Damn. Lost another 31 more Marines.

[Aharami]

see...even their weather doesnt want us there.

ok on a serious note...I am really sorry to hear of this loss. 1 loss is 1 loss too many...

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

I think in an average month more military members die in the US then they do overseas including Iraq.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

 

[toekramp]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

I think in an average month more military members die in the US then they do overseas including Iraq.

link?

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

We lost a kid here last year when an ammo truck flipped over. Should we pull out of Japan? It will never end. Period.

Aircraft crash because large metal objects were never meant to fly. FACT OF LIFE. This helo could have just as easily gone down at Camp Pendleton or Futenma MCAS, Okinawa. In fact, a Marine helo DID crash at Futenma last year, but no one was killed fortunately, which was blind luck since the boom snapped off mid-flight.

:thumbsup: It was an accident. Accidents happen anywhere. It just so happen this accident occurred in Iraq. Last year, a couple Army helicopters crashed in the US. It has nothing to do with the war except for the fact that the helicoptor was transporting troops.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

I hope that no one will challenge your devotion to this nation, as I'll take your word that you have demonstrated it with more than words, as I might. I would like to comment on your statement however.

I disagree on the issue that one cannot support the troops and disagree with the brass. Honestly, the govermental brass has shown a great deal of, not so much incompetence, but carelessness and outright arrogance. This has even led to clashes with honorable military men. Overall, the military men are honorable men in the plight, but alas, the governmental brass is currently led my reckless civilians.

I respect the workers for their devotion to their nation. Even so, I feel that the top people in Washington have done everything to defy the wisdom of History. This is where my respect and agreement divide. According to what you stated, it is quite confusing to the troops, but make no mistake, I understand what you are doing. I respect you. The problem is that the military is at the service of the Nations government.

For example, if the landscapers are trying their best to make my house look great, but the people in charge have given them an unwise and impatient set of orders, why would I blame the workers?

hey! stop reading my mind!!

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

I think in an average month more military members die in the US then they do overseas including Iraq.

That makes NO sense. We lose more guys over here where they are not fighting anyone than in a warzone where there are people constantly trying to kill them?

Sounds like one of those things you thought sounded good...

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

I think in an average month more military members die in the US then they do overseas including Iraq.

That makes NO sense. We lose more guys over here where they are not fighting anyone than in a warzone where there are people constantly trying to kill them?

Sounds like one of those things you thought sounded good...

Take note of who you are talking to.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

I think in an average month more military members die in the US then they do overseas including Iraq.

That makes NO sense. We lose more guys over here where they are not fighting anyone than in a warzone where there are people constantly trying to kill them?

Sounds like one of those things you thought sounded good...

Take note of who you are talking to.

Umm...why? If I'm wrong fine, but until I see something to back up that more troops die in the US than in a actual war zone, I think it's fair to ask for some backup. On face value, it simply makes no sense to me.

Am I not allowed to question that just because he is in the military?

All I can find googling is this page.

It looks like the amount of non-hostile per 100,000 troops in 1999 (most recent data) was about 50...in a year.

 

[meltdown75]

for those who put their asses on the line.

God bless those families.

 

[DJFuji]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

I think in an average month more military members die in the US then they do overseas including Iraq.

That makes NO sense. We lose more guys over here where they are not fighting anyone than in a warzone where there are people constantly trying to kill them?

Sounds like one of those things you thought sounded good...

Ok... i originally wrote a very scathing reply about why you shouldn't talk about things you probably know very little about...but i decided to be a little more civilized for a change. =)

The sad truth is that on average, we lose as many or more servicemen and women to accidents than to hostile engagements. Of course it makes sense. Do more people in the U.S. die from murder than from car accidents?

 

[Insane3D]

Well, since you put it that way, that does make sense. On face value (I worked all last night, time for bed) it made no sense to me. Like I said, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. I don't think just because I'm not a expert on military casualty rates, I'm not entitled to request clarification on a seemingly ambiguous comment.

My apologies if I'm wrong...I wasn't trying to start an argument, and I don't wish to drag this thread off track.

 

[Rudee]

If you were to tell a Soldier in WWII that it would be possible to occupy a hostile Country for over two years with less than 1500 deaths, they would laugh at you and call you insane. All in all, it's still a much lower death toll than many would of expected. Obviously, the pain of losing a family member is just the same no matter what.

