Death in Iraq.

[Gen. Volkov]

Another "milestone" has been reached apparently. Iraq+Afganistan now have claimed the lives of more US citizens than those who died in the Sept. 11th attacks. 1 more to be exact. Is it just me, or does anyone find that remarkably low for a war that's now heading into it's 6th year? (3.5 in Iraq, nearly 6 in Afghanistan, for you nitpickers). I'm not saying that soldiers dying isn't a bad thing, but given the force levels involved, and the length of time, that amount of deaths in ludicrously low when compared to any other modern war, and alot of pre-modern ones as well. I for one, am getting real tired of the press going on about it. Who says 2500 deaths is a milestone? Who says this is a milestone? Not I. Call me when as many die in Iraq as did in Vietnam. (In approx. 50+ years) That's a milestone.

[Arthus]

Yeah, but many deaths could have been avoided. Even the most stubborn U.S. supporter must have realised that they have messed up badly.

[Freenhult]

Messed up where? Maybe Iraq wasn't such a grand idea. But nothing is wrong with what we did to Afghanistan. ('Cept the whole general war thing)

[Ruddertail]

Could the war in Iraq have been handled better? I don't know. Certainly, the situation in Iraq could have turned out better. Whether that is the fault of the people handling the war and it's aftermath, or simply the way things happened, I don't. Nobody can know the future, nobody can plan for anything. Hindsight is 20/20, foresight is not.

It could be that Bush and his allies messed up when planning for the war in Iraq. Perhaps they missed a factor or two that, if addressed, would have avoided this. Perhaps they planned for everything they could think of, every possibility that they were aware of, and something came up that they knew nothing about. Perhaps this is their fault, perhaps nobody knew about this factor or series of factors.

Certainly, every death is a sad thing. Yet this is by no means a massive causualty count. We lost more troops then this in single days in WWII. The war was necessary, but the planning (and, for that matter, the timing) may not have been the best.

I mention the timing because Iraq seems to be tying up our millitary at a time when it would be nice to have it free to deploy wherever we need it. Iran and all that...

[bjornredtail]

Quite honestly, I would concider a preemptive nuclear strike to be a better overall option in dealing with Iran's nuclear facilities rather than an invasion. Fewer civilian casuelities, less cost, and perhaps just as effective at denying Iran a nuclear problem. Yes I said fewer civilian casuelities... It's not like Iran put it's nuclear facilities in the middle of downtown Terran...

Back to the topic at hand, Iraq. Reguardless of how we got into this situation, I see no other general course of action than what we are doing right now. Of course, certain aspects of the operation can be, and are being improved, but the overall stragic goal is still valid.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Messed up where? Maybe Iraq wasn't such a grand idea. But nothing is wrong with what we did to Afghanistan. ('Cept the whole general war thing)

I don't necessarily agree with that part. The Iraq war drained our resources and manpower from Afghanistan and we have really lost a lot of ground over there. Taliban has really made a comeback, opium production has SKYROCKETED and it's funding all the warlords/Taliban. It's kind of hard to find much info about Afghanistan in the news since news agencies would rather report the war in the country with the better name recognition, but if you look up the statistics and reports from the area it shows that we have taken a huge step back.

[Arthus]

bjornredtail did you really mean it when you said the U.S. should launch nukes at Iran? I for one think thats a little extreme. I don't think nukes should ever be used. And its funny how the U.S. used to sell reapons to Iraq and Iran now it has invaded Iraq and will soon invade Iran, they can't seem to decide on anything.

[Freenhult]

Messed up where? Maybe Iraq wasn't such a grand idea. But nothing is wrong with what we did to Afghanistan. ('Cept the whole general war thing)

I don't necessarily agree with that part. The Iraq war drained our resources and manpower from Afghanistan and we have really lost a lot of ground over there. Taliban has really made a comeback, opium production has SKYROCKETED and it's funding all the warlords/Taliban. It's kind of hard to find much info about Afghanistan in the news since news agencies would rather report the war in the country with the better name recognition, but if you look up the statistics and reports from the area it shows that we have taken a huge step back.

Right, I know what you mean. I'm just stating that the Iraq war probably wasn't at the right time. But, I don't think we messed up Afghanistan too badly. Although, you are mostly correct.

bjornredtail did you really mean it when you said the U.S. should launch nukes at Iran? I for one think thats a little extreme. I don't think nukes should ever be used. And its funny how the U.S. used to sell reapons to Iraq and Iran now it has invaded Iraq and will soon invade Iran, they can't seem to decide on anything.

No... I for one agree fully. A ground war would be more than costly. It would start the next massive conflict and completly destabilize the Middle East. The extremists would call this an attack on all of Islam blah blah blah, and we'd have half the Islamic community attacking us. Whereas a nuclear blast on the single target somewhere in the montains... would speak volumes about what we are willing to do to stop them.

[Arthus]

But is that right? Doesn't seem to be the moral thing to do, you can neevr really no devastation a nuke can do. If they did launch one I seriously doubt that will deter the terrorists. That would probably just help there cause.

[bjornredtail]

I belive you are misunderstanding what I said... I am not saying we should nuke Iran right now, when there may be other methods of forceing them to give up thier nuclear weapons program. But if it comes down to a ground war versus a tatical nuclear strike, I would go with the nuclear strike as it would have a far lower cost in terms of human life.

[Ruddertail]

But is that right? Doesn't seem to be the moral thing to do, you can neevr really no devastation a nuke can do.

Quite frankly, I don't see anything instricntly immoral about nukes. Nuking a major population center would be wrong - but so would firebombing it, or killing all those people with other conventional explosives.

Certainly, nukes do present a greater environmental concern, but that must be weighed against the other options. Making a couple Iranian mountain sides uninhabitable vrs. killing a bunch of Iranian civilians, not to mention our and their millitary losses, it seems pretty much obvious to launch the nukes.

And while the terrorists probably wouldn't be discouraged, if we managed to knock out their nulcear sites, it wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be nuking anybody for a long time...

It would play less into their hands then invading Iran, if for the sole reason that it exposes a lot less US soldiers to attacks. Also, however, strategic targeting of nuclear sites would probably play into their hands less then invading the whole country. They can't actually say the people were attacked, though of course they'll invent several small villages that "existed" on those mountain sides.
But, still. We didn't invade, we didn't occupy. Less propaganda material for them, if you ask me, and that's always a good thing.

[Nuclear Raunch]

It would start the next massive conflict and completly destabilize the Middle East. The extremists would call this an attack on all of Islam blah blah blah, and we'd have half the Islamic community attacking us.

Would a nuclear attack not do the same if not worse? I mean honestly the pros you guys have given for nukes could also be achieved by using conventional weapons (not that I'm in favor of that) without the minor drawback of turning 99% of the world's populatin against us.

In all honesty try to think about it from a terrorist PR perspective, is there anything that you would rather have happen than to have the US nuke a non-military installation?

[Arthus]

and then the U.S. turn into the people who nuke people who dont capitulate to their demands.

[bjornredtail]

That's a small price to pay to avoid a nuclear Iran in my opinion. Hopefully the situation can be defused before it reaches that point though.

[Nuclear Raunch]

That's a small price to pay to avoid a nuclear Iran in my opinion. Hopefully the situation can be defused before it reaches that point though.

Nuclear war is a small price to pay? You *do* realize that the US is not the only nation with nukes right? If we were to start a nuclear war with Iran what's NK gonna think? Like the rest of the world they will assume that they're next and that would leave them considering options that are unfavorable to all of us.

Although we could just nuke Iran, then nuke NK, then Iraq, then Egypt, then Libya, then Jordan, then Syria.....

The reality is eventually they will get nukes, it's inevitable. To have a history of nuking them without provocation will just screw us over once they have them. For evidence that they will eventually aquire nukes I simply point to other military technolgoies that were top secret, only one nation had it, type of thing. Subs, missiles, guns, rockets, cannons, gunpowder, blow darts, bows, muskets, machine guns, planes, jets, blimps, rockets, bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, radar, torpedos, mines, tanks etc...