• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

2007 is deadliest year in Iraq

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: Firebot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Genx87
We have come a long ways in 60 years. Lost about 110,000 a year in WWII.
Are you really comparing the army of Iraq to the combined forces of Germany, Italy, Japan, and all the countries under their rule, in the 1930s and 1940s? Are you actually surprised in the least that a war named World War II had more casualties than a skirmish involving one superpower and one third world country? How intellectually dishonest could you be to draw any parallel between the death counts of World War II and Iraq?

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Go preach your bullshit, unrealistic world peace message while singing kumbaya somewhere else. At least some of us try and deal with reality. :roll:

This had potential to be a good thread /wave
How is it shocking that a thread about soldier death counts would lead people to reflect on the purpose of those deaths? The natural thing to do when dealing with death is to try to rationalize the death in the grander scheme of things. In this case, dahunan posits that perhaps had we not gone to war, these men and women might still be alive. If that is to be believed, then we must naturally ask ourselves if the goals of the war were worth the lives of the men and women lost so far. In dahunan's mind they are not. You may feel that the deaths have not been in vain, and it is your right to think and say so. But to jump down someone else's throat for his view that he would prefer our troops be alive is asinine.
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
No one in Iraq attacked the US. What organization do you speak of which was based in Iraq?
Maybe them looking similar to those who attacked us is good enough for that guy.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
War kills people. Welcome to reality.

It sucks, but thats reality. We will NEVER EVER have a war free world.
Not with the current people running governments around the world I agree, and I wager that as long as there are people who believe it to be the first solution to problems, there will certainly always be war.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,708
49
91
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,897
832
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
Sorry, but we've funded their dictators for decades and still do. We aren't "fixing" anything.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
It took over 1500 years in Europe, what makes you think we can do it in 20 or 30 years?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
2 million Iraqis had to flee their occupied country due to ridiculous increases in violence. The U.S. refuses sanctuary for these people. 100,000s of Iraqi civilians have been killed and our own deaths are quite up there as well.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Active military death statistics

Wars do tend to accelerate the Us Military death statistics, but that isn't always the case. I Also find it informative that, racially, the deaths in percentages are closely related to the population make-up.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes.. and they are intentionally targeted by the other vehicle? The other vehicle went out in search of other drivers to kill?
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,708
49
91
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes.. and they are intentionally targeted by the other vehicle? The other vehicle went out in search of other drivers to kill?

..dead is dead. makes no difference. over 4k drivers a month die on the road.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes.. and they are intentionally targeted by the other vehicle? The other vehicle went out in search of other drivers to kill?

..dead is dead. makes no difference.
I'm sure our soldiers would appreciate your sentiment.

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes.. and they are intentionally targeted by the other vehicle? The other vehicle went out in search of other drivers to kill?

..dead is dead. makes no difference. over 4k drivers a month die on the road.
let me put an IED in your driveway tomorrow morning and we will ask your loved ones if that equal an "accident"
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes, a completely unavoidable reality of life. Unlike, say, Iraq.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
Except you can't change it with an occupation. When in the history of the planet has a large, prolonged occupation by a foreign country ever succeeded in impressing their values on that occupied country? Spreading values by force has never, I repeat, never worked. Despite our good intentions, the very nature of this war is flawed.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes.. and they are intentionally targeted by the other vehicle? The other vehicle went out in search of other drivers to kill?

..dead is dead. makes no difference. over 4k drivers a month die on the road.
Did you feel the same way about 9/11?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
You can't change it, period, with an occupation. When, in the history of the planet, has a large, prolonged occupation by a foreign country ever succeeded in impressing their values on that occupied country? Spreading values by force has never, I repeat, never worked. Despite the good intentions, the very nature of this war is flawed.

Gee I dont know, how do you think the United States was formed? By dismantling and occupying native American lands.

Toss in Post World War II Germany and Japan.

Not that you dont have a point regarding that region, but it has been done in the past

/shrug
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
Why do you want to make change in the middle east? What right do you have to use violence to force people to comply with your chosen way of living? Doesn't that sound a little like, I don't know, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? You make the mistake of assuming that your way of life is better than all others, and therefor trying to spread your way of life to others is a matter worth killing over. This is the fundamental principle behind every religious war in history, and it has proven to be absolutely disastrous time and time again. If history has taught us nothing, it's that people who are willing to kill to spread their way of life are the greatest threat to peace.

You can call me a pacifist all you want. It's not true. There are times when war is necessary. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, war was necessary. When he gassed the Kurds in the 80s, war probably should've been used. There was no justification given for this current war that passes muster (no WMDs, no yellow cake, no ties to Al Qaeda, no nothing). This war accomplishes nothing but death, and it is a sad state of affairs that anyone would applaud that.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes.. and they are intentionally targeted by the other vehicle? The other vehicle went out in search of other drivers to kill?

