Stats for 3 years of war.....

[TheDude]

As year 3 of the war passes us by..............

2,400+ U.S. Soldiers killed
17,000+ U.S. Soldiers wounded
30,000+ Iraqi civilians killed
200+ Billion spent
0 WMD's found


I know bailing out now would leave Iraq in shambles but do we have the resources to stay?

 

[Frogman]

But we are in Iraq to "free" the Iraqi people, not to look for WMDs, remember?

:lol:

 

[Kbob]

9,000 of those 17,000 wounded US soldiers returned to duty within 72 hours. And I'm sure it could be argued by some that all deaths in Iraq are the fault of the US, but seriously, how many of those 30,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths were the result of US fire?

 

[TheDude]

9,000 of those 17,000 wounded US soldiers returned to duty within 72 hours. And I'm sure it could be argued by some that all deaths in Iraq are the fault of the US, but seriously, how many of those 30,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths were the result of US fire?

I'd like to think the majority of those 30k dead were not caused by American troops and in all likelihood the majority where killed by Iraqi on Iraqi infighting. But regardless, 30,000+ dead is still 30,000+ dead and that doesn't look good for America since we're there to free/protect them.

 

[Kbob]

I'd like to think the majority of those 30k dead were not caused by American troops and in all likelihood the majority where killed by Iraqi on Iraqi infighting. But regardless, 30,000+ dead is still 30,000+ dead and that doesn't look good for America since we're there to free/protect them.

You're right, and I'm splitting hairs because I don't like when numbers are thrown around with no regard to anything but making the US look bad. I've seen estimates of 500,000 killed under Saddam Husseins rule, with 60,000 from Baghdad alone. And I'm sure many of those 30,000 civilians killed since we went into Iraq were killed by those same Ba'thist thugs.

EDIT: Cool avatar, btw. The Big Labowski?

 

[Calabrio]

I know bailing out now would leave Iraq in shambles but do we have the resources to stay?

We Absolutely do.

If we weren't in Iraq, where do you think guys like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would be right now? What do you think they'd be working on? Where would the resources be going?

 

[MrScalia]

No WMD, come on Even Sadman top guys were surprized when thier were nun found. It called Misinformation

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

No WMD, come on Even Sadman top guys were surprized when thier were nun found. It called Misinformation

The only thing found is conventional weapons, and left-over traces of his old WMD programs that had been dismantled over the last 14 years. Hessein was years away from having anything remotely threatening to the US, meanwhile we sit in the nuke-sights of N. Korea w/ Pakistan close behind.

 

[barry2952]

Turns out Saddam was as big a BSer as Bush. He did have his own people convinced he had the goodies just like BuSh has the RW convinced that we went into Iraq to free the people.

 

[MrWilson]

I have some more stats from some other 3 year wars!

War of 1812.
11,300 casualties

Korean war.(more modern)
USA casualties
-33,741 US Dead
-92,134 US Wounded** (**Lightly wounded who were treated and released back to duty are not included in these figures)
-4,820 US Missing In Action (Declared Dead)
-7,245 Prisoners Of War
-2,847 Died in POW Camp
-389 POWs known to have been alive after all U.S. POWs supposedly returned.

And thats just US, not the whole of the UN.

All of you who are complaining about casualties have been spoiled by the first gulf war. 100 hours of ground action (467 individuals wounded in action,148 killed in battle,and 145
killed in other than battle (i.e. accidents). Therefore, the total number of US Gulf War casualties was 760 at the time of redeployment.) That was acredeted to our overwelming technological superiority...all that the first gulf war was was strictly a military victory...there was no enemy country conqored. If those casualties were kept up for 3 years...guess what, you have one reckless war. 196,992 casualties after 3 years. Its starting to not look so bad, eh? (by compairison, us...strictly us casualties in WW2 were 295,000. which lasted on our part...dec41-may45)

I'd like to think the majority of those 30k dead were not caused by American troops and in all likelihood the majority where killed by Iraqi on Iraqi infighting. But regardless, 30,000+ dead is still 30,000+ dead and that doesn't look good for America since we're there to free/protect them.

