Why is Iraq so bad?

[JerrySeinfeld]

From what I can gather roughly 3,000 US troops have died in Iraq.

That's apparently about 1 month worth of Vietnam casualties.

Doesn't sound too bad.

If the worst the media can come up with in their daily wish for civil war is a car bomb or two, killing 20-40 people or so, is this war really so bad?

I mean, aside from the peacniks who think there the only kind of war is no war, can someone please tell me what makes Iraq such a bad scene. When I compare it to other wars it looks about the same or even better.

I seems our squeemishness has reached all time highs. People are dying!!! um - yea. It's called WAR.

[jdobbin]

From what I can gather roughly 3,000 US troops have died in Iraq.

That's apparently about 1 month worth of Vietnam casualties.

Doesn't sound too bad.

If the worst the media can come up with in their daily wish for civil war is a car bomb or two, killing 20-40 people or so, is this war really so bad?

I mean, aside from the peacniks who think there the only kind of war is no war, can someone please tell me what makes Iraq such a bad scene. When I compare it to other wars it looks about the same or even better.

I seems our squeemishness has reached all time highs. People are dying!!! um - yea. It's called WAR.

The Pentagon's own report has said that Iraq has not made America safer.

And attacks on Iraqis grow every week. The U.S. cannot protect the people anymore and U.S. soldiers die at the rate of two a day trying to do it.

A low grade war just keeps grinding along.

[bradco]

Comparing the success of wars to Vietnam?

Just because Iraq isn't as bad as Vietnam doesn't make it good, or not bad.

Iraq was completely unnecessary, other wars in history have been necessary.

[M.Dancer]

From what I can gather roughly 3,000 US troops have died in Iraq.

That's apparently about 1 month worth of Vietnam casualties.

Doesn't sound too bad.

If the worst the media can come up with in their daily wish for civil war is a car bomb or two, killing 20-40 people or so, is this war really so bad?

I mean, aside from the peacniks who think there the only kind of war is no war, can someone please tell me what makes Iraq such a bad scene. When I compare it to other wars it looks about the same or even better.

I seems our squeemishness has reached all time highs. People are dying!!! um - yea. It's called WAR.

You post has a number of errors and ommisions.

First, what was the total of US deaths after 3 years of intervention?

392 americans were killed between 1961 and 64

By 1965 when troop levels soared the culmative death toll soared to 1,864

And if you were to average the US VN deaths over the extended period of the conflict, the average month saw around 425 killed, not 3,000.

But you are looking at iraq soley from a US casualty view point. If we are to accept that one of the reason the US invaded (after the prime reason was proven false) was to free the people from Saddam's brutality, then by that standard the adventure is a failure.

During the course of world war two, the United kingdom and commonwealth suffered 62,000 deaths over 6 years of war.

In 3 years of sectarian violence and insurgency including the deaths from the US lead invasion Iraq has suffered no fewer than 43,000 deaths and possibly much higher. Confirmed deaths in September alone total 1429. A more accurate report will follow after they audit the Baghad morgue. At this rate, in 10 years the death toll will be higher than 20 years of Saddam's reign of terror.

Yes it's a war. One that is being fought badly as a result of poor political leadership and incompetant planning.

[KrustyKidd]

In 3 years of sectarian violence and insurgency including the deaths from the US lead invasion Iraq has suffered no fewer than 43,000 deaths and possibly much higher. Confirmed deaths in September alone total 1429. A more accurate report will follow after they audit the Baghad morgue. At this rate, in 10 years the death toll will be higher than 20 years of Saddam's reign of terror.

I would like to know your sources for those figures please. The US didn't kill those people. However, if you are going to blame them for it then, let's blame Saddam for the deaths during his tenure - including the Iran war in which over a million people were killed. In any case, the UN blames Saddam for over three hundred thousand deaths of his own countrymen. Far less than the US has been blamed for.

[M.Dancer]

In 3 years of sectarian violence and insurgency including the deaths from the US lead invasion Iraq has suffered no fewer than 43,000 deaths and possibly much higher. Confirmed deaths in September alone total 1429. A more accurate report will follow after they audit the Baghad morgue. At this rate, in 10 years the death toll will be higher than 20 years of Saddam's reign of terror.

