Org Mobile Site
During WWII, U.S. forces were officially at war for 1247 days. Today marks the 1248th day that U.S. forces have been at war in Iraq. Is that good or bad?
Bad.
We lack the collective "stomach" for long engagements. As the length of time increases with barely discernible improvement (or devolution), the USA will work harder to shoot its own efforts in the posterior.
Side Note:
Don't even bother replying Tribesy, I am well aware you believe we lost by even attempting it.
We lack the collective "stomach" for long engagements. As the length of time increases with barely discernible improvement (or devolution), the USA will work harder to shoot its own efforts in the posterior.
Side Note:
Don't even bother replying Tribesy, I am well aware you believe we lost by even attempting it.
The war may have been over by that time but the occupation of both countries continues. I don't have the numbers but I feel confident that the number of soldiers that have suffered violent deaths and injuries in Europe and Asia surpasses those in Iraq. Not that I think we should linger there but we are now in the occupation and stability operations phase.
However to answer your question: yes, it is bad.
However to answer your question: yes, it is bad.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
The war may have been over by that time but the occupation of both countries continues. I don't have the numbers but I feel confident that the number of soldiers that have suffered violent deaths and injuries in Europe and Asia surpasses those in Iraq. Not that I think we should linger there but we are now in the occupation and stability operations phase.
However to answer your question: yes, it is bad.
I agree- it's not a good metric. Those days don't include the occupation. But, I also agree with your answer.The war may have been over by that time but the occupation of both countries continues. I don't have the numbers but I feel confident that the number of soldiers that have suffered violent deaths and injuries in Europe and Asia surpasses those in Iraq. Not that I think we should linger there but we are now in the occupation and stability operations phase.
However to answer your question: yes, it is bad.
A valid point about the occupations afterwards. But that was after the war ended. This one hasn't ended yet. We haven't occupied Iraq; we're still in the process of trying to occupy Iraq. 
Actually I feel America occupied Iraq, then ****** off the locals, restarting the war.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Bad.
We lack the collective "stomach" for long engagements. As the length of time increases with barely discernible improvement (or devolution), the USA will work harder to shoot its own efforts in the posterior.
Side Note:
Don't even bother replying Tribesy, I am well aware you believe we lost by even attempting it.
I dont think we lack the stomach for an engagement that has a purpose, one that this engagement seems to lack. I see no real benift for America now. Iran seems to have more clout in Iraq than we do! However its our mess and we need to finish what we started. Its sad to see so much wasted on so little.Bad.
We lack the collective "stomach" for long engagements. As the length of time increases with barely discernible improvement (or devolution), the USA will work harder to shoot its own efforts in the posterior.
Side Note:
Don't even bother replying Tribesy, I am well aware you believe we lost by even attempting it.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
I dont think we lack the stomach for an engagement that has a purpose, one that this engagement seems to lack. I see no real benift for America now. Iran seems to have more clout in Iraq than we do! However its our mess and we need to finish what we started. Its sad to see so much wasted on so little.
Strike, you pinpoint the issue very neatly. Iran has always had more clout in the region than you do.I dont think we lack the stomach for an engagement that has a purpose, one that this engagement seems to lack. I see no real benift for America now. Iran seems to have more clout in Iraq than we do! However its our mess and we need to finish what we started. Its sad to see so much wasted on so little.
For a time, US administrations supported the brutal Shah in Iran to keep some influence with the acknowledged regional power, and then changed to the even more brutal Saddam Hussein when the Iranians went all independent on you. Encouraged the latter to start a brutal war against the Iranians - and then when he got the inevitable delusions of grandeur and invaded a country whose autocrat you still liked, he got crossed off the Christmas card list.
The delusions then spread and the US thought it could directly influence the region to its own standards and marginalise Iran.
You won't make a stable peace in the region without accepting Iran's regional role and working with them.
Or re-instating Saddam...
I don't really get the comparison. Didn't we lose like 200,000 men in WWII? And 600,000 in the civil war?
Also, the revolutionary war was 7 years long.
Also, the revolutionary war was 7 years long.
A country without a war that lasted a century should be ashamed of itself.
*conspiratorial grin with France*
*conspiratorial grin with France*
Originally Posted by BDC:
A country without a war that lasted a century should be ashamed of itself.