..dead is dead. makes no difference. over 4k drivers a month die on the road.
Did you feel the same way about 9/11?
True.. that was less than one month worth of US Vehicle related casualties.. Fck it..
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
You can't change it, period, with an occupation. When, in the history of the planet, has a large, prolonged occupation by a foreign country ever succeeded in impressing their values on that occupied country? Spreading values by force has never, I repeat, never worked. Despite the good intentions, the very nature of this war is flawed.

Gee I dont know, how do you think the United States was formed? By dismantling and occupying native American lands.

Toss in Post World War II Germany and Japan.

Not that you dont have a point regarding that region, but it has been done in the past

/shrug
I said a foreign country, not the same land. Jackson killing Natives Americans and then the U.S. expanding Westward is not occupying a foreign country, that's genocide. The U.S. pushed Manifest Destiny politically starting in the 1840's to make land acquisition permanent, though the first attempts to make land acquisition permanent was after Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase 40 years earlier. So that wasn't an occupation to instill values; that was an outright takeover. I hope that's not what we're doing in Iraq (in fact, I know it isn't).

And are you really comparing at 250,000 person occupying force in Iraq with limited numbers of U.S. troops in Germany and Japan post-WWII? That's a whole other discussion, but I think it's fairly clear right off the bat the goals, objectives, and outcomes of that comparison have been completely different so far.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes.. and they are intentionally targeted by the other vehicle? The other vehicle went out in search of other drivers to kill?

..dead is dead. makes no difference. over 4k drivers a month die on the road.
So you agree that auto safety is 84 times more important than fighting terrorism, right? After all, "dead is dead. makes no difference," and there were about 250,000 Americans killed in auto accidents (within the U.S.) over the last six years vs. fewer than 3,000 due to terrorism.

I'll bet the NHTSA is thrilled to hear that by your measure, they're going to receive $1 trillion per year to protect us from the accident bogeyman, not to mention all the new ways they get to infringe civil liberties. Someone goes into a bar, arrest them on the spot and detain them without counsel indefinitely since they might get drunk and might then have an accident. After all, dead is dead, and traffic accidents deserve 84 times more response than terrorism, right?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
What did they die for? Is it a Neocon dream or is there some greater good or?
:roll: you guys are really, really dense. Another "What are we doing there thread?"

/sigh
The people who sent them to DIE (Rep and Dem) are all still free and most still in command

AND YOU trust them and give them a free pass to send more troops and more money
Go preach your bullshit, unrealistic world peace message while singing kumbaya somewhere else. At least some of us try and deal with reality. :roll:

This had potential to be a good thread /wave
Yep, right up until the first apologist dismissed the tragic deaths of another 853 Americans by bleating the usual tripe about "War kills people. Welcome to reality." The point, of course, is that is exactly why civilized people resort to war only as an absolute last resort, when the threat is both dire and immediate, and all other possible options have been exhausted. This is exactly why every single life lost in Iraq is an unjustified tragedy, a crime by any civilized standard.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,708
49
91
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes.. and they are intentionally targeted by the other vehicle? The other vehicle went out in search of other drivers to kill?

..dead is dead. makes no difference. over 4k drivers a month die on the road.
So you agree that auto safety is 84 times more important than fighting terrorism, right? After all, "dead is dead. makes no difference," and there were about 250,000 Americans killed in auto accidents (within the U.S.) over the last six years vs. fewer than 3,000 due to terrorism.

I'll bet the NHTSA is thrilled to hear that by your measure, they're going to receive $1 trillion per year to protect us from the accident bogeyman, not to mention all the new ways they get to infringe civil liberties. Someone goes into a bar, arrest them on the spot and detain them without counsel indefinitely since they might get drunk and might then have an accident. After all, dead is dead, and traffic accidents deserve 84 times more response than terrorism, right?

..good to see your finally catching on to the fact that there are many risks in life. Some of those risks we volunteer for.

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,118
3,656
126
Originally posted by: dahunan
Saddam needed to go.. sure.. but our method really didn't do them any favors.. did it?
Where the hell did I say it did?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes.. and they are intentionally targeted by the other vehicle? The other vehicle went out in search of other drivers to kill?

..dead is dead. makes no difference. over 4k drivers a month die on the road.
So you agree that auto safety is 84 times more important than fighting terrorism, right? After all, "dead is dead. makes no difference," and there were about 250,000 Americans killed in auto accidents (within the U.S.) over the last six years vs. fewer than 3,000 due to terrorism.

I'll bet the NHTSA is thrilled to hear that by your measure, they're going to receive $1 trillion per year to protect us from the accident bogeyman, not to mention all the new ways they get to infringe civil liberties. Someone goes into a bar, arrest them on the spot and detain them without counsel indefinitely since they might get drunk and might then have an accident. After all, dead is dead, and traffic accidents deserve 84 times more response than terrorism, right?

..good to see your finally catching on to the fact that there are many risks in life. Some of those risks we volunteer for.
Speaking of catching on. :roll:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY