Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Artanis, May 31, 2005.
It's about three years now.
late 2010 early 2011
and just by the way: Is the title grammatically correct? Because sometimes I suck at teh engrish language.
Like in Korea?
I think we'll still be dealing with Iraq in 20 years as in it will still be an issue not nescessarily saying we'll have troops stationed there.
u did gooder.
I think we'll be there for a long time. Like Kuwait, only more dangerous.
Never. They will start doing 1 or 2 year tours in the near future. Permanent duty station.
permanent forward base. Probally a rotation of the forces leaving Germany in the next few years
it will become another overseas tour base for soldiers/marines n whatnot ... i'm so glad i'm doing 2 years overseas now,
Considering the US has been talking about building perma-bases in Uzbekistan, I doubt Iraq will see them. I don't see any more than 3 more years there. If that. Based off nothing, though.
QFT = Quoted For Truth
either forever, or until the entire mid east gets together to kick us out, which ever comes first,,,,,,,,but then again the mid east has never been able to get along at all so i guess we'll just be their pernament. the question becomes, how many american soldiers will die for what ever it is we went their for
Does anyone know the current body count for our folks?
we're about 3 years into this, how many had died after the first 3 years of our involvement in vietnam (counting the "advisor" years when kennedy started sending military "advisors" to vietnam)
not trying to start shit, i'm just wandering how this is stacking up against vietnam, i hate the politicans not the soldiers so don't freak out on me.
(everyone probably has their own theories as to why we're there, i'm not getting into that cause i know that's for on topic not here)
Ever heard of the Persian Empire? I think its important to know about the history of a place and people before you make sweeping generalizations about their abilities to self organize. The middle east not only had its shit together more than any other civilization in the world for hundreds of years, but they brought Europe out of the dark ages when Europeans were exposed to advanced Islamic tehnologies and ideas during the Crusades. Hell, they even conquered much of Spain! They've never been able to "get it together" since colonization, after WWI when england claimed the entire area as a protectorate... but I'm sure you can see how that might complicate things.
Stacking up to initial involvement in Vietnam, the combat death toll in the War on Terror is much higher. Michael Moore was all over this... and like him or not, its way true. Stacking up to initial combat involvement in Vietnam, I would think it would be lower. This may be a more fair comparison, unless you buy the idea that this war will escalate and expand. Also, you might want to include the start of the Gulf War in that comparison to the start of advisors in Vietnam, since we've been occupying parts of Iraq ever since. I don't think anyone has done that comparison. The gap makes it kinda hard. Sure a statistician could figure some magic out though... but would it be believable? Data set is difficult to not apply bias to.
When you look only at the first couple of years, Vietnam looks like a pretty peaceful war, compared to Iraq:
But when you extend the timeline out to cover the 1st four years of the war, you see a different trend developing:
I have no doubt that the US death toll for the entire war in Iraq will be much lower than Vietnam:
The graphs above were created about a year ago, but I believe they are still relavent for this discussion.
I forgot to throw the british government's embracing of Zionism into the mix of things that happened when they declared the entire region a protectorate after WWI, and started disenfranchising "Palestinians" by restricting Muslim immigration, while encouraging Jewish immigration... all the while quelling approximately annual rebellions by the "Palestinians" (a term not yet coined for the people who occupied this area since the fall of the Roman empire/beginning of Persian empire) who were determined to... self determine.
That kind fucked things up too, for the entire region. Artificially placing blood-enemies in the same region based upon religious preference/discrimination, because Europeans couldn't get over their long history of anti-semitism, does not tend to lead to stability for that region. Not being anti-Israel here, I'm just saying that it complicated things, and made it less likely that the middle eastern states who had their borders arbitrarily drawn in the sand by guys in cacky shorts, would get it together.
Good. His perspective serves to broaden the range of discourse, even if his presentation is one sided.
that's a scary ass sight isn't it..... a few countries could get sick of our being such a heavy presence over there and bam we're in the middle of some shit. Hopefully things will chill out and this will end soon but damn, that graph is spooky, i thought i was reading it wrong until i saw the vietnam graph jump off the charts, thanks Ranger, that puts it into perspective.
The first three years of Vietnam were 45-48. The first three years of the Kenedy "advisors" had less then 10,000 deployed and they were supposed to stay out of the fight. How can you compare that to more then 400,000 during the first 6 months and 100,000-150,000 since then ? Especially since they invaded a nation and destroyed those who will fight. There were over 5000 hostile deaths in 1966 alone. 1968 and 69 were the worse.
The comparison isn't really fair. But its still interesting.
Back on to the topic, I don't believe we'll pull out of Iraq anytime in the near future. I see a possible Germany-type occupation, as eventually the majority of the smaller camps in Iraq will be consolidated into a few large ones.
When I told a recruiter that I don't want me head to be chopped off by terrorists or I don't want to die in a fire or something like that they said that there are more people dying on the road in the US due to teh crashez.
The problem is:
USA = 290,000,000
Iraq = 150,000
Yeah, about 1 in 100, or 1% death rate. Thats pretty high, sort of. Not for a war... but still. Whats more, the casualty rate (where troops have to be evacuated out of theatre) is more like 15,000 (right?)... which means... well lets do the math to illustrate:
150,000/15,000 = 1/10. 10% casualty rate.
Can that be right? I guess 150K does't take into account rotation... how much rotation is going on? All I hear about are guys stuck there since the beginning with no end in sight, but I'm not exactly "in touch" with the military (which is why I'm in here).
It's currently OIF 3, meaning third rotation. FY2006 will mark the beginning of OIF 4. I think it'd be extremely difficult to calculate a casualty percentage rate. Consider the fact that you don't know what portion of each rotation are on their second, or possibly third rotation.
I'm working on it. But you're right. It is hard as hell.