Iraq war supporters: would you still support the war if not for modern medicine?

[mfs378]

Thanks to modern medicine, many troops severely injured in battle still make it home alive. The ratio of wounded:killed is 16:1. In Vietnam and WW2 it was 3:1 and 2:1, respectively.

If this ratio were still around the Vietnam mark there would be over (3000*(16+1))/(3+1)=12750 dead Americans.

So, if this were the case would you give up your support the war? Or is the fact that the troops are coming home with only missing limbs instead of dead make the difference for you?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Thanks to modern medicine, many troops severely injured in battle still make it home alive. The ratio of wounded:killed is 16:1. In Vietnam and WW2 it was 3:1 and 2:1, respectively.

If this ratio were still around the Vietnam mark there would be over (3000*(16+1))/(3+1)=12750 dead Americans.

So, if this were the case would you give up your support the war? Or is the fact that the troops are coming home with only missing limbs instead of dead make the difference for you?

Those that support the war are guided by fear, so the "sacrifice" these men and women are making is ok, no matter how many lives are destroyed.

 

[jrenz]

This thread is going places

 

[JD50]

I think most of the war supporters would still support the war. I think that there would be a lot more protests and outrage though. Not like it matters, neither the Democrats or the Republicans are going to get us out of there anytime soon.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: mfs378
Thanks to modern medicine, many troops severely injured in battle still make it home alive. The ratio of wounded:killed is 16:1. In Vietnam and WW2 it was 3:1 and 2:1, respectively.

If this ratio were still around the Vietnam mark there would be over (3000*(16+1))/(3+1)=12750 dead Americans.

So, if this were the case would you give up your support the war? Or is the fact that the troops are coming home with only missing limbs instead of dead make the difference for you?

Those that support the war are guided by fear, so the "sacrifice" these men and women are making is ok, no matter how many lives are destroyed.

Nice try. Generalize much?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: mfs378
Thanks to modern medicine, many troops severely injured in battle still make it home alive. The ratio of wounded:killed is 16:1. In Vietnam and WW2 it was 3:1 and 2:1, respectively.

If this ratio were still around the Vietnam mark there would be over (3000*(16+1))/(3+1)=12750 dead Americans.

So, if this were the case would you give up your support the war? Or is the fact that the troops are coming home with only missing limbs instead of dead make the difference for you?

Those that support the war are guided by fear, so the "sacrifice" these men and women are making is ok, no matter how many lives are destroyed.

Nice try. Generalize much?

Thats just what he does, you'd be better off just ignoring most of his posts.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: mfs378
Thanks to modern medicine, many troops severely injured in battle still make it home alive. The ratio of wounded:killed is 16:1. In Vietnam and WW2 it was 3:1 and 2:1, respectively.

If this ratio were still around the Vietnam mark there would be over (3000*(16+1))/(3+1)=12750 dead Americans.

So, if this were the case would you give up your support the war? Or is the fact that the troops are coming home with only missing limbs instead of dead make the difference for you?

Those that support the war are guided by fear, so the "sacrifice" these men and women are making is ok, no matter how many lives are destroyed.

Nice try. Generalize much?

Then please correct me cause all I hear is that there is the fear that if we leave Iraq, the fear is that they will follow us home. lol. If that isn't fear, I don't know what is.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I've never been a big supporter of Iraq. In fact, my initial response to us going to Iraq was "Wow, this is going to be a collosal waste of money. There goes whatever benefits we were going to see from the tax cuts."

I bought into the WMD thing like everyone else did (well 80+% anyway). And to a certain extent I bought into and still believe that Sadam was diddling in terrorism. With the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, though, it's clear that going into Iraq was a mistake.

That said, what do we do now? It's not that I support the war or think that we should be there... medical science aside. It's that I have no idea what alternative we have anymore. We have the tiger by the tail. We can't let go. I believe that if we leave now, the country will fall into a civil war and hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people will die. In the chaos who knows what could happen. Maybe Iran will take over? Will it turn into a hotbed of terrorism (even more than it is already)? No matter what happens it will be our fault. So do we stay and hope that things will eventually get better? Or do we leave and watch the country burn? And no, I don't believe for a second that the violence will cease if we leave.

At the same time, I hate the fact that our soldiers are dying trying to hold a peace that nobody wants in a country where they are clearly not wanted. We are in a hell of a mess. And I wish we could leave. But to those of you who say we need to pull out now, how do we do that?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I've never been a big supporter of Iraq. In fact, my initial response to us going to Iraq was "Wow, this is going to be a collosal waste of money. There goes whatever benefits we were going to see from the tax cuts."

I bought into the WMD thing like everyone else did (well 80+% anyway). And to a certain extent I bought into and still believe that Sadam was diddling in terrorism. With the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, though, it's clear that going into Iraq was a mistake.

That said, what do we do now? It's not that I support the war or think that we should be there... medical science aside. It's that I have no idea what alternative we have anymore. We have the tiger by the tail. We can't let go. I believe that if we leave now, the country will fall into a civil war and hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people will die. In the chaos who knows what could happen. Maybe Iran will take over? Will it turn into a hotbed of terrorism (even more than it is already)? No matter what happens it will be our fault. So do we stay and hope that things will eventually get better? Or do we leave and watch the country burn? And no, I don't believe for a second that the violence will cease if we leave.

At the same time, I hate the fact that our soldiers are dying trying to hold a peace that nobody wants in a country where they are clearly not wanted. We are in a hell of a mess. And I wish we could leave. But to those of you who say we need to pull out now, how do we do that?

We start by looking for a diplomatic solution and talking to all the neighbors. Soldiers can never win the peace, only politicians can do that. Hence, America needs to face reality and talk about reconstructing Iraq with the help of her allies and enemies.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I've never been a big supporter of Iraq. In fact, my initial response to us going to Iraq was "Wow, this is going to be a collosal waste of money. There goes whatever benefits we were going to see from the tax cuts."

I bought into the WMD thing like everyone else did (well 80+% anyway). And to a certain extent I bought into and still believe that Sadam was diddling in terrorism. With the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, though, it's clear that going into Iraq was a mistake.

That said, what do we do now? It's not that I support the war or think that we should be there... medical science aside. It's that I have no idea what alternative we have anymore. We have the tiger by the tail. We can't let go. I believe that if we leave now, the country will fall into a civil war and hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people will die. In the chaos who knows what could happen. Maybe Iran will take over? Will it turn into a hotbed of terrorism (even more than it is already)? No matter what happens it will be our fault. So do we stay and hope that things will eventually get better? Or do we leave and watch the country burn? And no, I don't believe for a second that the violence will cease if we leave.

At the same time, I hate the fact that our soldiers are dying trying to hold a peace that nobody wants in a country where they are clearly not wanted. We are in a hell of a mess. And I wish we could leave. But to those of you who say we need to pull out now, how do we do that?

We start by looking for a diplomatic solution and talking to all the neighbors. Soldiers can never win the peace, only politicians can do that. Hence, America needs to face reality and talk about reconstructing Iraq with the help of her allies and enemies.

I totally agree with you on that point. And that is something that this admin, apparently for reasons of ego, hasn't yet tried. OTOH, do you think that Iran, Syria, et al will negotiate honestly? It's a nice idea to think that everyone can sit down at the table and work things out, but is it realistic? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see something like that happen... and of course we'll never know until we try and we're currently stuck with this stupid admin that probably doesn't have that option on their list...

I dunno... Anymore I look at the situation and hang my head. I don't have an answer. I disagree with the people who say we need to pull out now. I think that only leads to disaster. But I also disagree with the people who try to defend the war itself as being necessary in the GWOT... that we had legitimate reasons for going in... that (aside from preventing a holocaust) we have legitimate reasons for staying.

Maybe the answer is to just pull out. Tell the UN and the Iraqi government that we're leaving on this date...

I tell you though, if I were Iran or China or anyone else who wants to see America suffer, I'd keep the heat turned up just high enough in Iraq to keep us there for as long as possible. This thing is sucking our resources, our military and our will. I'm not saying this will bring down the US, we'll soldier on as a nation no matter what... but it sure isn't helping us in any way to be there right now.

