2000 American Soldier deaths

I'll be honest - I hardly know anything about military tactics. I just think it takes more balls (and we we're talking about balls) to guaranteed die for a cause then to fight a war when you out-man and out-spend the other army 100 to 1.

 

dew new dew new dew new duh nuh

i Kuhno whut iz goinga

AhHhHhH!!!!!!!

 

Yes as far as balls, I guess I would have to agree with you. The US has given several Congressional Medals of Honor to American troops who dived onto grenades to save their comrades. Therefore, I guess that giving your life when you know that you do not have a chance takes balls. But I do not think that anyone should be dieing in Iraq, them or us. I am opposed to war. Where you and I fail to agree is in your depiction of the US as the most evil country in the world. I know we have many warts and our history is not one of complete enlightenment. However, over all I would have to say the US is about as good as any and better than some. Our current government needs a lot of work. I would like to feel that forums like this one help to spread ideas and encourage change. However, you seem to take a completely adversarial attitude towards the US and all of its citizens and I do not understand why.

 

It comes down to collective responsability - I hold all citizens responsible for all actions taken by the government. It's the downside of democracy.

 

suicide bombing has been developed as a tactical weapon by the resistance fighters in iraq. a suicide bomber adequately indoctrinated and armed and trained is the ultimate smart bomb it can find its target and eliminate it. invading armies hate these kinds of people, like snipers they destroy morale in your army to no end. as weapons of war they probably have a higher kill rate than say the ordinary soldier and there is essentially no end to them.

i notice from various sites that alot of older reserves soldiers have died in iraq with a smattering of younger guys in their 20's. the idea of sending the reserves in first is to consilidate and ready your army for the real war. you see in large wars the reserves are used first to absorb the initial blow, largely less experienced they die first. from a tactical perspective their death opens a window of understanding your enemy better. i suppose you could call them cannon fodder but, in the larger picture of the grand chess game being played out over in the middle east their deaths are "necessary". my guess is that the u.s. is preparing its regular army for the assault on syria and iran, whilst the reserves take the brunt in iraq. its also my guess that syria and iran would be aware of this too. go ahead join up today!!

 

If these individuals were indeed smart weapons, it would be one thing. However, what usually seems to happen is that one or two US nationals are killed along with 3-4 bystanders. A man willing to give his life could do better with a sidearm. I question the endless availability of suicide bombers. However, I will admit to not having a good understanding of the culture.

Many older reserves are being killed because they are in the type of support positions that makes them the type of "soft target" that suicide bombers work well on. Another problem with this "smart" weapon. I do not doubt that the US is dumb enough to consider invading another Arabic country but I do not know were we would get the boots without a draft. And I hope to bob that the US would not stand for a draft, unless there is another major incident to whip people up.

 

So everyone in the US holds collective responsibility. To an extent, I will accept that. It should help motivate people to make changes. However, you also are aware of the great wrong, and you also are a human, do you hold no responsibility? Have you no plans to act to end this evil.

 

Me? I've marched in a dozen anti-war rallies, I had dinner with my MP (Member of Parliament) and told him that in my opinion we should close the border to the US until they withdraw (thus depriving you of a majority of oil/power/wood/dozens of other necessary resources). In the end though, it is not my government commiting the war, and thus you have infinitely more power to change it than I do.

It sort of follows Locke's "Social Contract" - when a government no longer does the will of the people, they have a right to remove it. Since the US has failed to even attempt that, it stands that their people support the government and hence are responsible for the war.

 

Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Function: noun
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
2 : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

You do understand that a republic is indeed a democracy, but does not necessarily mean direct democracy. Way to try to avoid responsability though - it shows true character.

 

You can judge a country by a few duly elected asshats in power, however.


I've been to Hawaii, Washington State, Oregon, California, Montana, Wyoming, and New York. And I'd like to never go back.

EDIT: And Alaska - but Alaska kicks ass.

 

i suppose like any conflict there will be "collateral damage" unfortunately like any war the civillians will be killed by both sides. lets say hypothetically that the arab world has .1 percent of people ready to be a suicide bomber. thats going to be alot of suicide bombers. lets say that the arabic population has a population growth of lets say 5 percent per annum,this more or less means that by numbers alone suicide bombers that they will be around for quite somtime. i think it was the hashassins who used to do the whole precursor to the suicide bomber (you paid your money and a number of them would go out and kill someone regardless of their death, i think the crusaders used them-but don't quote me. when the civillian population is against an invading army they are more or less f*cked the germans, russians , english and russians have extensive experience of this and time after time they have eventually put their tail between their legs and cleared off quick when the penny finally dropped.

as for iraq

its my guess that the us is using its reserves to take the brunt of the attack keeping their regular troops to ready themselves for more organised operations and i suppose the invasion of syria and iran. by the nature of us casualties alone it is suggestive of a planned military strike within and outside of iraqs borders. the reserves tactic is one that would have been used in the event of an invasion by russia into western europe and such is one familiar to nato.

 

One out of 1000 people are willing to give up their lives for the cause - no way. In addition, you are not talking about the entire population anyway. Suicide bombers as regular troops are picked from the younger folks. Now I will give you the fact that the Arabic world has a high percentage of young unemployed folks. It is part of the problem. However, I still think your are way overestimating the number of people who are willing to take themselves out on the chance of harming an invader. You are 100% correct that no occupying power has ever prevailed over a population in which the majority of the citizens wanted them out. However, I am not arguing for the war. I am arguing against abuse of Americans and of American solders as individuals based on the actions of their dumb ass government.

 

Meh. I'd disagree that facing uncertain death is more courageous than facing certain death - but this question falls under the realm of opinion.

You assumed wrong - by freedom fighters I mean those defending a nation's sovereignty against a foreign invader.

 

one mans beer is another mans poison

one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist

the main thing here i suppose is to look at the why and wherefores as to exactly how this whole mess started. why are these people so committed to fighting, why are we so comitted to fighting. even in the height of the first world war with thirty thousand british troops being killed in one assault in one afternoon no one sat down sat down and thought "what the blazes is going on here"? i think from memory they promoted the man who was responsible for this massacre. there was always the "surprise full frontal assault" that didn't really surprise the german machine gunners (i've once read that by the start of ww1 the germans had perfected the art of using the machine gun, by the use of crossing arcs of fire across advancing troops and using them in the fashion of artillery to shoot high arcs down onto one area saturating it with bullets)

the "art of war" says one thing of war - DON'T DO IT! find some other way.

 

sovereignty handed back to them in part by those they are fighting..odd behaviour imho.
apologies for butting in..

 

You are quite correct on your history and your comments on the use of automatic weapons - it is called the "beaten zone". You are also correct in your conclusion – lets stop having wars. They suck – there dumb – there has got to be a better way.

 

Who could argue the first world war was not one big mess ..and pointless. Different time .. They were working from a victorian Handbook ..Putting into operation 'modern' apparatus of a war..was going to not go well.

I guess this is what is attempted , not always with great success..as one side could say yes and the other side could say no.. or not say anything at all.

 

LOL...Stop having wars ???? Yeah right... never gonna happen.... I am anti war...But, I do understand that sometimes that things happen that cannot be changed, people are gonna disagree and when they attack or threaten to attack or become a threat, are we supposed to just take it and jepordize our freedom ??? Yeah fucking right...!!!

 

I was removing 'us' out of this equation.. i was thinking the insurgengy and OBL cohorts and those wishing to retain the domocracy and constitution.. I thought it was supposed ot be a CIVIL war [forgeting those pesky foreign fighters of OBL]