 

[Jfrag Teh Foul]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Jfrag

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

If we pull them out now you totally emasculate their honor and step on volunteerism at its finest. I served for 10 years in the infantry in the US Army, and I find it so disturbing to hear people say they support the troops, but at the same time don't support what the troops do. It's a contradiction in terms. To support them properly you have to stand behind them and their task. As much as it turns your stomach or makes you wring your hands, this is their job. It's not like they don't understand this fact, in fact they understand it much more than most... because they are willing to give everything to ensure others get to have that chance in the future. That is what makes this the most noble task on the planet. In the past their kind forged nations and it isn't any different today. The only difference now is that some think that they can feel good about themselves by saying things that sound nice, but lacking the fortitude to back it up with action... they even lack the courage of their Vietnam era predecessors who at least stood up and said that they didn't support what the troops stood for... which makes it even more dishonorable IMO. Put it in this perspective, you like your highways right? Sure you do... how could we operate our nation as we do today with out them? You wanting to pull them from their assigned task (which still is uncomplete, and leaving the Iraqis would simply be leaving the country to implode on itself thus smearing all the work they HAVE accomplished into the mud, and probably ending up worse than the conditions that we found when we rolled in) is like saying you really support the Highway Department, but really feel that we should pull all of he highway workers off the roads... I mean, they could get hit by a car, or a really bad sunburn. Don't misquote me here either, I understand fully what the difference of consequence here... but the concept and application is the same.

Distrust the leadership of this nation all you want, but when you say things like this you pull the focus from maybe a bad decision made by a leader and you pin it to those who only have your best intentions at heart.

Please, from now on when you try to make a statement about this subject don't get your opinion formulating "facts" from CBS, NBC, Talk Radio or whereever... just talk to a troop.

/Salute to all that died on that crash in Iraq. Your memory I will honor always.

I hope that no one will challenge your devotion to this nation, as I'll take your word that you have demonstrated it with more than words, as I might. I would like to comment on your statement however.

I disagree on the issue that one cannot support the troops and disagree with the brass. Honestly, the govermental brass has shown a great deal of, not so much incompetence, but carelessness and outright arrogance. This has even led to clashes with honorable military men. Overall, the military men are honorable men in the plight, but alas, the governmental brass is currently led my reckless civilians.

I respect the workers for their devotion to their nation. Even so, I feel that the top people in Washington have done everything to defy the wisdom of History. This is where my respect and agreement divide. According to what you stated, it is quite confusing to the troops, but make no mistake, I understand what you are doing. I respect you. The problem is that the military is at the service of the Nations government.

For example, if the landscapers are trying their best to make my house look great, but the people in charge have given them an unwise and impatient set of orders, why would I blame the workers?

I appreciate the reply, no ire, just conversation in the name of opinion. Quite refreshing actually to know there are those out there that believe in civility even when confronted with views differing from their own.

The thing about pulling them out is that they believe in their job. My brother-in-law is in Baghdad now serving with the company that I was a member of in the 39th Brigade not too long ago. He had the chance to come home early (back in November) due to an obligation to sevice being met in an earlier deployment just after 9/11. He refused the waiver and continued his service despite the loss of around 20 men within that unit that had occured up to that point, despite being gone from his wife and kids for nearly 3 total years on deployment since late 2001, despite that he and his guys were ambushed by insurgents that resulted in casualties on our side. He feels this job, he understands that leadership sometimes makes the wrong calls, but because of the future of his kids, the future of the guy standing next to him, and the future of us cake-eaters back home hinges on doing the job that needs to be sought to completion. Anything less, and we are worse off than if nothing were ever done.

They see first hand what good they are doing, not misstated, misread or otherwise wrongful reporting op-ed pieces of news. They see the devotion of the Iraqis that the news in whatever capacity fails to exemplify. The people there in the largest percentages do believe in this cause, and like us are able to see that freedom is worth the cause even IF the original cause of the war is totally a fabrication (I don't personally believe it was, but hey, opinions and all that). When WMD's were the focus, I as a troop was more focused on ending the oppression and misery with which they lived... I was not alone.

You don't normally become a soldier in the US Military to kill people, you become one to defend ideas of our values, and it is showing in spades in the Iraqi National Guard. For every 1 ING member killed in defending the idea of their new found reality of hope there are quite literally 50 wanting the chance to do the same.

Everyone's heart bleeds for the victims of a tsunami, but seem to find it ok to forget that the regime prior to, killed more lives and destroyed more families than nearly 10 of the death dealers that hit Indonesia and the rest.

Yes it is ugly now, it was ugly just after WWII, but history will show in the future we did the right thing now, just like our predecessors did back then. It is a hugely exciting time to be on the planet.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: DJFuji

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

I think in an average month more military members die in the US then they do overseas including Iraq.