Is that better than 6,000,000+ civilians dead in ww2?

Turns out Saddam was as big a BSer as Bush. He did have his own people convinced he had the goodies just like BuSh has the RW convinced that we went into Iraq to free the people.

Do you think he went to iraq to get oil to fuel your ungrateful a$$. Get off the LWwackos' bandwagon barry.

 

[Calabrio]

The only thing found is conventional weapons, and left-over traces of his old WMD programs that had been dismantled over the last 14 years. Hessein was years away from having anything remotely threatening to the US, meanwhile we sit in the nuke-sights of N. Korea w/ Pakistan close behind.

You're not accurate. If he ultimately didn't have any, he certainly did have the programs in place to develop WMDs. This isn't disputed. And once the Russians and French succeeded in lifting the sanctions, Hussein would have been able to fund and proceed without challenge.

You mention we're in the "sights of N.Korea w/Pakistan" - but you fail to mention when this threat emerged. Pakistan went nuclear under the nose the Clinton administration. Intelligence was even paying attention at the time. As for N. Korea, that was another Clinton era failure.

So, would you rather we wait until Hussein emerges to be a potential threat as strong as a N. Korea before we respond, or do you just want to bitch and moan without actually having a solution or knowing what you're talking about?
Don't bother answering this one, having read your past posts, I know the answer.

Turns out Saddam was as big a BSer as Bush. He did have his own people convinced he had the goodies just like BuSh has the RW convinced that we went into Iraq to free the people.

Bush isn't a "BSer". We actually DID go into Iraq to free the people. It's part of a very ambitious, idealist, foreign policy designed to help bring long term stability in the Middle East. It wasn't about getting oil, if that were the case, we could have saved billions of dollars just by BUYING IT from them.

And even if Hussein was a "BSer"- you don't play military chicken with a super power, hoping that the weak willed liberals in the country will operate on your behalf.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Posted on Wed, Mar. 22, 2006

Tapes show Iraq ended WMD plans
Banned weapons stockpiles dismantled by early ’90s
Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they’d given up banned weapons.

“We don’t have anything hidden!” the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.

At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would “roam Iraq for 50 years” in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction.
It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration’s stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 – to locate WMD.

The documents are among U.S. government translations of audiotapes or transcripts from Iraqi meetings – from about 1996-97 back to soon after the 1991 Gulf war, when the U.N. Security Council sent inspectors to disarm Iraq.
Even as the newly released documents make clear Saddam’s regime had given up banned weapons, they also attest to its continued secretiveness: A 1997 document from Iraqi intelligence instructed agencies to keep confidential files away from U.N. teams, and to remove “any forbidden equipment.”

Because it’s now acknowledged the Iraqis had ended the arms programs by then, the directive may have been aimed at securing stray pieces of equipment, and preserving some secrets from Iraq’s 1980s work on WMD.
Saddam’s inner circle entertained notions of reviving the programs someday, the newly released documents show.

At the same meeting, however, Saddam, who was deposed by the U.S. invasion in 2003 and is now on trial for crimes against humanity, led a discussion about converting chemical weapons factories to beneficial uses.
Scores of Iraqi documents, seized after the 2003 invasion, are being released at the request of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who has suggested that evidence might turn up that the Iraqis hid their weapons or sent them to neighboring Syria. No such evidence has emerged.

Saddam and his lieutenants remind one another that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon.

Amer Mohammed Rashid, a top weapons program official, told a 1996 presidential meeting he laid out the facts to the U.N. chief inspector.
In his final report in October 2004, Charles Duelfer, head of a post-invasion U.S. team of weapons hunters, concluded Iraq and the U.N. inspectors had dismantled the nuclear program and destroyed the chemical and biological weapons stockpiles by 1992.

“Don’t think for a minute that we still have WMD,” he told his deputies. “We have nothing.”

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

You're not accurate. If he ultimately didn't have any, he certainly did have the programs in place to develop WMDs. This isn't disputed. And once the Russians and French succeeded in lifting the sanctions, Hussein would have been able to fund and proceed without challenge.

Pure speculation on your part. And I never said that Saddam did not want to develop WMDs, only that he had no capacity to do that for at least several years.

You mention we're in the "sights of N.Korea w/Pakistan" - but you fail to mention when this threat emerged. Pakistan went nuclear under the nose the Clinton administration. Intelligence was even paying attention at the time. As for N. Korea, that was another Clinton era failure.

SO? That doesn't change the fact the N. Korea and Pakistan were/are bigger, more imminent threats to the US than Iraq by FAR. WHEN they emerged as a threat is irrelevant. What IS relevant is WHY does GW BuSh have is priorities all screwed up?? There MUST be some explanation for that. Try addressing the issue instead of playing the typical "blame Clinton" card for a change.

 

[Kbob]

That doesn't change the fact the N. Korea and Pakistan were/are bigger, more imminent threats to the US than Iraq by FAR. WHEN they emerged as a threat is irrelevant. What IS relevant is WHY does GW BuSh have is priorities all screwed up?? There MUST be some explanation for that. Try addressing the issue instead of playing the typical "blame Clinton" card for a change.

I'm trying to address it. Hey, I have an idea. Maybe ABC News can conduct a poll and see what the citizens of this country believe is the biggest threat. And then they can conduct another poll and see what US citizens believe should be done about that threat. I can hear the questions now: "Do you believe that North Korea is a threat, neutral, or not a threat?" "Do you think the US should deal with North Korea militarily, diplomatically, or let the UN handle it?" If only life were so easy and the "phone a friend" option was always right.

 

[TheDude]

EDIT: Cool avatar, btw. The Big Labowski?

Ya, my favorite movie........... "You're entering a world of pain Smokey."

 

[MAllen82]

LEBOWSKI: Okay sir, you're a Lebowski, I'm a Lebowski, that's terrific, I'm very busy so what can I do for you?

DUDE: Well sir, it's this rug I have, really tied the room together-

LEBOWSKI: You told Brandt on the phone, he told me. So where do I fit in?

DUDE: Well they were looking for you, these two guys, they were trying to--

LEBOWSKI: I'll say it again, all right? You told Brandt. He told me. I know what happened. Yes? Yes?

DUDE: So you know they were trying to piss on your rug--

LEBOWSKI: Did I urinate on your rug?

DUDE: You mean, did you personally come and pee on my--

LEBOWSKI: Hello! Do you speak English? Parla usted Inglese? I'll say it again. Did I urinate on your rug?

DUDE: Well no, like I said, Woo peed on the rug--

LEBOWSKI: Hello! Hello! So every time--I just want to understand this, sir-- every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the--

DUDE: Come on, man, I'm not trying to scam anybody here, I'm just--

LEBOWSKI: You're just looking for a handout like every other--are you employed, Mr. Lebowski?

DUDE: Look, let me explain something. I'm not Mr. Lebowski; you're Mr. Lebowski. I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. That, or Duder. His Dudeness. Or El Duderino, if, you know, you're not into the whole brevity thing--

LEBOWSKI: Are you employed, sir?

DUDE: Employed?

LEBOWSKI: You don't go out and make a living dressed like that in the middle of a weekday.

DUDE: Is this a--what day is this?

LEBOWSKI: But I do work, so if you don't mind--

DUDE: No, look. I do mind. The Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this will not stand, man. I mean, if your wife owes--

LEBOWSKI: My wife is not the issue here. I hope that my wife will someday learn to live on her allowance, which is ample, but if she doesn't, sir, that will be her problem, not mine, just as your rug is your problem, just as every bum's lot in life is his own responsibility regardless of whom he chooses to blame. I didn't blame anyone for the loss of my legs, some chinaman in Korea took them from me but I went out and achieved anyway. I can't solve your problems, sir, only you can.

DUDE: Ah :q:q:q:q it.

LEBOWSKI: Sure! :q:q:q:q it! That's your answer! Tattoo it on your forehead! Your answer to everything!






BRANDT: How was your meeting, Mr. Lebowski?

DUDE: Okay. The old man told me to take any rug in the house.