2,974th Soldier killed in Iraq/Afghanistan

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

1. My statement is as much "fact" as the "spread to thin" line is fact. I have seen a few pieces that explain away the myth though.
Fact: there are 500,000 people in the Army and 180,000 in the Marines, for a total of 680,000. There are "only" 150,000 in Iraq, so that leaves another 500,000 who are not there... I'd say we are in ok shape. There are 40,000 each in Japan and Korea, right now.
2. That claim is based on knowing the type of people who there in the military as well as every story I have ever seen or read about the soldiers who are on the ground and doing the fighting. While some here go on with the "Bush lied" and "unjust war" crap these men are very proud of what they are doing and know what a difference they have made in lives of the people there.

Take out your pencil and paper and start figuring out how many of those 500,000 Army, 180,000 Marines etc are pencil pushers, support etc.

Funny you posting here how the Mil is in good shape while this thread
is saying the opposite

Diagnosed with autism at age 3, Jared is polite but won't talk to people unless they address him first. It's hard for him to make friends. He lives in his own private world.

Jared didn't know there was a war raging in Iraq until his parents told him last fall - shortly after a military recruiter stopped him outside a Portland strip mall and complimented his black Converse All-Stars.

Recruiting abuses mount as Army struggles to meet goal

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I wonder when we hit that number after Pearl Harbor? :roll:

Thanks for bringing up Pearl Harbor, because we have been "fighting Al Qaeda" now for longer than it took the US to beat Germany and Japan in WWII.

Of course there are plenty of ways one can spin this.

For instance, Iraq is already saved and democratic, mission accomplished in that theater, so The Global War on Terror is really over there. Just like everything is fine in Afghanistan. Bush doesn't care about Bin Laden, he's a has been, does nothing relevent, etc. The slight problems in Iraq and Afghanistan are exaggerated by the Librul media, those terrorist sympathizers never report on all the good things that are going on in Iraq.

Or I guess one could say in WWII we fought with our gloves off and in The Global War on Terror or The Long War (TM), we have been pussy footing around. We should have just nuked the Middle East five years ago and everything that has gone wrong is consequently the Libruls' fault.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. My statement is as much "fact" as the "spread to thin" line is fact. I have seen a few pieces that explain away the myth though.
Fact: there are 500,000 people in the Army and 180,000 in the Marines, for a total of 680,000. There are "only" 150,000 in Iraq, so that leaves another 500,000 who are not there... I'd say we are in ok shape. There are 40,000 each in Japan and Korea, right now.
2. That claim is based on knowing the type of people who there in the military as well as every story I have ever seen or read about the soldiers who are on the ground and doing the fighting. While some here go on with the "Bush lied" and "unjust war" crap these men are very proud of what they are doing and know what a difference they have made in lives of the people there.

Before anyone replies back with the "yea but 40,000 civilians are dead because of this" line remember it is not the US that is killing these people. They are being killed by other Iraqis or outside fighters. There is NO reason to believe at all that if we left tomorrow that this killing would stop. Shias and Shitiies hate each other almost as much as they hate us, it took the firm grip of Saddam to keep them away from each other.

And those 150,000 get rotated out and then another 150,000 replace them and then they rotate out and ....

We're seeing troops on their 4th tour at this point.

Our presence in Iraq has now lasted longer than WWII.

WRONG We are not to that point yet, still another few months before we reach that point. Iraq=3 years 6 months. WW 2= 3 years 9 months.

BTW we occupied Germany untill 1949 when West Germany was formed, four and half years after the war ended. And Japan until 1952, 7 years after the war ended.

 

[conjur]

Oh, I was unaware that the US launched immediate attacks against Germany and Japan in Dec. 1941. :roll:


But, good job on missing the point.

 

[themusgrat]

Technically, we went to war very soon after they bombed us, of course. The point that we can all agree on is that while we had justification to go to Afghanistan, we had none to go to Iraq. It isn't our job to make sure that every nation is free like we are. At most, we can only see it as our responsibility to ensure that we are being as humane as possible *ie* aid to poor countries, and to maybe step in, in the event of something extreme like genocide. But, BUT..... when we went to war, we thought that Iraq had WMDs, and don't tell me that your brother knows somebody's sister's boyfriend who actually knew the whole time that they didn't. And we weren't the only ones who thought that. Sadly, we have had the chance to pull out for a very long time now; instead, we try to doctor elections, causing major screwups, and making the Middle Eastern people hate us more. Oh, one point of interest. The only Americans that I have ever heard of the Iraqis praising are the missionaries, the righties that devote their lives to making others' better....... I have heard many letters thanking churches for their support during this time of, "Our country is gonna blow up half yours to make it safer... really just safer for us." Anyway, it isn't as bad as you think. If you want to compare the time in Iraq to the time in WW2, try comparing the casualties in both places too. It isn't even a war anymore. Sooooo let's pull out now.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
sorry ntdz, in an effort to be as succinct as possible, i ended up being somewhat vague in my meaning. and thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear things up.

i fully supported and still support going after OBL and the taliban in afghanistan. i feel we were/are totally justified to go after those responsible for 9/11.

the reason i originally posted *(post-iraq invasion) afghanistan* was to emphasize the idea that had we not invaded iraq and kept our troop strength and reserves intact in afghanistan until we finished the job there, the resurgence of the taliban in afghanistan and the resultant deaths of more US troops because of it may never have happened.

with troop levels stretched thin in both afghanistan and iraq, our troops are more than ever in danger of getting kia'd in either country.

sometimes i have to wonder something about afghanistan, though. even if troops weren't tied up in iraq, could they be put to use in afghanistan? the terrain isn't exactly what the US army has trained for, much less so than even iraq or vietnam. granted, we could step up training of divisions and smaller units to the rugged terrain, but it's something to consider.