I would like to know your sources for those figures please. The US didn't kill those people. However, if you are going to blame them for it then, let's blame Saddam for the deaths during his tenure - including the Iran war in which over a million people were killed. In any case, the UN blames Saddam for over three hundred thousand deaths of his own countrymen. Far less than the US has been blamed for.

Which figure exactly? Iraqi?

And where did I ascribe blame for the deaths....unless of course the definitions for sectarian and insurgent have changed recently........Now as far as the US didn't kill those people.....They certainlt account for the civilans deaths in the first month of the war....and they account for a couple of handful every month (as opposed to the thousands killed by iraqis themselves)....As far as creating the conditions which allowed the sectarianism and insurgency along with the accompanying terrorism to flourish....you would have to be a white house staffer not toacknowledge where the blame lies.

Month to month tally of civilian and iraqi security deaths (confirmed only)

Death Toll since invasion

[JerrySeinfeld]

Nothing you guys have said has been any different than any other anti-war hippie movement throughout history.

Yes, people are dying and it's taking longer than your miniscule patience can handle.

But other than that...what is wrong with the Iraq war? Specifically?

[Riverwind]

But other than that...what is wrong with the Iraq war? Specifically?

The Iraq War was started based on falsehoods for no reason other than to satisfy the egos of the people in the US gov't. It has made terrorism worse and severely damaged the reputation of the US in world (not to mention cost the American taxpayer huge sums of money).

[JerrySeinfeld]

But other than that...what is wrong with the Iraq war? Specifically?

The Iraq War was started based on falsehoods for no reason other than to satisfy the egos of the people in the US gov't. It has made terrorism worse and severely damaged the reputation of the US in world (not to mention cost the American taxpayer huge sums of money).

It was started to start changing the middle east, which it has, which has temporarily resulted in more hostilities by the in surgents who don't want change.

And if the eurotrash arab sympathizers or the UN (a club of despot dictators who host Ahmedinejad and appluad him) don't appove, that's probably a pretty good sign they're doing the right thing

[M.Dancer]

It was started to start changing the middle east, which it has, which has temporarily resulted in more hostilities by the in surgents who don't want change.

And if the eurotrash arab sympathizers or the UN (a club of despot dictators who host Ahmedinejad and appluad him) don't appove, that's probably a pretty good sign they're doing the right thing

Is this a post about nothing?

Speaking of nothing.......

which has temporarily resulted in more hostilities by the in surgents who don't want change

There is nothing in this which can be construed as anything more than wishful thinking.....

Oh I agree...temporarily is quite the subjective word.....you might be proven right.....20 years down the road.

[M.Dancer]

Nothing you guys have said has been any different than any other anti-war hippie movement throughout history.

Yes, people are dying and it's taking longer than your miniscule patience can handle.

But other than that...what is wrong with the Iraq war? Specifically?

Aside from having no solution to the violence? Well, nothing.

It so fantastically perfect, even a half wit moron can get behind it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Nothing you guys have said has been any different than any other anti-war hippie movement throughout history.

Yes, people are dying and it's taking longer than your miniscule patience can handle.

But other than that...what is wrong with the Iraq war? Specifically?

Aside from having no solution to the violence? Well, nothing.

It so fantastically perfect, even a half wit moron can get behind it.

Yes we've established that war is violent.

Next?

[KrustyKidd]

I accept your source. Iraqi Body count is a solid source.

As far as creating the conditions which allowed the sectarianism and insurgency along with the accompanying terrorism to flourish....you would have to be a white house staffer not toacknowledge where the blame lies.

Fine. Then we can say that Saddam is responsible for all the violent death in Iraq during his tenure from '78 to 2002 including the million or so killed during the Iran Iraq war and as Amnesty International quotes as three hundred thousand people killed by Saddam's goons directly. The US in 44 months has indirectly (according to you) killed or has let be killed a thousand a month or so. On the other hand, Sadam has caused to be killed the same is over 21 thousand a month.

Your point, as is is crap.

[M.Dancer]

I accept your source. Iraqi Body count is a solid source.

As far as creating the conditions which allowed the sectarianism and insurgency along with the accompanying terrorism to flourish....you would have to be a white house staffer not toacknowledge where the blame lies.

Fine. Then we can say that Saddam is responsible for all the violent death in Iraq during his tenure from '78 to 2002 including the million or so killed during the Iran Iraq war and as Amnesty International quotes as three hundred thousand people killed by Saddam's goons directly. The US in 44 months has indirectly (according to you) killed or has let be killed a thousand a month or so. On the other hand, Sadam has caused to be killed the same is over 21 thousand a month.

Your point, as is is crap.

Only if we accept that the Iran Iraq war is the sole responsibility of Saddam. That stretches credibility. Especially if we look at your figure of 1 million casualties. The figure includes iIranian and iraqi dead. I won't bother with this tangent, since the issue of who supported who during this war is off topic.

[JerrySeinfeld]

SO....

We all agree that war is violent and results in death of both soldiers and civilians.

And, unless you suffer from ADD, wars of principle often last more then 2-3 years.

Next!!

[Einar the Dagger]

The Iraq war is difficult to fight because unlike the war in past human history there is no enemy army and no obvious enemy. Terrorists attack from behind the saftey of civilians then retreat back into hiding as forces try to eliminate them. Sucide bomber, roadside bombs, and driveby shootings makes the Iraq war difficult to win.

How do you fight an enemy that hides in the countries population?

Einar the Dagger

[Black Dog]

The Iraq war is difficult to fight because unlike the war in past human history there is no enemy army and no obvious enemy. Terrorists attack from behind the saftey of civilians then retreat back into hiding as forces try to eliminate them. Sucide bomber, roadside bombs, and driveby shootings makes the Iraq war difficult to win.

Well, first and most obvious, Iraq is not the first example of assymetrical war in history. The 20th Century alone gave us the Algeria, Vietnam, and Afghanistan to name but three. One of the problems in Iraq was that the U.S. has never mastered the art of counter-insurgency warfare. Well, that and the fact that the country's civilian leadership is dumber than a sack of verydumb hammers.

How do you fight an enemy that hides in the countries population?

What makes Iraq c. 2007 interesting is that the question should really be: "How do you fight an enemy that hides in the country's population as well as within the nominal state's own security forces?

[BC_chick]

It was started to start changing the middle east, which it has

For the better or worse?

[JerrySeinfeld]

It was started to start changing the middle east, which it has

For the better or worse?

Much better - despite the hopes and prayers of the New York Times, CNN and your friendly neighbourhood anti-bush zealot.

[BC_chick]

It was started to start changing the middle east, which it has

For the better or worse?

Much better - despite the hopes and prayers of the New York Times, CNN and your friendly neighbourhood anti-bush zealot.

How so?

[JerrySeinfeld]

It was started to start changing the middle east, which it has

For the better or worse?

Much better - despite the hopes and prayers of the New York Times, CNN and your friendly neighbourhood anti-bush zealot.

How so?

Women's rights, democracy, Libya and Egypt giving up their weapons programs, Afghanistan freeing women's oppression.

And that doesn't even begin to cover the fact that we're taking it to the terrorists on THEIR turf. We had a choice, fight over there now or fight over here in 10 years or less.

The world is a much better place for the presence of the USA in the middle east. I hope bush doesn't buckle to the short-sighted visionless CNN New York Times zombies.

[Riverwind]

Women's rights, democracy, Libya and Egypt giving up their weapons programs, Afghanistan freeing women's oppression.

Of course you conveniently ignore how the chaos in Iraq is making the despots in Iran and Syria stronger because Iraq's democratic experiment is a complete and total failure from the perspective of anyone other than chickenhawks sitting in North America.

And that doesn't even begin to cover the fact that we're taking it to the terrorists on THEIR turf. We had a choice, fight over there now or fight over here in 10 years or less.

Iraq was a terrorist free zone with Saddam in charge because Saddam and Al Queda were bitter enemies.

The world is a much better place for the presence of the USA in the middle east.

If you believe that then I get you a great deal on a slightly used bridge....

[JerrySeinfeld]

Women's rights, democracy, Libya and Egypt giving up their weapons programs, Afghanistan freeing women's oppression.

