowed a media report to influence your opinion that my buddies desire to stay in Iraq was the minority or what? However, if you really did read the full Army Times Poll/Article and you call 13% a majority, then I guess that speaks for itself? The approval for how the war is being run is falling, but the idea that a majority of the troops want to leave is simply not true.

Here is a paragraph from the The Army Times Article:

"Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the re spondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective. "

I never said my friends were not represented in the media in any way other than admirable or heroes...But as far as "my buddies" being troubled or upset with how the media covers their opinions, you just proved their point by saying the majority of the troops want to leave Iraq...This is simply due to the way the media covers the overall war in Iraq, and this is upsetting to those brave and heroic troops on the ground over there!

Link to the entire Army Times Article...http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

linskyjack · 29-Jan-2007, 11:10 AM **#36**

You selectively quoted form the poll. For instance, it says "a surpsing 13% said we should have no troops and half those responding think we need more troops in Iraq then we have now--that means that at least half dont approve of the "troop surge" Thats a huge number in an all volunteer military. Beyond that, 41% believe we should have never gone to war in the first place, and Bush's handling of the war has only a a 35% approval among those polled. (Our own Army doesn't believe in the strategy)
.
Again this is a failed policy, that puts men and women in harm's way. Time to withdraw, lick our wounds and live to fight another day. By the way, do you believe in social engineering because thats what you seem to be supporting when you call for victory. As a Vet, I take offense at you using the words "cut and run". At great cost, we have given the Iraqi people the opportunity to live peacefully. They refuse to take us up on the offer, so it is time to leave. This has nothing to do with our cowardice, or our inability to "win" It has to do with those who we liberated being incapable of living civilly. You belittle the effort of all those who gave their blood when you use that inflammatory language.

bill.aam · 29-Jan-2007, 11:18 AM **#37**

Quote:

Originally Posted by linskyjack

As a Vet, I take offense at you using the words "cut and run".

Also as a Vet, I take offense to your referring to the Commander in Chief of the United States Military as "idiot in chief".

Viracocha711 · 29-Jan-2007, 11:23 AM **#38**

Quote:

Originally Posted by linskyjack

You selectively quoted form the poll. For instance, it says "a surpsing 13% said we should have no troops and half those responding think we need more troops in Iraq then we have now--that means that at least half dont approve of the "troop surge" Thats a huge number in an all volunteer military. Beyond that, 41% believe we should have never gone to war in the first place, and Bush's handling of the war has only a a 35% approval among those polled. (Our own Army doesn't believe in the strategy)
.
Again this is a failed policy, that puts men and women in harm's way. Time to withdraw, lick our wounds and live to fight another day. By the way, do you believe in social engineering because thats what you seem to be supporting when you call for victory. As a Vet, I take offense at you using the words "cut and run". At great cost, we have given the Iraqi people the opportunity to live peacefully. They refuse to take us up on the offer, so it is time to leave. This has nothing to do with our cowardice, or our inability to "win" It has to do with those who we liberated being incapable of living civilly. You belittle the effort of all those who gave their blood when you use that inflammatory language.

I am a disabled Vet...Your not making sense at all. 13% is 13%? half think we need more troops means some think we have enough already...And so on and so on. You were wrong to say my buddies opinions were in the minority!

johnnyburst79 · 29-Jan-2007, 11:31 AM **#39**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill.aam

Also as a Vet, I take offense to your referring to the Commander in Chief of the United States Military as "idiot in chief".

And as a Vet I am glad he can use the words Idiot in Chief if that is the way he feels.

**LANMaster** · 29-Jan-2007, 11:33 AM **#40**

Please add this to the Insurgent fatality chart ......

At Least 200 Insurgents Killed

Quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqi officials claimed Monday that at least 200 militants were killed in a fierce battle between U.S.-backed Iraqi troops and a religious cult allegedly plotting to kill pilgrims at a major Shiite Muslim religious festival, while bombings and mortar attacks targeting Shiites elsewhere killed at least 15 people.

The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said the raid on Sunday was targeting a group called the Jund al-Samaa, or Soldiers of Heaven, and the group's leader was among those killed, along with foreign fighters.

Al-Dabbagh and officials in Najaf said the group included Soldiers of Heaven followers, a religious cult seeking to bring back a Shiite saint known as the "hidden imam," as well as terror suspects and foreign fighters plotting to assassinate senior Shiite clerics as well as pilgrims on one of the holiest Shiite ceremonies of Ashoura.

The last of the 12 Shiite imams, Mohammed al-Mahdi, disappeared and Shiites believe he is still alive and will one day return as a savior of mankind.

Link

Viracocha711 · 29-Jan-2007, 11:37 AM **#41**

Yes, and it appears the Iraqi's played a major role in this! Let's go guys!

poochee · 29-Jan-2007, 12:09 PM **#42**

Quote:

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Enough with the humanity stuff. If its humanity you want to save then you would need an army of millions and be willing to deploy them throughout the world. As I said, let them fight it out within Iraq, and if they want to spill over the borders, then let the Syrians and Saudis take care of it.

As far as your buddies go, their service is admirable but their desire to remain in Iraq is a minority view (see the Army Times polls). As far as the media goes, I have yet to hear anyone on the media belittle the troops for the heroic effort that are making. One of the reasons we don't have lots of stories about the good they attempt is because the country is so dangerous (look at how many journalists have been killed) that it is difficult to move about without military support.