*conspiratorial grin with France*
What about an 800 year long insurrection?A country without a war that lasted a century should be ashamed of itself.
*conspiratorial grin with France*
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
What about an 800 year long insurrection?
What about setting up the monarchy that oppressed three disparate cultures that Hussein overthrew? Reference your previous post and British involvement in the creation of Iraq.What about an 800 year long insurrection?
Originally Posted by BDC:
A country without a war that lasted a century should be ashamed of itself.
Aye. Attention-deficit parvenu's and their petty little wars, tsk. A country without a war that lasted a century should be ashamed of itself.
Those upstart nations lack spine and conviction. I tell you, these youngsters know nothing about good protracted tussles anymore. Back in the good old days, when wars were measured in centuries instead of days, nobody complained about being born into war, and dying into war.
How about over a hundred years (if you're only counting when the US was an actual country) or so of constant warfare with numerous tribal cultures until they were nearly wiped out, we took pity on them, and had taken essentially half of a continent or so.
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin:
How about over a hundred years (if you're only counting when the US was an actual country) or so of constant warfare with numerous tribal cultures until they were nearly wiped out, we took pity on them, and had taken essentially half of a continent or so.
Are you implying they ever had a chance???How about over a hundred years (if you're only counting when the US was an actual country) or so of constant warfare with numerous tribal cultures until they were nearly wiped out, we took pity on them, and had taken essentially half of a continent or so.
We germans prefer it fast, having a war last for a century just shows you're too weak to win it.
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin:
How about over a hundred years (if you're only counting when the US was an actual country) or so of constant warfare with numerous tribal cultures until they were nearly wiped out, we took pity on them, and had taken essentially half of a continent or so.
You need a proper matchup with a roughly equally powered enemy for it to count.How about over a hundred years (if you're only counting when the US was an actual country) or so of constant warfare with numerous tribal cultures until they were nearly wiped out, we took pity on them, and had taken essentially half of a continent or so.
Is the 800-year Anglo-French rivalry the longest and most wide-ranging in history? Have there been any other rivalries between roughly equal powers that have lasted as long?
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
You need a proper matchup with a roughly equally powered enemy for it to count.
Is the 800-year Anglo-French rivalry the longest and most wide-ranging in history? Have there been any other rivalries between roughly equal powers that have lasted as long?
Well, you can trace Swedish-Danish rivalry from about 900 A.D and it lasted a good bit into the 1800, although that brotherhood thingy ruined that fine rivalry. You need a proper matchup with a roughly equally powered enemy for it to count.
Is the 800-year Anglo-French rivalry the longest and most wide-ranging in history? Have there been any other rivalries between roughly equal powers that have lasted as long?
And the Swedish-Russian rivalry is from about 860 to the end of the cold war and the relations still isn't warm, but that falls outside that roughly equal power thingy.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Aye. Attention-deficit parvenu's and their petty little wars, tsk.
Those upstart nations lack spine and conviction. I tell you, these youngsters know nothing about good protracted tussles anymore. Back in the good old days, when wars were measured in centuries instead of days, nobody complained about being born into war, and dying into war.
And in my days, we restarted conflicts to make them last another 20 years of constant warfare (not some silly rests here and there you old gits Aye. Attention-deficit parvenu's and their petty little wars, tsk.
Those upstart nations lack spine and conviction. I tell you, these youngsters know nothing about good protracted tussles anymore. Back in the good old days, when wars were measured in centuries instead of days, nobody complained about being born into war, and dying into war.
) and causing devastation not seen in Europe until about 300 years later. And we couldn't have peace either, it was way too expensive. But I agree on these upstarts though old friend, no lack spine and conviction in the youth nowadays.
I love where this thread has gone. Some truly amusing posts here. Keep it up!
As for the appropriateness of the comparison between length of time the U.S. has spent in Iraq and in WWII, I'd ask everyone to consider what was accomplished in those time periods. Something to think about.
If, as Dumbya keeps reiterating, victory is the only option, then why aren't we trying to win? Although, when you think about it, Bush never really gets around to stating what constitutes a victory. Win how, exactly? What does he mean by victory? If he means establishing a working democracy in Iraq, then maybe we ought to try getting our own democracy to function first. If he means making Iraq safe for his oil industry buddies to pillage, then that isn't happening either.