Iraq is a fricking boat anchor.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I've never been a big supporter of Iraq. In fact, my initial response to us going to Iraq was "Wow, this is going to be a collosal waste of money. There goes whatever benefits we were going to see from the tax cuts."

I bought into the WMD thing like everyone else did (well 80+% anyway). And to a certain extent I bought into and still believe that Sadam was diddling in terrorism. With the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, though, it's clear that going into Iraq was a mistake.

That said, what do we do now? It's not that I support the war or think that we should be there... medical science aside. It's that I have no idea what alternative we have anymore. We have the tiger by the tail. We can't let go. I believe that if we leave now, the country will fall into a civil war and hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people will die. In the chaos who knows what could happen. Maybe Iran will take over? Will it turn into a hotbed of terrorism (even more than it is already)? No matter what happens it will be our fault. So do we stay and hope that things will eventually get better? Or do we leave and watch the country burn? And no, I don't believe for a second that the violence will cease if we leave.

At the same time, I hate the fact that our soldiers are dying trying to hold a peace that nobody wants in a country where they are clearly not wanted. We are in a hell of a mess. And I wish we could leave. But to those of you who say we need to pull out now, how do we do that?

We start by looking for a diplomatic solution and talking to all the neighbors. Soldiers can never win the peace, only politicians can do that. Hence, America needs to face reality and talk about reconstructing Iraq with the help of her allies and enemies.

I totally agree with you on that point. And that is something that this admin, apparently for reasons of ego, hasn't yet tried. OTOH, do you think that Iran, Syria, et al will negotiate honestly? It's a nice idea to think that everyone can sit down at the table and work things out, but is it realistic? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see something like that happen... and of course we'll never know until we try and we're currently stuck with this stupid admin that probably doesn't have that option on their list...

I dunno... Anymore I look at the situation and hang my head. I don't have an answer. I disagree with the people who say we need to pull out now. I think that only leads to disaster. But I also disagree with the people who try to defend the war itself as being necessary in the GWOT... that we had legitimate reasons for going in... that (aside from preventing a holocaust) we have legitimate reasons for staying.

Maybe the answer is to just pull out. Tell the UN and the Iraqi government that we're leaving on this date...

I tell you though, if I were Iran or China or anyone else who wants to see America suffer, I'd keep the heat turned up just high enough in Iraq to keep us there for as long as possible. This thing is sucking our resources, our military and our will. I'm not saying this will bring down the US, we'll soldier on as a nation no matter what... but it sure isn't helping us in any way to be there right now.

Iraq is a fricking boat anchor.

We're really in a position of weakness on this one so don't have much room to maneuver. However, if the United States was to drop its hostility towards Syria and Iran, it would go a loong way towards making those nations more responsible. If we turned from being enemies to friends, Iraq would be that much better off.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Thanks to modern medicine, many troops severely injured in battle still make it home alive. The ratio of wounded:killed is 16:1. In Vietnam and WW2 it was 3:1 and 2:1, respectively.

If this ratio were still around the Vietnam mark there would be over (3000*(16+1))/(3+1)=12750 dead Americans.

So, if this were the case would you give up your support the war? Or is the fact that the troops are coming home with only missing limbs instead of dead make the difference for you?

I'd just like to point out it's not so much modern medicine per say. But faster treatment, and faster turnaround to more advanced care. Thats the biggest catch is getting to ADVANCED care ASAP. Otherwise initial treatment for gunshot wounds, shrapnel wounds etc hasn't changed that much over the years.

Oh and don't forget body armor makes a huge difference in lives lost vs wounded.

Otherwise if it was 12,000 troops dead then yes many more people would be pissed off and protesting...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Narmer

We're really in a position of weakness on this one so don't have much room to maneuver. However, if the United States was to drop its hostility towards Syria and Iran, it would go a loong way towards making those nations more responsible. If we turned from being enemies to friends, Iraq would be that much better off.

You're right. But right now the only way to appease/makes friends with Iran is to let them have nukes. I don't find that idea particularly appealing. Although, we could back off of our stance in the UN and let Israel deal with it. They're itching for a fight right now. But that is pretty transparent.

US: Ok, Iran, you can have your nukes.
Isreal: *Zoom/Boom*
Iran: WTF?
US: Hey now, we didn't approve of that. Darn you jews always messing thing up in the ME. *hands in pockets/shuffles feet*

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

We're really in a position of weakness on this one so don't have much room to maneuver. However, if the United States was to drop its hostility towards Syria and Iran, it would go a loong way towards making those nations more responsible. If we turned from being enemies to friends, Iraq would be that much better off.

You're right. But right now the only way to appease/makes friends with Iran is to let them have nukes. I don't find that idea particularly appealing. Although, we could back off of our stance in the UN and let Israel deal with it. They're itching for a fight right now. But that is pretty transparent.

US: Ok, Iran, you can have your nukes.
Isreal: *Zoom/Boom*
Iran: WTF?
US: Hey now, we didn't approve of that. Darn you jews always messing thing up in the ME. *hands in pockets/shuffles feet*

Israel and America needs to deal with reality. It's 2007 and they can't go around calling the shots, especially if it looks like hypocrisy. If anything, they need to accept a nuclear Iran, weapon or no weapon. Iran, like Egypt and Turkey are the only genuine countries in the Middle East, the others were lines drawn by foreigners. Iran is an ancient country with a rich heritage. It knows about responsibility and isn't aggressive towards any of its neighbors. However, the fear that permeates Jerusalem and Washington is nothing more, IMHO, than a superiority complex and unwillingness to accept the new reality.

An Israeli or American attack on Iran will probably cause a regional war with Iraq at the epicenter.

 

[doze]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: mfs378
Thanks to modern medicine, many troops severely injured in battle still make it home alive. The ratio of wounded:killed is 16:1. In Vietnam and WW2 it was 3:1 and 2:1, respectively.

If this ratio were still around the Vietnam mark there would be over (3000*(16+1))/(3+1)=12750 dead Americans.

So, if this were the case would you give up your support the war? Or is the fact that the troops are coming home with only missing limbs instead of dead make the difference for you?

I'd just like to point out it's not so much modern medicine per say. But faster treatment, and faster turnaround to more advanced care. Thats the biggest catch is getting to ADVANCED care ASAP. Otherwise initial treatment for gunshot wounds, shrapnel wounds etc hasn't changed that much over the years.

Oh and don't forget body armor makes a huge difference in lives lost vs wounded.

Otherwise if it was 12,000 troops dead then yes many more people would be pissed off and protesting...

Very good point, this is a different type of war in terms of personnel, equipment, and environment. We are certainly not fighting a jungle war in Vietnam or in the harsh terrain of Europe. We have better trained people using better equipment (and much better armored vehicles) in a hot, dry, open environment that we basically control.

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: doze

Very good point, this is a different type of war in terms of personnel, equipment, and environment. We are certainly not fighting a jungle war in Vietnam or in the harsh terrain of Europe. We have better trained people using better equipment (and much better armored vehicles) in a hot, dry, open environment that we basically control.

Wait...what? We don't control much of anything in Iraq. During WWII, we at least knew that on our side of the lines, nobody would be shooting at us. In Iraq, there are no lines.

IMO, we should have pressured the UN and OPEC to put an embargo on all oil moving in or out of Iraq until Saddam was displaced. He'd have been kicked out before you could say "BOO!", and a lot fewer people would have died. Sure, oil prices would have risen, but we could have gained potential allies in the middle east simply because we'd be a massive oil market, and that means money.

Also, we should have given all of our troops MASSIVE amounts of body armor. I, personally, do not support shipping more troops to Iraq - I would rather give them all as much body armor as they could carry, massive concrete bunkers and huge, tank-like vehicles. As of now, people are killing each other - Iraqis slaying Iraqis - and if we want to keep the peace, we need to show that we can't be pushed around.

And what's harder to push around than a tank?