23 and How Many More?

Remove all ads!

Thanks for the better statistics. Evidently my stats included those too wounded to fight.

Anyway, as an American, I can assure you that we are ready to take massive casualties. We are fighting for survival against a world that became rather hostile and evil after September 11. We already lost over 3000.

 

Excuse me Blackhawk but you have it a little mixed up here. USA is not fighting to survive, USA is fighting to dominate and that is totally different.
And one more thing the world was not hostile or evil after 9/11 in fact all the world (except from terrorists) was sympathetic and was pro at first in the declared war of USA against terrorism. But the course of actions followed afterwards made it clear that maybe there are other reasons behind this declared war that have nothing to do with terrorism.

 

At Blackhack. Sorry, I wasn't intending to say, that statistics killed where somehow better. I just wanted to say, that the statistics are different because of the difference between causalties and killed. I wanted to secure, that it wouldn't seem as I would question the accuracy of your statistics, for someone, espacially non-English speakers, as myself, who may not be aware, that causalties does not mean the same as killed, because of lack of vocabulary, which was the case for me once upon a time, which was rather embarassing for me. I thaught earlier, casualties would be a synonym for "killed".

 

I fear that we will see more of these reports and more deaths from both sides as thing will most probably will get worse. I have read this article and i can't understand what the US soldiers are trying to do.Create more enemies;

 

As for casualties, well, no battle in history has been so lopsided in favor of one group -- 26 Americans dead? While I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of those who are dead, that number is NOTHING compared to the numbers mentioned before. As has been mentioned earlier by several people, some statistics show that over certain time periods, it's safer for a soldier to be in war than a soldier during peacetime!

As for cultural sensitivity, I'm behind that army guy 100%. If I (or anyone iunder my command) were being shot at, I'd run for the nearest and best cover, even if it were a priceless antique holy to the people whose land in which I am in. And I'd make no apoligies for saving my own skin. If the cultural traditions of the country I'm stationed in says I should paint a big honking target on my chest, guess what aspect of their culture I'm going to ignore?

I don't see the need to be deliberately disrespectful towards a culture, but if it's a safety issue, my skin comes first. If I get shot at, I'm going to look everywhere possible for the guy that did it so he doesn't have a second chance. If that offends some people, well, tough luck.

 

That all sounds very reasonable to me. Now, the Americans are some kind of police-force, they have to play by the rules, like every police-force has to do, even if for Americans, private property is a strange thing, they have to find a way to the necessary things, without violating the basic rules. Even if they were shot at and now searching for hints and clues, they are strangers in a strange land, they have to get used to the fact, they are not allowed to do there, what they may be allowed in their home country. It may not be offensive for Americans or Canadians, if suddenly some people equipped with arms would storm into a house and search it through, but for me, it would be very annoying.

 

As for the cultural sensitivty thing I can say that it is alot safer to show respect and care in the long run than it is to walk around with a paranoid and aggressive attitude. It must be better to let the hate and anger that the Iraqis feel cool down by treating them gently and respectulful than to drive into ambushes set by Iraqi's who are not only pissed off for the invasion but also pissed off for the so called liberators being insensitive uncultural louts. That is one of the main reason the British has been doing so well with their governing of Basra.

 

To Yago:
Don't worry, I didn't take it as an insult of any kind. You displayed what is probably better stats. Yago-1, Blackhawk-0

I assure you, from an American perspective, we are fighting to prevent massive terrorist attacks - ones with biological or nuclear weapons. Iraq was controlled by an dictator. Dictators by their very nature act out of what is best for them, not their people. Democracies, on the other hand, are governments of the people, for the people.

It wasn't a case of "if" Iraq attacked, but "when".

Of course, Iraq was giving money to the suicide-murders in Israel. This reason alone should condemn their government to destruction.

It has everything to do with terrorism. It appears now, to Americans, that many nations were for the "concept" of a war on terror, but didn't realize that they would have to get their hands dirty. "Fair weather friends" - that's what they are.

[ May 31, 2003, 08:35: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

 

The US is not fighting for survival, I'm sure that's what the media say to justify things (war, patriot act, defense budget...) but when I see what the US is doing I wonder: if the objective is to topple dangerous dictators, logic suggests go for N-Korea. Kim Jong-Il threaten America publicly, yet it is Iraq that gets crushed. What is the link between Iraq and Al-Qaida again? Where are the weapons? I'm not sure Bush is winning this "war on terror", I see what the Israeli are doing to prevent terrorist attacks: invade, kill, level houses, occupy... it obviously doesn't work and actually give birth to new breeds of terrorists. Strange how Bush pushes for the end of Israeli occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state when he is doing just the opposite in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When I see the US army going somewhere, I see pipelines, oil, natural gas, bases being constructed at strategic keypoints, failure to accomplish official objectives (Where's Ossama? where's Saddam?), I see money for Lokeed-Martin and Halliburton going into the pocket of well-know characters of the Bush regime, I see the dollar being introduced as the currency in a country which had changed all its belongings to Euro, I see not so happy "liberated" people protesting, I see puppet regimes being installed...

Also, democracy is, in theory, run by the people (or its representatives), but that's theory, in practice our western democracies are run by oligarchs and tycoons and I think they put their interest before that of the people they represent. I believe there are people on SP who don't think "Shrub" is acting for the best of the American people.

When the European powers invaded China, it was because "the Chinese were so many they would conquer the world" or something like that, then the British and French "democracies" waged a defensive war on the other side of the planet, also claiming the "burden of the white man" was to bring civilisation to the savages (ie not-white). All profit made in colonised China were "side-effects".

When the US do a preemptive war (saying if we don't they'll get us) and bring democracy and freedom to people on the other side of the planet, claiming "it's not for the oil", I can't help but see history repeating itself.

The first rule of war propaganda is: the enemy is the attacker, if we don't fight him he will destroy us. And Fox-News is flooding TV-watchers with centuries-old propaganda like this, the US is not waging a war for its survival, it's a war of imperial conquest, securing ressources and geostrategic places.

 

Do address you points, one by one:

• The media in the United States is not controlled by the government. In fact, the first item in the Bill of Rights expressly states that the government cannot interfere with free speech. The U.S. is not communist. The U.S. is not like most nations on this planet.
  -
• Korea is a danger - that is obvious. However, to spite his public statements, Kim Jong-Il has a sense of honor and, as a result, is not in the same category as Bin Laden, Saddam and Chirac. The nations that are in the gaze of the U.S. right now are Iran and Syria.
  -
• The link between Iraq and Bin Laden? Americans rolled their eyes when we heard Bush try to make this point. I realized it was mainly to make many of the European community happy. In fact, who cares? The U.S. declared a war on terror - not Al Qaeda.
  -
• Israel's treatment of the Palensteinians does not create terrorism. Terrorism mainly works on hate and bigotry which lies right under the surface. The reason that the Nazis were able to capture the hearts of the German people is due to the fact that their was a degree of bigotry under the surface. The Nazi philosophy merely justified their opinions and give them strength.
  
  The same is true in Palenstein. Israel's treatment only gives justification to hate and, due to the ideal of "martyrs", we have suicide-bombers.
  
  Very few Americans - at least those who are adults - do not expect the suicide attacks to end even if Palenstein becomes an independant and free state. Attacks will continue and Israel will close its borders - permenantly. This is unfortunate, but will be the progression of events.

 

The media are not controlled by governments in western countries but they have close relations with them (or with the opposition), therefore they help governments and political parties to spread their propaganda.

Terrorism is created by hate and hate is created by bad treatment, therefore bad treatment creates terrorism. A person becomes suicide bombers when he has nothing to lose. If palestinians had a free state, where they could have a decent living without the continuous fear of the israeli raids, do you think that they would continue the suicide attacks? Just see how things have become more peaceful in Ireland and UK after the beginning of the peace process. Also, this particular hate started 60 years ago,while during the middle ages the arab territories were the safer places for the jews,while one of the favourite sports of the european nobles and knights was the jew hunting. I don't claim that problems will not exist if Palestine becomes a free state but things will be definately better.

As for the nazi Germany, the reasons for the hate were the terms of the Versaille treaty, which hurt the national pride of the Germans more than the defeat and led Germany to an economical crisis

 

Do you know where Iraq lies and who was really threatened by the famous WMDs that the US army can't find;
I guess not because there were no WMDs and Iraq lies so far from USA that not even there top technology weapon can breach that distance.
As for the invasion in Iraq i suppose you have never heard your president recently saying that USA invaded Iraq to maintain world peace or to exterminate terrorist organizations, because neither have i and there is a simple reason for that. Mr. Bush is only saying that he wanted to get rid of Saddam Husein and i don't take this as a good enough reason for the enormous budget the US administration spent in order to wage this war.
As for the excuse of the bio and chemical weapons it has faded and even wiped out of the administration brains (and as i see most people too) because it was no real excuse and they knew it.

You are either in a different world or i can't see what this invasion had to do with the war against terrorism. And i can't understand how one can fight terrorism by using terror as a mean.

Excuse me!!!!!Chirac is in the same category as Bin Laden. I hope you are joking and i don't want to speak any more.
As for the gaze please be carefull not to be blinded from the sun.
@Lord Kelin Depaara all the Iraqies wanted was not to search the house untill there was a man of the house inside it is not allowed for the Muslim women to talk or even been seen by foreigners. Is that to much to ask; I think not and if the US soldiers have accepted this request it would be a phantastic diplomatic move too since they would show they care about the people

[ June 03, 2003, 13:36: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

 

Well, the news is not good today, since another 6 Americans were killed in Iraq. Here is a clip from a news story that I found disturbing:

These kinds of reprisals against "the town" are a big mistake, IMO. A heavy-handed approach will only backfire on them in the long run. While I agree that they need to conduct search and destroy type missions against those who are attacking our guys, it is mistake to believe that the general population is to blame. Soon we will begin to hear that the war can only be won by "winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people." Then it will be all over. America will be like the Russians in Afghanistan, chased out of the country by missile-toting tribesmen.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CB10

[ November 08, 2003, 05:32: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos, I agree that the news is bleak. There have been at least a couple of bright spots, that have largely gone overlooked, such as described here .

This is actually a remarkable stance, especially considering some of the Islamic leaders quoted in the article. Doesn't change the death of some American soldier, but this is the most positive response since the Carter administration.

 

Well i hope that these words will be followed by actions because if not then things will get a whole lot more worse than anticipated.

I think that most Arabs would agree with this statement, but the West must prove its words by acting towards Democracy and peace.

Well i hope that president Bush really meant this statement because if he tries to use it as a cloack for his own goals, USA will face the greatest distrust and dislike than ever before.

 

Ah, but Mithrantir, you're confusing the meaning of the word democracy here, understandable given your background. When Bush uses the word, he does not refer to the political sense that we have obtained from Greece, no, these words have changed over time in different geological areas. What he is reffering to is vassals

 

Bush gave no plan for implementing this new tactic, and thus, chances or he has none and it won't work.

Besides, even though I'm a day late, we should show some thanks to all the troops - for those of us in the U.S., we celebrate Veteran's Day this week.

 

According to an analyis of Reuters the number of dead americans in Iraq has surpassed the number of dead in the first three years of the Vietnam war. 392 american soldiers died from the end of 1961 until the end of 1964, while 393 soldiers died in Iraq from the beginning of the operation iraqi freedom until now.

 

I'm posting this here because it doesn't fit anywhere really but may be interesting. This is a blog which is generating discussion at other blogs of varying leanings. The blog linked appears to be conservative to me but I am really not familiar with it enough to state its general position having only come across it today. What's interesting to me is the "Ghosts of Occupations Past" series that the blogger is publishing starting Nov 4, 2003. There are a lot of disimilarities in the comparisons but there are some similarities as well. The assertion is that media coverage is focused on certain types of events and may not necessarily show a complete picture.

What the blogger is doing is showing old news articles from other occupations and allowing a comparison to the news articles today. If you're not familiar with blogs, you can read the comments under each entry. It starts with the Nov 4 entry:

http://www.thecr.blogspot.com/

For the record, I'll say it again before it gets out of control: there are a lot of problems with the comparison. Things are certainly not good in Iraq. Iraq, imo, hangs in the balance. But, I do think that some stories are much more reported than others. The above is just food for thought.

Edit -

More food for thought? Finding old news articles and looking at them is taking off it seems; primarily conservative sites:

Two links to two parts of the 1946 Life Magazine article about how the US occupation of Germany was a failure:

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm

And another with the 1946 Saturday Evening Post about how the occupation was being botched:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012288.php

Of course, the sites are what they are, but the copied articles are also what they are. Not sure what to make of them.

Edit part deux - cut out some peripheral garbage.

[ November 14, 2003, 22:17: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

500 and how many more?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3985863&p1=0

A good question: "When does it end?"

Bush on Bush, debating Al Gore in 2000:

[ January 17, 2004, 20:35: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]