Considering that in less time than we've been in Iraq, two of the strongest military nations in the world - Japan and Germany - were both defeated utterly, one has to wonder just what the Bush administration thinks it's doing in Iraq? Treading water while thousands of U.S. service members are killed and tens of thousands are permanently maimed, with the number of Iraqi civilian casualties perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher? What, exactly, is victory if victory is the only option?
As for the appropriateness of the comparison between length of time the U.S. has spent in Iraq and in WWII, I'd ask everyone to consider what was accomplished in those time periods. Something to think about.
If, as Dumbya keeps reiterating, victory is the only option, then why aren't we trying to win? Although, when you think about it, Bush never really gets around to stating what constitutes a victory. Win how, exactly? What does he mean by victory? If he means establishing a working democracy in Iraq, then maybe we ought to try getting our own democracy to function first. If he means making Iraq safe for his oil industry buddies to pillage, then that isn't happening either.
Considering that in less time than we've been in Iraq, two of the strongest military nations in the world - Japan and Germany - were both defeated utterly, one has to wonder just what the Bush administration thinks it's doing in Iraq? Treading water while thousands of U.S. service members are killed and tens of thousands are permanently maimed, with the number of Iraqi civilian casualties perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher? What, exactly, is victory if victory is the only option?
Originally Posted by Aenlic:
I love where this thread has gone. Some truly amusing posts here. Keep it up!
As for the appropriateness of the comparison between length of time the U.S. has spent in Iraq and in WWII, I'd ask everyone to consider what was accomplished in those time periods. Something to think about.
If, as Dumbya keeps reiterating, victory is the only option, then why aren't we trying to win? Although, when you think about it, Bush never really gets around to stating what constitutes a victory. Win how, exactly? What does he mean by victory? If he means establishing a working democracy in Iraq, then maybe we ought to try getting our own democracy to function first. If he means making Iraq safe for his oil industry buddies to pillage, then that isn't happening either.
Considering that in less time than we've been in Iraq, two of the strongest military nations in the world - Japan and Germany - were both defeated utterly, one has to wonder just what the Bush administration thinks it's doing in Iraq? Treading water while thousands of U.S. service members are killed and tens of thousands are permanently maimed, with the number of Iraqi civilian casualties perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher? What, exactly, is victory if victory is the only option?
I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria. I love where this thread has gone. Some truly amusing posts here. Keep it up!
As for the appropriateness of the comparison between length of time the U.S. has spent in Iraq and in WWII, I'd ask everyone to consider what was accomplished in those time periods. Something to think about.
If, as Dumbya keeps reiterating, victory is the only option, then why aren't we trying to win? Although, when you think about it, Bush never really gets around to stating what constitutes a victory. Win how, exactly? What does he mean by victory? If he means establishing a working democracy in Iraq, then maybe we ought to try getting our own democracy to function first. If he means making Iraq safe for his oil industry buddies to pillage, then that isn't happening either.
Considering that in less time than we've been in Iraq, two of the strongest military nations in the world - Japan and Germany - were both defeated utterly, one has to wonder just what the Bush administration thinks it's doing in Iraq? Treading water while thousands of U.S. service members are killed and tens of thousands are permanently maimed, with the number of Iraqi civilian casualties perhaps 2 orders of magnitude higher? What, exactly, is victory if victory is the only option?
Your ignorance and negativity make you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by some leftist talk show host.
I think one of W’s mistakes has been to not “end” the war and “start” the occupation. We haven’t really been at war as we like to define it for years, but we are there to stabilize the country and train the Iraq military and police to defend themselves.
It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII.
Originally Posted by Aenlic:
During WWII, U.S. forces were officially at war for 1247 days. Today marks the 1248th day that U.S. forces have been at war in Iraq. Is that good or bad?
I thought the 'war was over' and even the occupation period as an 'independent government is in charge' now they have forces in bases to help 'keep the peace.'During WWII, U.S. forces were officially at war for 1247 days. Today marks the 1248th day that U.S. forces have been at war in Iraq. Is that good or bad?