That makes NO sense. We lose more guys over here where they are not fighting anyone than in a warzone where there are people constantly trying to kill them?

Sounds like one of those things you thought sounded good...

Ok... i originally wrote a very scathing reply about why you shouldn't talk about things you probably know very little about...but i decided to be a little more civilized for a change. =)

The sad truth is that on average, we lose as many or more servicemen and women to accidents than to hostile engagements. Of course it makes sense. Do more people in the U.S. die from murder than from car accidents?

Maybe on average you lose more, but if you specifically compared the casualties of this war to any "accident", well it doesn't take Einstein to come to a conclusion.

My heart goes out to the 31 soldier's families. Hopefully this bullsht will be over soon.

 

[maddogchen]

 

[Hammer]

did they say what kind of helicopter it was? was it a chinook? they really should retire those things...

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Hammer


did they say what kind of helicopter it was? was it a chinook? they really should retire those things...

CH-53 Sea Stallion

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Injury
Take note of who you are talking to.

Umm...why? If I'm wrong fine, but until I see something to back up that more troops die in the US than in a actual war zone, I think it's fair to ask for some backup. On face value, it simply makes no sense to me.

Am I not allowed to question that just because he is in the military?

All I can find googling is this page.

It looks like the amount of non-hostile per 100,000 troops in 1999 (most recent data) was about 50...in a year.

No, I'm not saying you can't question it, but you have to consider that his POV is probably a bit more insightful. Most of us don't hear about it when soldiers get into car wrecks and die, or die of health conditions, we only hear about it when there was a training accident or similar.

While it may not be entirely acurate, I do see the point that he is making.

Didn't mean to sound rash or condesending(sp), sorry.

 

[DJFuji]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: DJFuji

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

I think in an average month more military members die in the US then they do overseas including Iraq.

That makes NO sense. We lose more guys over here where they are not fighting anyone than in a warzone where there are people constantly trying to kill them?

Sounds like one of those things you thought sounded good...

Ok... i originally wrote a very scathing reply about why you shouldn't talk about things you probably know very little about...but i decided to be a little more civilized for a change. =)

The sad truth is that on average, we lose as many or more servicemen and women to accidents than to hostile engagements. Of course it makes sense. Do more people in the U.S. die from murder than from car accidents?

Maybe on average you lose more, but if you specifically compared the casualties of this war to any "accident", well it doesn't take Einstein to come to a conclusion.

My heart goes out to the 31 soldier's families. Hopefully this bullsht will be over soon.

How are you going to compare a whole war against one accident? TallBill's original point was there there were just as many casualties, if not more, ON AVERAGE. Of course the entire war had more casualties than a single accident. Just like the total number of civilians dying from accidents in the US is greater than the number of servicemen that died in the war. Changing critical points in the scenario nullifies the validity of the argument.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

It will continue after that. Terrorists don't just stop killing becuase one target left. And they aren't just killing our troops.

 

[Toastedlightly]

thought I would bring this up... the number of Russians and Germans who died in the battle for Stalingrad was more than the US has lost in all of its wars combined.

On another note, God bless the Soldiers. I love the sacrifice they make for our country. Long live the red white and blue.

 

[DJFuji]

Originally posted by: Jfrag

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Jfrag

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

If we pull them out now you totally emasculate their honor and step on volunteerism at its finest. I served for 10 years in the infantry in the US Army, and I find it so disturbing to hear people say they support the troops, but at the same time don't support what the troops do. It's a contradiction in terms. To support them properly you have to stand behind them and their task. As much as it turns your stomach or makes you wring your hands, this is their job. It's not like they don't understand this fact, in fact they understand it much more than most... because they are willing to give everything to ensure others get to have that chance in the future. That is what makes this the most noble task on the planet. In the past their kind forged nations and it isn't any different today. The only difference now is that some think that they can feel good about themselves by saying things that sound nice, but lacking the fortitude to back it up with action... they even lack the courage of their Vietnam era predecessors who at least stood up and said that they didn't support what the troops stood for... which makes it even more dishonorable IMO. Put it in this perspective, you like your highways right? Sure you do... how could we operate our nation as we do today with out them? You wanting to pull them from their assigned task (which still is uncomplete, and leaving the Iraqis would simply be leaving the country to implode on itself thus smearing all the work they HAVE accomplished into the mud, and probably ending up worse than the conditions that we found when we rolled in) is like saying you really support the Highway Department, but really feel that we should pull all of he highway workers off the roads... I mean, they could get hit by a car, or a really bad sunburn. Don't misquote me here either, I understand fully what the difference of consequence here... but the concept and application is the same.