Of course you conveniently ignore how the chaos in Iraq is making the despots in Iran and Syria stronger because Iraq's democratic experiment is a complete and total failure from the perspective of anyone other than chickenhawks sitting in North America.

And that doesn't even begin to cover the fact that we're taking it to the terrorists on THEIR turf. We had a choice, fight over there now or fight over here in 10 years or less.

Iraq was a terrorist free zone with Saddam in charge because Saddam and Al Queda were bitter enemies.

The world is a much better place for the presence of the USA in the middle east.

If you believe that then I get you a great deal on a slightly used bridge....

Last time I checked, it's a good idea for UN resolutions to have TEETH so people like AHMEDINAJD listen when you talk to them. The USA enforced UN resolutions with respect to weapons inspections which were flouted for 10 years.

Second, if toppling Saddam has pissed off a whole slew of people who'd rather not see democracy in the middle east, isn't that a good thing?

So in your theory since democracy is being opposed by a bunch of thugs we should back off? what a joke that is.

If the US presence has pissed off and subsequently attracted ADDITIONAL thugs into the country from yria and Iran, then de facto we're fighting the terrorists on THEIR turf, not ours. That is a good thing.

Also, with nutjobs like Ahmedinejad talking tough on nukes and annihalating Israel, it's a damn good thing the US already has a foothold in the region. This is another example of GW Bush's longer term vision on things you just didn't see.

What we need is to ramp up the troop and presence in the region. But I trust GW Bush - he knows exactly what to do and we'll see how he executes it from this point forward...hopefully he doesn't tune into the ninnies on CNN and the ADD people who are "bored" with the war and need something else to pee on.

[Riverwind]

Second, if toppling Saddam has pissed off a whole slew of people who'd rather not see democracy in the middle east, isn't that a good thing?

Actually, the chaos in Iraq has undermined the people pushing for democratic change in Syria and Iran. Before Iraq, democracy was a positive thing that many people in these countries aspired to. After Iraq, democracy has become synonymous with chaos and lawlessness. This makes its easier for the thugs to keep control. Right now I am pretty sure that Iran and Syria think the invasion of Iraq was the best thing the US ever did for them.

So in your theory since democracy is being opposed by a bunch of thugs we should back off? what a joke that is.

My theory is you cannot spread democracy with guns no matter how distasteful the current leaders are. Democracy must come from within a society.

Also, with nutjobs like Ahmedinejad talking tough on nukes and annihalating Israel, it's a damn good thing the US already has a foothold in the region.

Bush created Ahmedinejad - he would have never been elected if the US had not invaded Iraq.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Second, if toppling Saddam has pissed off a whole slew of people who'd rather not see democracy in the middle east, isn't that a good thing?

Actually, the chaos in Iraq has undermined the people pushing for democratic change in Syria and Iran. Before Iraq, democracy was a positive thing that many people in these countries aspired to. After Iraq, democracy has become synonymous with chaos and lawlessness. This makes its easier for the thugs to keep control. Right now I am pretty sure that Iran and Syria think the invasion of Iraq was the best thing the US ever did for them.

So in your theory since democracy is being opposed by a bunch of thugs we should back off? what a joke that is.

My theory is you cannot spread democracy with guns no matter how distasteful the current leaders are. Democracy must come from within a society.

Also, with nutjobs like Ahmedinejad talking tough on nukes and annihalating Israel, it's a damn good thing the US already has a foothold in the region.

Bush created Ahmedinejad - he would have never been elected if the US had not invaded Iraq.

Ahmedinejad had been around for decades and was involved in Iran's hostage - US embassy attack.

Ahmedinejad was elected for many domestic policy reasons and it just so happens he's a nut puppet who will do the bidding of the real power brokers in Iran - the Ayatollah, Mullahs and Imams.

And the whole "democracy must come from within" garbage routine has been a big massive reason to let the whole BS in the mid-east simmer on medium for decades, only to produce worse and better armed foes.

Should we wait another 10 years with the your beloved "sanctions" hahahahahah and see what kind of weaponry we're faced with in a decade? When willwe decide to face the tough tasks at hand - now with some meagrely armed insurgency andf a ketyusha armed hezbollah? or in 10 years with a Nuclear Iran and a well armed force of Islamic jew and west haters?