Much like say:
Post WWII Germany and Japan were the US still has bases. That would blow the 1247 days out another 20,000 plus.
Post Korean War, the DMZ were the US still has bases.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
(..) we are now in the stability operations phase.
Eh? (..) we are now in the stability operations phase.
Originally Posted by yesdachi:
I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.
Your ignorance and negativity make you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by some leftist talk show host.
I think one of W’s mistakes has been to not “end” the war and “start” the occupation. We haven’t really been at war as we like to define it for years, but we are there to stabilize the country and train the Iraq military and police to defend themselves.
It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII.
You know, I was just going to let the "ignorance" comment pass. Then I saw the last paragraph. I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.
Your ignorance and negativity make you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by some leftist talk show host.
I think one of W’s mistakes has been to not “end” the war and “start” the occupation. We haven’t really been at war as we like to define it for years, but we are there to stabilize the country and train the Iraq military and police to defend themselves.
It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII.
You must not be in the military. In fact, I'm guessing that you've never been in the military. If you have, then you're a complete dolt.
Originally Posted by :
It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me)
It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me)
Oh, really? Not that big a deal? Tell that to the families of the nearly 3000 dead US soldiers. Tell that to the nearly 30,000 permanently maimed US soldiers and their families. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost similarly. Not that big a deal? What a completely idiotic statement. I'm a disabled vet, sport. And as of now, your opinion doesn't mean spit. March your pointless ass down to the nearest recruiter. Until then, you don't have anything of interest to add.
Originally Posted by :
I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.
Like the ones you can't handle?I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.
Hey,
"I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.
Your ignorance and negativity make you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by some leftist talk show host.
I think one of W’s mistakes has been to not “end” the war and “start” the occupation. We haven’t really been at war as we like to define it for years, but we are there to stabilize the country and train the Iraq military and police to defend themselves.
It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."
You know Aenlic, I was also going to pass it off,untill I saw that last paragraph also,
"It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."
you telling me, Money is more important? Yeah, g tell that to 3000+ soliders that got killed Bud. Go tell that to the 30,000 Mamimed Troops, and all the Iraqis that have die. Go tell my Grandmother that, who lost a brother in WW2 that money is more Important, in this War or WW2. I think they would have something to say...or do... to you. I never joined the military, but I respect them. I don't know if you do, but mabye you should go send your ass off to Iraq, and then you wish you never said that.
And Cataphract, you think it's easy to handle ANY insurgents? I guess you never joined the military either.
"I think he has been pretty clear in his definition of victory… a stand alone democracy in Iraq with a military that can protect itself from the likes of the insurgents, Iran and Syria.
Your ignorance and negativity make you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by some leftist talk show host.
I think one of W’s mistakes has been to not “end” the war and “start” the occupation. We haven’t really been at war as we like to define it for years, but we are there to stabilize the country and train the Iraq military and police to defend themselves.
It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."
You know Aenlic, I was also going to pass it off,untill I saw that last paragraph also,
"It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."
you telling me, Money is more important? Yeah, g tell that to 3000+ soliders that got killed Bud. Go tell that to the 30,000 Mamimed Troops, and all the Iraqis that have die. Go tell my Grandmother that, who lost a brother in WW2 that money is more Important, in this War or WW2. I think they would have something to say...or do... to you
. I never joined the military, but I respect them. I don't know if you do, but mabye you should go send your ass off to Iraq, and then you wish you never said that.And Cataphract, you think it's easy to handle ANY insurgents? I guess you never joined the military either.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
I thought the 'war was over' and even the occupation period as an 'indepedent government is in charge' now they have forces in bases to help 'keep the peace.'
Much like say:
Post WWII Germany and Japan were the US still has bases. That would blow the 1247 days out another 20,000 plus.
Post Korean War, the DMZ were the US still has bases.
Bush standing on an aircraft carrier deck with his flight suit crotch strap still buckled in front of a big sign saying "mission accomplished" does not mean that the war ended. The war is still in progress. We're still fighting ex-Ba'athists, probably many of them ex-Iraqi army vets, in the streets. We're also now fighting extremists of various sects as well as members of the old Iraqi military. A "new" government, ineffective as it is, is not the same thing as ending the war either. We're still effectively at war. The fact that more soldiers have died or been wounded on an average monthly basis than before Bush declared the war over is an indication. We're more at war now than we were when we first invaded.I thought the 'war was over' and even the occupation period as an 'indepedent government is in charge' now they have forces in bases to help 'keep the peace.'