Distrust the leadership of this nation all you want, but when you say things like this you pull the focus from maybe a bad decision made by a leader and you pin it to those who only have your best intentions at heart.

Please, from now on when you try to make a statement about this subject don't get your opinion formulating "facts" from CBS, NBC, Talk Radio or whereever... just talk to a troop.

/Salute to all that died on that crash in Iraq. Your memory I will honor always.

I hope that no one will challenge your devotion to this nation, as I'll take your word that you have demonstrated it with more than words, as I might. I would like to comment on your statement however.

I disagree on the issue that one cannot support the troops and disagree with the brass. Honestly, the govermental brass has shown a great deal of, not so much incompetence, but carelessness and outright arrogance. This has even led to clashes with honorable military men. Overall, the military men are honorable men in the plight, but alas, the governmental brass is currently led my reckless civilians.

I respect the workers for their devotion to their nation. Even so, I feel that the top people in Washington have done everything to defy the wisdom of History. This is where my respect and agreement divide. According to what you stated, it is quite confusing to the troops, but make no mistake, I understand what you are doing. I respect you. The problem is that the military is at the service of the Nations government.

For example, if the landscapers are trying their best to make my house look great, but the people in charge have given them an unwise and impatient set of orders, why would I blame the workers?

I appreciate the reply, no ire, just conversation in the name of opinion. Quite refreshing actually to know there are those out there that believe in civility even when confronted with views differing from their own.

The thing about pulling them out is that they believe in their job. My brother-in-law is in Baghdad now serving with the company that I was a member of in the 39th Brigade not too long ago. He had the chance to come home early (back in November) due to an obligation to sevice being met in an earlier deployment just after 9/11. He refused the waiver and continued his service despite the loss of around 20 men within that unit that had occured up to that point, despite being gone from his wife and kids for nearly 3 total years on deployment since late 2001, despite that he and his guys were ambushed by insurgents that resulted in casualties on our side. He feels this job, he understands that leadership sometimes makes the wrong calls, but because of the future of his kids, the future of the guy standing next to him, and the future of us cake-eaters back home hinges on doing the job that needs to be sought to completion. Anything less, and we are worse off than if nothing were ever done.

They see first hand what good they are doing, not misstated, misread or otherwise wrongful reporting op-ed pieces of news. They see the devotion of the Iraqis that the news in whatever capacity fails to exemplify. The people there in the largest percentages do believe in this cause, and like us are able to see that freedom is worth the cause even IF the original cause of the war is totally a fabrication (I don't personally believe it was, but hey, opinions and all that). When WMD's were the focus, I as a troop was more focused on ending the oppression and misery with which they lived... I was not alone.

You don't normally become a soldier in the US Military to kill people, you become one to defend ideas of our values, and it is showing in spades in the Iraqi National Guard. For every 1 ING member killed in defending the idea of their new found reality of hope there are quite literally 50 wanting the chance to do the same.

Everyone's heart bleeds for the victims of a tsunami, but seem to find it ok to forget that the regime prior to, killed more lives and destroyed more families than nearly 10 of the death dealers that hit Indonesia and the rest.

Yes it is ugly now, it was ugly just after WWII, but history will show in the future we did the right thing now, just like our predecessors did back then. It is a hugely exciting time to be on the planet.

Well said, jfrag. It's kind of unfortunate that we don't have the support of the nation like we did in WWII and WWI, but times are different now. Many people who oppose the war say that they would have fully supported WWI and WWII but i suspect that if we had a conflict similar to WWII (especially with similar death tolls) those same people would again oppose the war and the massive casualties that would ensue. I think people SAY they would have supported WWII because it sounds right with Hitler and Japan and everything. But those same people would dodge the draft regardless of the war. Cowardice with a different mask is still cowardice.

 

[amol]

most out of Camp Pendleton

todays not a good day for Southern California

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: DJFuji

Originally posted by: Jfrag

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Jfrag

Originally posted by: mrrman
it will never end unless all the troups are pulled out...people will be killed in some form or an other

