Iraq Invasion

[RightinNYC]

Really where is this source from?

Because the Nazis are still causing trouble in Germany.
In Spain, ETA seperatists bombs tourists resorts.
Terrorists carried out the UK's biggest bank raid in history no more than two miles away from where I type this.
The Olkahoma Bombing, the KKK, the bombings of abortion clinics in the US.
Israel receives and dishes out terrorism.
All these in FREE Western nations.

Yet Iraq (during Saddam) had no terrorism.
Iran has no terrorism.
Syria has dissent, but no terrorism.

Where are you sources from?

It's a very obscure, extremely biased source known as the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. :roll:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

OF COURSE there will never be an elimination of terrorism. The only thing that can be done is to severely limit it. In England or the US, there were less attacks in the past decade than there were in the past week in the middle east.

 

[RightinNYC]

On another note, yesterday marked the day when we have now been in Iraq longer then we were involved in WWII. Just something to think about.

And we've suffered 1600 casualties, instead of 300,000.

Thank you for reminding us how much our military has advanced.

:lol:

 

[GarzaUK]

I love how you criticize "the west" for the actions of a British paper.

Your right, I apoligise for that remark.

And yes, they are stupid. They only way they attack involves suicide bombings.

It is the most effective tactic that they have against, it is a tactic that we can't resist well because we are not used to it.
To state that they are stupid is to underestimate them.

...Except the security forces are getting stronger and stronger every day. Honestly, I feel like everyone on both sides should forget debating Iraq for a year until things are more stable, then all the naysayers will have avoided making fools of themselves.

I am confident that with time the truth will be revealed on this whole conflict. There is something that doesn't feel right about all this, something sinister, I can't quite put my finger on it, but its there.
All I know is unlike other wars, this war swung me from right to left dramatically,

 

[RightinNYC]

It is the most effective tactic that they have against, it is a tactic that we can't resist well because we are not used to it.
To state that they are stupid is to underestimate them.

It's the only tactic they have available to them. To laud their intelligence for taking the only avenue available is to overestimate them.

I am confident that with time the truth will be revealed on this whole conflict. There is something that doesn't feel right about all this, something sinister, I can't quite put my finger on it, but its there.
All I know is unlike other wars, this war swung me from right to left dramatically,

I can understand how this war would make a lot of people nervous. It's the first significant military action of the past 10 years, and it was prosecuted by the US under a conservative, militaristic president. That has made many people question this war more than they normally would. I too feel that the truth will be revealed on this whole conflict eventually. I feel confident that within the next 10 years, this will be looked at as a defining moment in ME history.

 

[anomaly]

Simple, to some of us at least. We will never be able to kill all the fanatics, they breed more and go on with the brain washing as children. We can't defend against someone willing to kill themselves. We have to change their entire culture. It will take generations. We do that by giving them freedom. The women can now read. And work. And vote. And teach and learn and run for office. If you ask me even without 9/11 liberating Iraq is worth it just for those poor women alone. Now the rest of the enslaved Arab countries look to Iraq and Afghanistan and see hope. It will take time. Just talk to a soldier over there and listen how they say the women and children love them. Of course the men are pissed and fighting. We freed there women and took away their savage dominance over half their own population. They will also think twice about attacking us again because they know we'll take over their whole country. Simple.

Such arrogance, as expressed here in this post, should give everyone a good idea of why these terrorists want to attack us. We say we are simply 'spreading freedom' in Arab countries, but do not be confused by this. It is American freedom that we're spreading, a brand of freedom that must neccesarily have America's approval on it. And yet some, like the neo-con I've quoted, wish to destroy their culture! So since we disagree with them, we should destroy the very thing that gives them some kind of meaning on this earth? No, this kind of talk will only make our enemies multiply.

 

[Hoot]

And we've suffered 1600 casualties, instead of 300,000.

Thank you for reminding us how much our military has advanced.

:lol:

After some research on Google and 'asking jeeves,' I found out that the U.S. spent roughly 288 billion on World War II ( adjusted for today's inflation)

We had a death rate of U.S. soldiers of apprx 2.5% in WWII.

Our death rate percentage in Iraq is now at apprx 5.2% of the average 135,000 troops stationed there.

We spend roughly one billion a week in Iraq and our cost is fast approaching 200 billion for this war...with no end in sight.

Exactly what ' military advancement ' are you talking about?

This war is breaking the country and costing a far higher percentage of U.S. deaths then WWII, and as I stated in my earlier post, we have now been in Iraq longer then we were involved in WWII.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

After some research on Google and 'asking jeeves,' I found out that the U.S. spent roughly 288 billion on World War II ( adjusted for today's inflation)

We had a death rate of U.S. soldiers of apprx 2.5% in WWII.

Our death rate percentage in Iraq is now at apprx 5.2% of the average 135,000 troops stationed there.

We spend roughly one billion a week in Iraq and our cost is fast approaching 200 billion for this war...with no end in sight.

Exactly what ' military advancement ' are you talking about?

This war is breaking the country and costing a far higher percentage of U.S. deaths then WWII, and as I stated in my earlier post, we have now been in Iraq longer then we were involved in WWII.

Ohh snap!

 

[RightinNYC]

After some research on Google and 'asking jeeves,' I found out that the U.S. spent roughly 288 billion on World War II ( adjusted for today's inflation)

We had a death rate of U.S. soldiers of apprx 2.5% in WWII.

Our death rate percentage in Iraq is now at apprx 5.2% of the average 135,000 troops stationed there.

We spend roughly one billion a week in Iraq and our cost is fast approaching 200 billion for this war...with no end in sight.

Exactly what ' military advancement ' are you talking about?

This war is breaking the country and costing a far higher percentage of U.S. deaths then WWII, and as I stated in my earlier post, we have now been in Iraq longer then we were involved in WWII.

Actually, you're completely wrong.

WWII death toll - 300,000 - 1.8% of the 16 million soldiers involved in the war were KIA, total casualties was 6.6%

Iraq war death toll - 1600 - .15% of the 1,048,000 soldiers involved in the war were KIA, total casualties was 1.1%

So it's 12 times less likely that a soldier in this war would die than a soldier in WWII.

Sources: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050412-gone-to-war.htm

Now, onto your claims about the cost of the war.

Aside from the fact that in WWII, a full TWELVE PERCENT of the US population was involved in the war, whereas now it's .3%, the costs are NOTHING compared to previous wars.

When looking at historical costs, compare them to GDP to get an idea of the actual costs.

WWII - Cost 130% of the US's GDP
Vietnam - Cost 15% of the US's GDP
Korea - Cost 15% of the US's GDP
Gulf War - Cost 12% of the US's GDP
Iraq War - Cost .8% of the US's GDP

Now you want to explain to me how this war is costing so much money?

So in the same amount of time we were involved in WWII, we've lost 298,400 less soldiers, and spent less than 1/100th as much money.

But we didn't advance at all.

 

[akyron]

After some research on Google and 'asking jeeves,' I found out that the U.S. spent roughly 288 billion on World War II ( adjusted for today's inflation)

We had a death rate of U.S. soldiers of apprx 2.5% in WWII.

Our death rate percentage in Iraq is now at apprx 5.2% of the average 135,000 troops stationed there.

We spend roughly one billion a week in Iraq and our cost is fast approaching 200 billion for this war...with no end in sight.

Exactly what ' military advancement ' are you talking about?

This war is breaking the country and costing a far higher percentage of U.S. deaths then WWII, and as I stated in my earlier post, we have now been in Iraq longer then we were involved in WWII.

Are you trying to say 1600>300,000?

 

[Hoot]

Actually, you're completely wrong.

WWII death toll - 300,000 - 1.8% of the 16 million soldiers involved in the war were KIA, total casualties was 6.6%

Iraq war death toll - 1600 - .15% of the 1,048,000 soldiers involved in the war were KIA, total casualties was 1.1%

So it's 12 times less likely that a soldier in this war would die than a soldier in WWII.

Sources: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050412-gone-to-war.htm

Now, onto your claims about the cost of the war.

Aside from the fact that in WWII, a full TWELVE PERCENT of the US population was involved in the war, whereas now it's .3%, the costs are NOTHING compared to previous wars.

When looking at historical costs, compare them to GDP to get an idea of the actual costs.

WWII - Cost 130% of the US's GDP
Vietnam - Cost 15% of the US's GDP
Korea - Cost 15% of the US's GDP
Gulf War - Cost 12% of the US's GDP
Iraq War - Cost .8% of the US's GDP

Now you want to explain to me how this war is costing so much money?

So in the same amount of time we were involved in WWII, we've lost 298,400 less soldiers, and spent less than 1/100th as much money.

But we didn't advance at all.

I admit I may have been in error ( see...that wasn't so hard everyone..lol)...this web research is tedious work, plus...to change the subject...

When I was on AOL, all I had to do was save a page as a favorite place, then drag the fav place into my comment, so others could read where I was getting my info, and the url would magically appear!

Now I'm on something called Charter digital cable, and for the life of me I am unable to place workable links in my replies...any tips, anyone?

As far as the U.S. spending less money...that wasn't quite my point since a fair comparison isn't possible when so many more soldiers were involved in WW2, compared to Iraq, so of course the money spent whould be larger in WW2.

I was more interested in ratios...are we spending more per soldier in Iraq than we did in WW2, and is the ratio of deaths comparable to those seeing action in the two wars?

I still believe Iraq is far more dangerous...we probably had far more soldiers behind the lines..running comm...etc...far away from the action in WW2..ships out at sea..etc.. whereas Iraq can hardly be said to be safe anywhere? Afterall, didn't we recently see an explosion in one of our mess halls? Hasn't the violence escalated since the Iraqi elections?

The First Lady was surrounded by Secret Service and armed guards during her recent visit...whereas, in WW2 after we regained Normandy, what did our soldiers have to fear? Getting the 'clap' at a French bordello?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

The First Lady was surrounded by Secret Service and armed guards during her recent visit...whereas, in WW2 after we regained Normandy, what did our soldiers have to fear? Getting the 'clap' at a French bordello?

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself... and ohh yes the clap."

You think the clap still isn't lurking at Frech bordellos today?

 

[RightinNYC]

As far as the U.S. spending less money...that wasn't quite my point since a fair comparison isn't possible when so many more soldiers were involved in WW2, compared to Iraq, so of course the money spent whould be larger in WW2.

I was more interested in ratios...are we spending more per soldier in Iraq than we did in WW2, and is the ratio of deaths comparable to those seeing action in the two wars?

I still believe Iraq is far more dangerous...we probably had far more soldiers behind the lines..running comm...etc...far away from the action in WW2..ships out at sea..etc.. whereas Iraq can hardly be said to be safe anywhere? Afterall, didn't we recently see an explosion in one of our mess halls? Hasn't the violence escalated since the Iraqi elections?

The First Lady was surrounded by Secret Service and armed guards during her recent visit...whereas, in WW2 after we regained Normandy, what did our soldiers have to fear? Getting the 'clap' at a French bordello?

But I want the government to be spending more $ per soldier now. That's far better. Increased money spent per soldier equals a smaller, better trained force, which is far more effective for today's world.

The ratio of those seeing action in the two wars is far less now. Nowadays, because of the immense support structure for the technologically advanced army, the ratio of support to combat troops has increased. So, the 12:1 ratio of deaths between the two wars increases even further if you count only active troops.

You forget, even though every so often there are bombings that kill multiple soldiers in this war, in WWII there were thousands of events that killed multiple soldiers. Death is far less common nowadays.

The reason it was a bit more peaceful in Normandy was that a peace treaty had been signed with the defeated nation, and there were no insurgents. There really can be no comparisons between the two wars.

 

[akyron]

I admit I may have been in error ( see...that wasn't so hard everyone..lol)...this web research is tedious work, plus...to change the subject...

When I was on AOL, all I had to do was save a page as a favorite place, then drag the fav place into my comment, so others could read where I was getting my info, and the url would magically appear!

Now I'm on something called Charter digital cable, and for the life of me I am unable to place workable links in my replies...any tips, anyone?

As far as the U.S. spending less money...that wasn't quite my point since a fair comparison isn't possible when so many more soldiers were involved in WW2, compared to Iraq, so of course the money spent whould be larger in WW2.

I was more interested in ratios...are we spending more per soldier in Iraq than we did in WW2, and is the ratio of deaths comparable to those seeing action in the two wars?

I still believe Iraq is far more dangerous...we probably had far more soldiers behind the lines..running comm...etc...far away from the action in WW2..ships out at sea..etc.. whereas Iraq can hardly be said to be safe anywhere? Afterall, didn't we recently see an explosion in one of our mess halls? Hasn't the violence escalated since the Iraqi elections?

The First Lady was surrounded by Secret Service and armed guards during her recent visit...whereas, in WW2 after we regained Normandy, what did our soldiers have to fear? Getting the 'clap' at a French bordello?

Murder rates in US cities comparable to Iraq



On September 8, 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported (The Conflict In Iraq, U.S. Toll in Iraq Reaches 1,000) that through September 7, 2004, 1,000 US soldiers lost their lives in Iraq due to both hostile and non-hostile actions. This is certainly a tragic loss correctly reported in the media and mourned by the US populace. However focusing exclusively on these statistics does not provide the much needed perspective.


According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report of May 24, 2004, the number of murders reported during calendar years 2002 and 2003 show a comparable death toll exists in several US cities. Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City reported 1,168, 1,246 and 1,184 murders during the subject 24-month period.


As these murders are reported over a 24-month period and the US death toll in Iraq covers an 18-month period they cannot be directly compared, however the average deaths per month establishes a more valid comparison.


The average monthly death toll for US soldiers in Iraq is 55.6 deaths per month while the average reported murders per month in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City are 48.7, 51.9 and 49.3 deaths per month. The murder statistics in the US cities are for hostile deaths only — whereas the death toll in Iraq includes both hostile and accidental deaths. This makes our own murder rates in LA, Chicago and NYC even more appalling. Yet there is not an equivalent amount of reporting or hand wringing.


The soldiers' deaths in Iraq occurred in a strife-torn country with a leadership vacuum. The murders in US cities occurred in an advanced society during peacetime.


It is a little old but not that old.


Perhaps more militia need to be sent in to curb the gangs of L.A.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Perhaps more militia need to be sent in to curb the gangs of L.A.

Or perhaps the citizens of LA should take the same precautions as the soldiers in Iraq. I'm sure that are service men and women in Iraq are operating much more carefully than the average resident of LA.



All in all it's a meaningless comparison of statistics.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
All else aside, the violence in Iraq is fanned by other Arab nations who, after seeing two of their neighbors replace their regimes with democratically elected governments, don't wish to follow suit.

They recall the infectuous desire for freedom that spread through the rest of the former sattelites of the USSR once the Poles gained theirs. It was unstoppable.

They want no part of that. So they will do what they can to keep Iraq destabilized. The mistake they make is to believe that the character of the Texas sheriff is the same as that of the Arkansas traveller who skedaddled the first time his nose got bloodied.

The democratic process of the former USSR states has hardly being enlightening. There is some states in Eastern Europe which still control the press. Organized crime buys out politicans. I have visited the black markets of Bulgaria, I have never seen such a poor nation in all my travels and it isn't the poorest nation in Europe. If you want to see how democracy should be formed, look at Yugoslavia. NATO didn't topple Milosevic, NATO helped the people topple Milosevic. Yugoslavia is a much more stable place than Iraq.
The EU will bring true democracy to eastern europe in time though and through peaceful means.
The less I say about all the Ubekistans and Blahstans, the better. Only African nations get more corrupt.

Just two questions.

1. Was the "old" way better?

2. Won't it take a while for all the wrinkles to be ironed out?

 

[RightinNYC]

Or perhaps the citizens of LA should take the same precautions as the soldiers in Iraq. I'm sure that are service men and women in Iraq are operating much more carefully than the average resident of LA.



All in all it's a meaningless comparison of statistics.

I don't think it's that meaningless. It's useful to help people understand that the reports of the "hellhole" that is Iraq are overblown.

 

[Hoot]

Murder rates in US cities comparable to Iraq

Thanks for the info, but I don't get it?

The population of Los Angeles (just the city) is about 4 million.

The population of Chicago is about 9 and 1/2 million.

The population of just the city of New York( No Queens, Manhattan..etc..) is a little over 8 million.

We only have about 135,000 troops in Iraq at any one time.

The above named cities should have about 8 to 10 times as many murders as Iraq...not apprx the same amount!

This shows Iraq is far more dangerous, not comparable to these large cities....sorry, but I thought the article made a pointless comparison and tried to make something out of nothing.

 

[Fantasea]

I believe that the thrust of the report is twofold. First it calls attention to the fact that lawlessness in the US is rampant, which is played down by the media. Second, it calls attention to the fact that the sacrifices made in the Middle East have not been in vain which is played up by the media.

From the report:

The average monthly death toll for US soldiers in Iraq is 55.6 deaths per month while the average reported murders per month in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City are 48.7, 51.9 and 49.3 deaths per month. The murder statistics in the US cities are for hostile deaths only — whereas the death toll in Iraq includes both hostile and accidental deaths. This makes our own murder rates in LA, Chicago and NYC even more appalling. Yet there is not an equivalent amount of reporting or hand wringing.

The soldiers' deaths in Iraq occurred in a strife-torn country with a leadership vacuum. The murders in US cities occurred in an advanced society during peacetime.

US soldiers killed in Iraq volunteered for a job known to entail high risks, and were trained and equipped accordingly. Not so with innocents murdered on our cities' streets.

As tragic as the loss of US soldiers' lives in Iraq have been, their sacrifices have led to some benefits. Among them:

1. Women are now allowed to go to school in Iraq.

2. Over 50 million Afghani's and Iraq's now have a voice in selecting the government under which they will live in the future.

3. Major progress has been made in neutralizing Libya's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and programs since December 2003 when Moammar Qaddafi voluntarily disclosed their existence and committed to completely dismantle them.

4. North Korea reversed their earlier positions and agreed to multi-national talks with Japan, China, South Korea and the US aimed at dismantling North Korea's weapons of mass destruction projects.

5. The corruption of the UN-administered Food for Oil Program was revealed and the illegal flow (10 billion dollars) of money halted.

As far as we can tell there are no corresponding benefits for the random deaths on our own mean streets. And the deaths in Iraq are part of a broader war on terror, whose objective is to make the world a safer place. A violent death is tragic and a soldier's death is cause for grief.

Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of going to war in Iraq. But objectivity requires that these deaths be put in perspective. Do we continue to condemn death in Iraq while simultaneously ignoring the concurrent deaths in our own cities — or should we consider all violent deaths a terrible waste of life?

Why do we continue to complain about losses of life in Iraq and seemingly ignore the same thing at home?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Thanks for the info, but I don't get it?

The population of Los Angeles (just the city) is about 4 million.

The population of Chicago is about 9 and 1/2 million.

The population of just the city of New York( No Queens, Manhattan..etc..) is a little over 8 million.

We only have about 135,000 troops in Iraq at any one time.

The above named cities should have about 8 to 10 times as many murders as Iraq...not apprx the same amount!

This shows Iraq is far more dangerous, not comparable to these large cities....sorry, but I thought the article made a pointless comparison and tried to make something out of nothing.

The difference would be that Iraq is a combat zone while the listed American cities are not...at least we hope not. Plus, besides our troops there are Iraqis & foreign terrorists that you conveniently left out of the population count in Iraq.

 

[teacher]

Consolation.
Most military personnel understand the full ramifications of signing enlistment papers. I dare say many are enjoying their tour.

 

[Hoot]

The difference would be that Iraq is a combat zone while the listed American cities are not...at least we hope not. Plus, besides our troops there are Iraqis & foreign terrorists that you conveniently left out of the population count in Iraq.

The article, while interesting, is entirely without merit...no logical comparison can be made between the death rate of Iraq and our own U.S. cities.

Why are we even comparing Iraq to U.S. cities?

Why not compare just Baghdad, which has a population of about 5 million, to a city like L.A. which has a population under 5 million?

Unfortunately, I can find no accurate accounting of deaths due to warfare for just the city of Baghdad...simply statements by reseachers who confirm the death rate has gone up 58 times in Iraq since the war began...compared to pre-war death rates.

The original article seems to gloss over the deaths in Iraq by essentially saying..."See...it's just like living in LA or Chicago...it's not so bad."

What a bogus piece of meaningless, shoddy journalism.

 

[Pacridge]

The article, while interesting, is entirely without merit...no logical comparison can be made between the death rate of Iraq and our own U.S. cities.

Why are we even comparing Iraq to U.S. cities?

Why not compare just Baghdad, which has a population of about 5 million, to a city like L.A. which has a population under 5 million?

Unfortunately, I can find no accurate accounting of deaths due to warfare for just the city of Baghdad...simply statements by reseachers who confirm the death rate has gone up 58 times in Iraq since the war began...compared to pre-war death rates.

The original article seems to gloss over the deaths in Iraq by essentially saying..."See...it's just like living in LA or Chicago...it's not so bad."

What a bogus piece of meaningless, shoddy journalism.

I think you're right. It's a complete load of BS. Fox's Hume once said that the American soldier was safer in Iraq than in California- based on the sats. What he failed to mention was there were 100K soldier in Iraq and millions of people in California. I think we should insist that people making these claims be sent to the places they claim are actually, based on the numbers, safer than parts of the US. Of course I'm all for letting those so in support of our Iraq adventure to sign up and ship out. Or at a minimum pay for it.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

I went back & read some of the earlier posts in this thread...it's amazing how easily we can go from the original topic to this...it's actually quite humorous.

ORIGINAL QUESTION: Why did we invade/attack Iraq?

One answer I read was Resolution 1441. That just happened to be the last resolution...you're forgetting more than a decade of rewriting UN resolutions trying to get Saddam to comply. Not once did he ever fully comply.

There's also this pesky thing that Mr. Clinton signed called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Section 3 of that document states...

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

My question isn't why did we attack/invade Iraq; but, why did it take us so long to act on this policy?

 

[Fantasea]

I went back & read some of the earlier posts in this thread...it's amazing how easily we can go from the original topic to this...it's actually quite humorous.

ORIGINAL QUESTION: Why did we invade/attack Iraq?

One answer I read was Resolution 1441. That just happened to be the last resolution...you're forgetting more than a decade of rewriting UN resolutions trying to get Saddam to comply. Not once did he ever fully comply.

There's also this pesky thing that Mr. Clinton signed called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Section 3 of that document states...

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

My question isn't why did we attack/invade Iraq; but, why did it take us so long to act on this policy?

I assume that your question is rhetorical.

However, the world knows that the difference between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration is the difference between words and deeds.

 

[RightinNYC]

Unfortunately, I can find no accurate accounting of deaths due to warfare for just the city of Baghdad...simply statements by reseachers who confirm the death rate has gone up 58 times in Iraq since the war began...compared to pre-war death rates./QUOTE]

I'd like to see the stats on that...