Much like say:
Post WWII Germany and Japan were the US still has bases. That would blow the 1247 days out another 20,000 plus.
Post Korean War, the DMZ were the US still has bases.
In Japan and Germany, both signed capitulations. The occupations afterwards were peaceful (excepting a few cases). There is no peace in Iraq. It's still war. It's been war every day since we invaded. Doesn't there have to be some kind of peace before one can claim the war is over? There hasn't been any in Iraq yet.
Do we say of the Russian war in Afghanistan that the war was only the initial invasion and the rest was just an "occupation"? No. We call the entire period that the Russians fought in Afghhanistan, from the initial invasion and takeover of the country to their final pullout - a war.
For that matter, we're still at war in Afghanistan too. In fact, several villages are under the control of the Taliban - almost 5 years later.
There wasn't any period of peace to justify saying the war was over. In Iraq, but also in Afghanistan, we're still in the process of invading and occupying. That means we're still at war, status of whatever puppet "government" we've installed not withstanding.
No longer valid post.
Originally Posted by Aenlic:
Oh, really? Not that big a deal? Tell that to the families of the nearly 3000 dead US soldiers.
And that makes it a very very low intensity war compared with WWII.Oh, really? Not that big a deal? Tell that to the families of the nearly 3000 dead US soldiers.
Omaha beach on the first day of the Normandy landings amounted for over 3000 losses and a thousand American dead. A total of 407,300 military deaths occurred to the US in WWII... which given the population level of 132,000,000 means that Iraq would have to have generated 926,653 deaths to be on par with WWII in intensity.
So WWII was 300 times more deadly then the Iraq war and occupation... the money that is creating such a huge deficit and fighting an opponent far below the tech and numbers curve are responsible for this.
I think this debt will be rectified far before the men and women who survived ,because of the money spent on them, will become grandparents.
We're not at war in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't seem to recall Congress ever declaring war on either of those two countries. 
Without a war, how can we have a victory?
Without a war, how can we have a victory?
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888:
You know Aenlic, I was also going to pass it off,untill I saw that last paragraph also,
"It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."
you telling me, Money is more important? Yeah, g tell that to 3000+ soliders that got killed Bud. Go tell that to the 30,000 Mamimed Troops, and all the Iraqis that have die. Go tell my Grandmother that, who lost a brother in WW2 that money is more Important, in this War or WW2. I think they would have something to say...or do... to you. I never joined the military, but I respect them. I don't know if you do, but mabye you should go send your ass off to Iraq, and then you wish you never said that.
And Cataphract, you think it's easy to handle ANY insurgents? I guess you never joined the military either.
Err, KingWarman888, I believe you are quoting yesdachi. Aenlic did not make that point about the money.You know Aenlic, I was also going to pass it off,untill I saw that last paragraph also,
"It is a different kind of war than WWII and the fact it is taking a long time is not that big a deal (the $$$ we are spending is more of a concern to me) considering the obstacles we are facing and the death ratio compared to WWII."
you telling me, Money is more important? Yeah, g tell that to 3000+ soliders that got killed Bud. Go tell that to the 30,000 Mamimed Troops, and all the Iraqis that have die. Go tell my Grandmother that, who lost a brother in WW2 that money is more Important, in this War or WW2. I think they would have something to say...or do... to you
. I never joined the military, but I respect them. I don't know if you do, but mabye you should go send your ass off to Iraq, and then you wish you never said that.And Cataphract, you think it's easy to handle ANY insurgents? I guess you never joined the military either.
As for me, I keep myself away from Iraq
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII:
Err, KingWarman888, I believe you are quoting yesdachi. Aenlic did not make that point about the money.
As for me, I keep myself away from IraqWar Low-Intensity Conflict threads just as much as I keep myself away from Iraq.
I believe he was concurring with Aenlic.Err, KingWarman888, I believe you are quoting yesdachi. Aenlic did not make that point about the money.
As for me, I keep myself away from Iraq
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO