Months since Infantry unit has had fatalities.

[maluckey]

Not third hand accusations from deserters, and unfits for duty soldiers.

Of course this is positive and humanized. Not good fare for certain sensationalist posters on this forum, who frequently delight when a soldier is killed. The same people spout of about soldiers, though they know knothing about soldiers, war or armed conflict of any sort.

 

[Last Rezort]

Ummm......

Every day i look in the papers and mine eyes decive me?
I dont get it. The topic is a little misleading, or should i say just plain wrong?

 

[maddogchen]

maybe your english sucks. the topic talks about an infantry unit, not all infantry.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Not third hand accusations from deserters, and unfits for duty soldiers.

Of course this is positive and humanized. Not good fare for certain sensationalist posters on this forum, who frequently delight when a soldier is killed. The same people spout of about soldiers, though they know knothing about soldiers, war or armed conflict of any sort.

Or course this is the REAL account because you said so and the other ones that have been posted that don't fit your agenda are FAKE and from deserters and those unfit to serve. Thanks for weeding through the truth and lies for us AND for letting us know who is and is not a real soldier/patriot.

:roll: Get off your high horse.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Nobody here is 'delighted' when our soldiers are killed over in Iraq.

 

[dahunan]

Time for a Urinalysis?



You should ban yourself from posting for awhile?

 

[sandorski]

hmm, interesting, pointless, but interesting.

 

[Riprorin]

If I recall correctly, about 7,000 Marines died on the island of Iwo Jima alone over a span of less than a month.

I think that about 1,300 soldies have died in the war in Iraq over about two year.

Of course, every loss of life is tragic, but it helps to have a bit of historical perspective.

 

[imported_Condor]

A friend of mine (E-*) just returned. He liked being there. Another friend is in Mosel with the State Department. He extended for 18 months.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If I recall correctly, about 7,000 Marines died on the island of Iwo Jima alone over a span of less than a month.

I think that about 1,300 soldies have died in the war in Iraq over about two year.

Of course, every loss of life is tragic, but it helps to have a bit of historical perspective.

Indeed, although historical perspectives don't always work because times and situations change. That is true of almost all surface comparisons, actually. 10 times as many people died in 2001 from car accidents compared to terrorism, yet terrorism was given the spotlight. In that case, it was because we were used to deaths from auto accidents, and the tragedy of 9/11, although far less impressive from a numerial standpoint, was unexpected and shocking.

Same goes for Iwo Jima vs Iraq, Iwo Jima was in the context of WWII, an event that cost many, many lives. Iraq is the greatest loss of US soldiers since Vietnam, so it stands out where Iwo Jima didn't. It's all about context, deaths are more than stats.

As to the article linked in the OP, Iraq is a complex situation, and any attempt to simplify it into a good or bad summary should be suspect. Especially when the source and justification is one story about one unit written by a biased news organization.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If I recall correctly, about 7,000 Marines died on the island of Iwo Jima alone over a span of less than a month.

I think that about 1,300 soldies have died in the war in Iraq over about two year.

Of course, every loss of life is tragic, but it helps to have a bit of historical perspective.

Indeed, although historical perspectives don't always work because times and situations change. That is true of almost all surface comparisons, actually. 10 times as many people died in 2001 from car accidents compared to terrorism, yet terrorism was given the spotlight. In that case, it was because we were used to deaths from auto accidents, and the tragedy of 9/11, although far less impressive from a numerial standpoint, was unexpected and shocking.

Same goes for Iwo Jima vs Iraq, Iwo Jima was in the context of WWII, an event that cost many, many lives. Iraq is the greatest loss of US soldiers since Vietnam, so it stands out where Iwo Jima didn't. It's all about context, deaths are more than stats.

As to the article linked in the OP, Iraq is a complex situation, and any attempt to simplify it into a good or bad summary should be suspect. Especially when the source and justification is one story about one unit written by a biased news organization.

You aren't seriously comparing terroist attacks to automobile accidents, are you?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If I recall correctly, about 7,000 Marines died on the island of Iwo Jima alone over a span of less than a month.

I think that about 1,300 soldies have died in the war in Iraq over about two year.

Of course, every loss of life is tragic, but it helps to have a bit of historical perspective.

Indeed, although historical perspectives don't always work because times and situations change. That is true of almost all surface comparisons, actually. 10 times as many people died in 2001 from car accidents compared to terrorism, yet terrorism was given the spotlight. In that case, it was because we were used to deaths from auto accidents, and the tragedy of 9/11, although far less impressive from a numerial standpoint, was unexpected and shocking.

Same goes for Iwo Jima vs Iraq, Iwo Jima was in the context of WWII, an event that cost many, many lives. Iraq is the greatest loss of US soldiers since Vietnam, so it stands out where Iwo Jima didn't. It's all about context, deaths are more than stats.

As to the article linked in the OP, Iraq is a complex situation, and any attempt to simplify it into a good or bad summary should be suspect. Especially when the source and justification is one story about one unit written by a biased news organization.

You aren't seriously comparing terroist attacks to automobile accidents, are you?

No...that was my whole point. I mean on the surface it sounds ok, dead is dead whether you get killed by Osama or a Buick. Why should we care more about the 3,000 killed on 9/11 than the 30,000 people killed by auto accidents in 2001 (actually the number is higher, but the power of 10 analogy works anyways)?

The reason is the context. We've internalized the dangers of driving. We live in a dangerous society, but we accept most dangers as a part of life. Even now, we're more afraid of terrorist attacks than car accidents, despite the fact that you are far more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. It might not be very logical, but there is nothing wrong with that reaction. I'd be shocked if people didn't react that way. Terrorist attacks attack our sense of safety, we thought we had a handle on the dangers of the world, and now people are making it less safe in a way we can't control.

My point is that, robbed of context, comparisons can be made that sound good, but make little sense in real life. Comparing Iwo Jima to Iraq works just as poorly as comparing 9/11 to car accidents. Obvious statistical elements don't tell the whole story.

 

[judasmachine]

the thread at the top of this here forum keeps growing and growing and growing, or have ya not noticed? Maybe they aren't THAT unit, but still people (Americans) are dying...

Linkage

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If I recall correctly, about 7,000 Marines died on the island of Iwo Jima alone over a span of less than a month.

I think that about 1,300 soldies have died in the war in Iraq over about two year.

Of course, every loss of life is tragic, but it helps to have a bit of historical perspective.

Indeed, although historical perspectives don't always work because times and situations change. That is true of almost all surface comparisons, actually. 10 times as many people died in 2001 from car accidents compared to terrorism, yet terrorism was given the spotlight. In that case, it was because we were used to deaths from auto accidents, and the tragedy of 9/11, although far less impressive from a numerial standpoint, was unexpected and shocking.

Same goes for Iwo Jima vs Iraq, Iwo Jima was in the context of WWII, an event that cost many, many lives. Iraq is the greatest loss of US soldiers since Vietnam, so it stands out where Iwo Jima didn't. It's all about context, deaths are more than stats.

As to the article linked in the OP, Iraq is a complex situation, and any attempt to simplify it into a good or bad summary should be suspect. Especially when the source and justification is one story about one unit written by a biased news organization.

You aren't seriously comparing terroist attacks to automobile accidents, are you?

No...that was my whole point. I mean on the surface it sounds ok, dead is dead whether you get killed by Osama or a Buick. Why should we care more about the 3,000 killed on 9/11 than the 30,000 people killed by auto accidents in 2001 (actually the number is higher, but the power of 10 analogy works anyways)?

The reason is the context. We've internalized the dangers of driving. We live in a dangerous society, but we accept most dangers as a part of life. Even now, we're more afraid of terrorist attacks than car accidents, despite the fact that you are far more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. It might not be very logical, but there is nothing wrong with that reaction. I'd be shocked if people didn't react that way. Terrorist attacks attack our sense of safety, we thought we had a handle on the dangers of the world, and now people are making it less safe in a way we can't control.

My point is that, robbed of context, comparisons can be made that sound good, but make little sense in real life. Comparing Iwo Jima to Iraq works just as poorly as comparing 9/11 to car accidents. Obvious statistical elements don't tell the whole story.

When people get into a car, they know the risks.

I don't think that anyone working at the WTC expected planes to fly into the buildings.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If I recall correctly, about 7,000 Marines died on the island of Iwo Jima alone over a span of less than a month.

I think that about 1,300 soldies have died in the war in Iraq over about two year.

Of course, every loss of life is tragic, but it helps to have a bit of historical perspective.

Indeed, although historical perspectives don't always work because times and situations change. That is true of almost all surface comparisons, actually. 10 times as many people died in 2001 from car accidents compared to terrorism, yet terrorism was given the spotlight. In that case, it was because we were used to deaths from auto accidents, and the tragedy of 9/11, although far less impressive from a numerial standpoint, was unexpected and shocking.

Same goes for Iwo Jima vs Iraq, Iwo Jima was in the context of WWII, an event that cost many, many lives. Iraq is the greatest loss of US soldiers since Vietnam, so it stands out where Iwo Jima didn't. It's all about context, deaths are more than stats.

As to the article linked in the OP, Iraq is a complex situation, and any attempt to simplify it into a good or bad summary should be suspect. Especially when the source and justification is one story about one unit written by a biased news organization.

You aren't seriously comparing terroist attacks to automobile accidents, are you?

No...that was my whole point. I mean on the surface it sounds ok, dead is dead whether you get killed by Osama or a Buick. Why should we care more about the 3,000 killed on 9/11 than the 30,000 people killed by auto accidents in 2001 (actually the number is higher, but the power of 10 analogy works anyways)?

The reason is the context. We've internalized the dangers of driving. We live in a dangerous society, but we accept most dangers as a part of life. Even now, we're more afraid of terrorist attacks than car accidents, despite the fact that you are far more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. It might not be very logical, but there is nothing wrong with that reaction. I'd be shocked if people didn't react that way. Terrorist attacks attack our sense of safety, we thought we had a handle on the dangers of the world, and now people are making it less safe in a way we can't control.

My point is that, robbed of context, comparisons can be made that sound good, but make little sense in real life. Comparing Iwo Jima to Iraq works just as poorly as comparing 9/11 to car accidents. Obvious statistical elements don't tell the whole story.

When people get into a car, they know the risks.

I don't think that anyone working at the WTC expected planes to fly into the buildings.

Exactly.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

When people get into a car, they know the risks.

I don't think that anyone working at the WTC expected planes to fly into the buildings.

What a confused little man you are.

No, people DON'T know the risks. People do all kinds of things that are risky because they rationalize, "It won't happen to me."

This goes for smoking, drinking, not exercising, eating the wrong kinds of food, driving cars, and driving cars while speaking on cell phones.

Presumably, everyone now "knows the risks" that terrorism presents. Do you know of anyone who now refuses to work in tall buildings?

So, yes, let's compare 3,000 killed in 9/11 with 35,000 or 40,000 killed each year on the highways.

If, as you say, "every loss of life is tragic", why are we spending $100 BILLION a year fighting a useless war in Iraq, when a tenth of that amount spent yearly on improved automotive and highway safety would save more than a 9/11's worth of lives EVERY SINGLE YEAR?

 

[MicroChrome]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Nobody here is 'delighted' when our soldiers are killed over in Iraq.

Or even an Iraqi for that matter.... Death sucks...

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Not third hand accusations from deserters, and unfits for duty soldiers.

Of course this is positive and humanized. Not good fare for certain sensationalist posters on this forum, who frequently delight when a soldier is killed. The same people spout of about soldiers, though they know knothing about soldiers, war or armed conflict of any sort.

Nobody delights when soldiers are killed and it is idiotic to say so. Nor are people who disagree with the war in Iraq terrorists or anything like terrorists. That is also a completely retarded idea.
It's an absolute lie that the infantry has had no fatalities in months. Where do you get your information, Dick Cheney? Not to mention the poor guys who have been maimed and left with no limbs an such. Somehow, I doubt they share your rosy assessment of the war.
Mission Accomplished! :disgust:

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If I recall correctly, about 7,000 Marines died on the island of Iwo Jima alone over a span of less than a month.

I think that about 1,300 soldies have died in the war in Iraq over about two year.

Of course, every loss of life is tragic, but it helps to have a bit of historical perspective.

Indeed, although historical perspectives don't always work because times and situations change. That is true of almost all surface comparisons, actually. 10 times as many people died in 2001 from car accidents compared to terrorism, yet terrorism was given the spotlight. In that case, it was because we were used to deaths from auto accidents, and the tragedy of 9/11, although far less impressive from a numerial standpoint, was unexpected and shocking.

Same goes for Iwo Jima vs Iraq, Iwo Jima was in the context of WWII, an event that cost many, many lives. Iraq is the greatest loss of US soldiers since Vietnam, so it stands out where Iwo Jima didn't. It's all about context, deaths are more than stats.

As to the article linked in the OP, Iraq is a complex situation, and any attempt to simplify it into a good or bad summary should be suspect. Especially when the source and justification is one story about one unit written by a biased news organization.

You aren't seriously comparing terroist attacks to automobile accidents, are you?

No...that was my whole point. I mean on the surface it sounds ok, dead is dead whether you get killed by Osama or a Buick. Why should we care more about the 3,000 killed on 9/11 than the 30,000 people killed by auto accidents in 2001 (actually the number is higher, but the power of 10 analogy works anyways)?

The reason is the context. We've internalized the dangers of driving. We live in a dangerous society, but we accept most dangers as a part of life. Even now, we're more afraid of terrorist attacks than car accidents, despite the fact that you are far more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. It might not be very logical, but there is nothing wrong with that reaction. I'd be shocked if people didn't react that way. Terrorist attacks attack our sense of safety, we thought we had a handle on the dangers of the world, and now people are making it less safe in a way we can't control.

My point is that, robbed of context, comparisons can be made that sound good, but make little sense in real life. Comparing Iwo Jima to Iraq works just as poorly as comparing 9/11 to car accidents. Obvious statistical elements don't tell the whole story.

When people get into a car, they know the risks.

I don't think that anyone working at the WTC expected planes to fly into the buildings.

Exactly.

hehe, wonder if rip got the point or not

 

[maluckey]

umbrella39,

You must not read this forum much. We have certain members who are always posting links to crazy websites where the author quotes third hand information and presents it as fact, then goes on with OP/ED pices about misquoted information from questionable sources. These sites delight at any failure of the United States in any area. The article linked to above is from a well respected news source (CSM), and the author was actually speaking to a knowledgeable source of information (a soldier in command, on patrol) who is speaking inside their lane of knowledge.

By the very fact that the soldier is a unit officer, not a miscreant or cast off, and the fact tht the author of the article was there with him and with the fact that the CSM is a non-sensationalsit news source makes this a rather credible piece.

It is not saying that nobody dies in Iraq..........Just that soldier there don't see things so black and white as certain forum members who would have you believe that all soldiers are either "idiot", "fools", "pawns", and/or generally frightened and disgusted of the military. I can list literally thousands of articles showing soldiers doing good works in Iraq, and soldiers volunteering to return to Iraq, but what's the point? Certain people believe what they want to believe. regardless of the facts. This particular soldier sounds like most in my current unit. Sure, we'd rather be at a BBQ, but the job doesn't allow it at his moment.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I would argue that CSM is not the "well respected news source" that you claim it to be. It, openly, has an agenda that it pushes forward. That in its own right, defeats the claim as being a news source.

That being said, I am completely against the war in Iraq. I do, however, believe that the brave men and women that are in that country are doing their absolute best to make the most out of a bad situation. I know that a great, great majority are trying to restore the image to the common Iraqi that this country had before the invasion. One of caring, unselfishness and the willingness to help those who need it.

 

[irwincur]

Not good fare for certain sensationalist posters on this forum, who frequently delight when a soldier is killed.

But they support the troops...

I would argue that CSM is not the "well respected news source" that you claim it to be. It, openly, has an agenda that it pushes forward. That in its own right, defeats the claim as being a news source.

As well repected as any of the more liberal sources, like the NYT, LAT, Time, Newseek, etc... I would list them all but it would take all day.

Since this does not fit your agenda it must be worthless. Great way of thinking outside of the box.


By the way, the CSM is typically considered to be one of, if not the most fair news sources in the world. Hell, they are about the only one (other than surprise Fox News) that actually have reporters on the ground in Iraq, outside of the Green Zone. You know, not like the Time and Newseek guys that buy their information (propaganda) from the cheapest source.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If I recall correctly, about 7,000 Marines died on the island of Iwo Jima alone over a span of less than a month.

I think that about 1,300 soldies have died in the war in Iraq over about two year.

Of course, every loss of life is tragic, but it helps to have a bit of historical perspective.

Indeed, although historical perspectives don't always work because times and situations change. That is true of almost all surface comparisons, actually. 10 times as many people died in 2001 from car accidents compared to terrorism, yet terrorism was given the spotlight. In that case, it was because we were used to deaths from auto accidents, and the tragedy of 9/11, although far less impressive from a numerial standpoint, was unexpected and shocking.

Same goes for Iwo Jima vs Iraq, Iwo Jima was in the context of WWII, an event that cost many, many lives. Iraq is the greatest loss of US soldiers since Vietnam, so it stands out where Iwo Jima didn't. It's all about context, deaths are more than stats.

As to the article linked in the OP, Iraq is a complex situation, and any attempt to simplify it into a good or bad summary should be suspect. Especially when the source and justification is one story about one unit written by a biased news organization.

You aren't seriously comparing terroist attacks to automobile accidents, are you?

No...that was my whole point. I mean on the surface it sounds ok, dead is dead whether you get killed by Osama or a Buick. Why should we care more about the 3,000 killed on 9/11 than the 30,000 people killed by auto accidents in 2001 (actually the number is higher, but the power of 10 analogy works anyways)?

The reason is the context. We've internalized the dangers of driving. We live in a dangerous society, but we accept most dangers as a part of life. Even now, we're more afraid of terrorist attacks than car accidents, despite the fact that you are far more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. It might not be very logical, but there is nothing wrong with that reaction. I'd be shocked if people didn't react that way. Terrorist attacks attack our sense of safety, we thought we had a handle on the dangers of the world, and now people are making it less safe in a way we can't control.

My point is that, robbed of context, comparisons can be made that sound good, but make little sense in real life. Comparing Iwo Jima to Iraq works just as poorly as comparing 9/11 to car accidents. Obvious statistical elements don't tell the whole story.

When people get into a car, they know the risks.

I don't think that anyone working at the WTC expected planes to fly into the buildings.

I don't think he could have made his point any clearer. He's saying your comparison doesn't work for the same reason comparing automobile deaths to 9/11 deaths doesn't work.

The context is completely different, as he said.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Not third hand accusations from deserters, and unfits for duty soldiers.

Of course this is positive and humanized. Not good fare for certain sensationalist posters on this forum, who frequently delight when a soldier is killed. The same people spout of about soldiers, though they know knothing about soldiers, war or armed conflict of any sort.

What because I have not been in a war, I am not allowed to get upset about the number of troops killed?

Originally posted by: Riprorin

If I recall correctly, about 7,000 Marines died on the island of Iwo Jima alone over a span of less than a month.

I think that about 1,300 soldies have died in the war in Iraq over about two year.

Of course, every loss of life is tragic, but it helps to have a bit of historical perspective.

Humm, interesting. So it sounds like Rip is one of those that say every loss of life is tragic, but does not really care. Why else would you compare two completely different wars? Why, Rip, does it sound like because 7000 soldiers have not yet been killed in Iraq that it doesn't matter as much? Historical perspective? How about this one: In the early stages of Vietnam the solider losses were close to what they are in Iraq currently, and we all know what that was like at the end. But does that make it any better? Nope, every life lost is important. I will never dismiss the number KIA as easily as the right will, NEVER.

Oh and BTW, because it?s obvious you do not even take the time to get the actual number KIA, it is 1,913.

 

[NeoV]

Rip, more idiotic postings, way to stay consistent..

Rainsford - continues to be, in my opinion, the best thought-out poster on this forum

As for the Op of this thread, you are telling us you are in an infantry unit? Show me one person, here or anywhere for that matter, that 'takes delight' when a US soldier is killed. If a soldier that comes back from Iraq talks about how bad it was, does that automatically make him a deserter, or unfit for duty? What about the 10,000+ soldiers that have been badly wounded? Sure, some of them have volunteered to go back, but aren't some of them entitled to ask questions about why they were there, complain about their equipment, or be pissed off?

You are (allegedly) one soldier - your opinions don't mean that soldiers who don't share your views of the world are wrong.

Just because this infantry unit hasn't suffered a casualty in 'months', does that mean the situation over there has improved? Is it possible they are just in one area that has seen a decrease in violence? Does that mean it's like that all over?