If we pull them out now you totally emasculate their honor and step on volunteerism at its finest. I served for 10 years in the infantry in the US Army, and I find it so disturbing to hear people say they support the troops, but at the same time don't support what the troops do. It's a contradiction in terms. To support them properly you have to stand behind them and their task. As much as it turns your stomach or makes you wring your hands, this is their job. It's not like they don't understand this fact, in fact they understand it much more than most... because they are willing to give everything to ensure others get to have that chance in the future. That is what makes this the most noble task on the planet. In the past their kind forged nations and it isn't any different today. The only difference now is that some think that they can feel good about themselves by saying things that sound nice, but lacking the fortitude to back it up with action... they even lack the courage of their Vietnam era predecessors who at least stood up and said that they didn't support what the troops stood for... which makes it even more dishonorable IMO. Put it in this perspective, you like your highways right? Sure you do... how could we operate our nation as we do today with out them? You wanting to pull them from their assigned task (which still is uncomplete, and leaving the Iraqis would simply be leaving the country to implode on itself thus smearing all the work they HAVE accomplished into the mud, and probably ending up worse than the conditions that we found when we rolled in) is like saying you really support the Highway Department, but really feel that we should pull all of he highway workers off the roads... I mean, they could get hit by a car, or a really bad sunburn. Don't misquote me here either, I understand fully what the difference of consequence here... but the concept and application is the same.

Distrust the leadership of this nation all you want, but when you say things like this you pull the focus from maybe a bad decision made by a leader and you pin it to those who only have your best intentions at heart.

Please, from now on when you try to make a statement about this subject don't get your opinion formulating "facts" from CBS, NBC, Talk Radio or whereever... just talk to a troop.

/Salute to all that died on that crash in Iraq. Your memory I will honor always.

I hope that no one will challenge your devotion to this nation, as I'll take your word that you have demonstrated it with more than words, as I might. I would like to comment on your statement however.

I disagree on the issue that one cannot support the troops and disagree with the brass. Honestly, the govermental brass has shown a great deal of, not so much incompetence, but carelessness and outright arrogance. This has even led to clashes with honorable military men. Overall, the military men are honorable men in the plight, but alas, the governmental brass is currently led my reckless civilians.

I respect the workers for their devotion to their nation. Even so, I feel that the top people in Washington have done everything to defy the wisdom of History. This is where my respect and agreement divide. According to what you stated, it is quite confusing to the troops, but make no mistake, I understand what you are doing. I respect you. The problem is that the military is at the service of the Nations government.

For example, if the landscapers are trying their best to make my house look great, but the people in charge have given them an unwise and impatient set of orders, why would I blame the workers?

I appreciate the reply, no ire, just conversation in the name of opinion. Quite refreshing actually to know there are those out there that believe in civility even when confronted with views differing from their own.

The thing about pulling them out is that they believe in their job. My brother-in-law is in Baghdad now serving with the company that I was a member of in the 39th Brigade not too long ago. He had the chance to come home early (back in November) due to an obligation to sevice being met in an earlier deployment just after 9/11. He refused the waiver and continued his service despite the loss of around 20 men within that unit that had occured up to that point, despite being gone from his wife and kids for nearly 3 total years on deployment since late 2001, despite that he and his guys were ambushed by insurgents that resulted in casualties on our side. He feels this job, he understands that leadership sometimes makes the wrong calls, but because of the future of his kids, the future of the guy standing next to him, and the future of us cake-eaters back home hinges on doing the job that needs to be sought to completion. Anything less, and we are worse off than if nothing were ever done.

They see first hand what good they are doing, not misstated, misread or otherwise wrongful reporting op-ed pieces of news. They see the devotion of the Iraqis that the news in whatever capacity fails to exemplify. The people there in the largest percentages do believe in this cause, and like us are able to see that freedom is worth the cause even IF the original cause of the war is totally a fabrication (I don't personally believe it was, but hey, opinions and all that). When WMD's were the focus, I as a troop was more focused on ending the oppression and misery with which they lived... I was not alone.

You don't normally become a soldier in the US Military to kill people, you become one to defend ideas of our values, and it is showing in spades in the Iraqi National Guard. For every 1 ING member killed in defending the idea of their new found reality of hope there are quite literally 50 wanting the chance to do the same.

Everyone's heart bleeds for the victims of a tsunami, but seem to find it ok to forget that the regime prior to, killed more lives and destroyed more families than nearly 10 of the death dealers that hit Indonesia and the rest.

Yes it is ugly now, it was ugly just after WWII, but history will show in the future we did the right thing now, just like our predecessors did back then. It is a hugely exciting time to be on the planet.

Well said, jfrag. It's kind of unfortunate that we don't have the support of the nation like we did in WWII and WWI, but times are different now. Many people who oppose the war say that they would have fully supported WWI and WWII but i suspect that if we had a conflict similar to WWII (especially with similar death tolls) those same people would again oppose the war and the massive casualties that would ensue. I think people SAY they would have supported WWII because it sounds right with Hitler and Japan and everything. But those same people would dodge the draft regardless of the war. Cowardice with a different mask is still cowardice.

i completely agree with you. if WWI or WWII were going on today, these same people would be pushing for appeasement.