Occupation death toll of U.S. troops equal to that of war

MOBIUS · August 26, 2003, 23:22

Story

So that is an average of more than one US soldier dead per day since the war was officially declared over.

Well, if the war part was called 'Enduring Freedom', perhaps the occupation part could be called 'Enduring Bodycount'?

Now they are talking about increasing troop strengths, which in turn will increase the massive cost that this operation is incurring.

How can the US and the UK extricate themselves from a situation of their own making and how long will it take?

Nubclear · August 26, 2003, 23:24

Never.

MOBIUS · August 26, 2003, 23:28

Well the old adage of not fighting a war on two fronts still holds true - haven't even finished fighting Al Qaeda and then instead of finishing them off, finding someone new to fight who was minding their own business...

MrFun · August 26, 2003, 23:31

MOBIUS, you're being unpatriotic by asking any questions about Bush's policies towards Iraq.

MOBIUS · August 26, 2003, 23:33

Story

Just think how far $52bn a year could go on relieving world poverty.

What about addressing Kyoto - what a radical idea that would be!

Ted Striker · August 26, 2003, 23:34

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

How can the US and the UK extricate themselves from a situation of their own making and how long will it take?

US and UK aren't leaving until the job is done.

Leaving will just create another bad situation that would require military interventions a couple of years down the road.

Perhaps you'd prefer another 20 year long Afghanistan type civil war.

MrFun · August 26, 2003, 23:34

MOBIUS -- I was being sarcastic.

carry on

Ted Striker · August 26, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Well the old adage of not fighting a war on two fronts still holds true - haven't even finished fighting Al Qaeda and then instead of finishing them off, finding someone new to fight who was minding their own business...

US military doctrine is by definition designed to fight a war on two fronts.

Perhaps you forgot that whole WW2 thingie.

MOBIUS · August 26, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
MOBIUS, you're being unpatriotic by asking any questions about Bush's policies towards Iraq.

So are more and more Americans!

"About 48 percent said the United States should withdraw military personnel because of the attacks"

How many more body bags before the majority favours retreat?

I'm afraid this sorry mess looks like Somalia in slow motion and worst of all, us Brits got sucked in alongside by Tony B-liar...

Drake Tungsten · August 26, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

finding someone new to fight who was minding their own business...

Minding their own business...

MrFun · August 26, 2003, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

So are more and more Americans!

"About 48 percent said the United States should withdraw military personnel because of the attacks"

How many more body bags before the majority favours retreat?

I'm afraid this sorry mess looks like Somalia in slow motion and worst of all, us Brits got sucked in alongside by Tony B-liar...

Read my last post -- I was being

S

A

R

C

A

S

T

I

C

Ted Striker · August 26, 2003, 23:40

closet neocon

MOBIUS · August 26, 2003, 23:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
US and UK aren't leaving until the job is done.

That is precisely what I am worried about!

Quote:

Leaving will just create another bad situation that would require military interventions a couple of years down the road.

Oh reeeeeally? Shoulda taken them out in '91 - but oh no, the US thought better!

Quote:

Perhaps you'd prefer another 20 year long Afghanistan type civil war.

Hey, you mentioned it! And no I wouldn't because that would mean the deaths of soldiers who shouldn't even be there in the first place...

Ted Striker · August 26, 2003, 23:44

The genie is out of the bottle dumbass.

Leaving will do more harm than good.

MOBIUS · August 26, 2003, 23:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

finding someone new to fight who was minding their own business...

Minding their own business...

Well compared to some mad psycho waving his nuclear d*ck in your face (North Korea), you chose to after some old has been playing in a broken down sandpit with a few rusty tanks at the other end of the park (Iraq)...

Way to prioritise!

Drake Tungsten · August 26, 2003, 23:49

I'm sorry, but only a moron ****s around with mad psychos and their nuclear dicks. It's too late to deal with North Korea; might as well take down the tyrants we can actually do something about.

MOBIUS · August 26, 2003, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The genie is out of the bottle dumbass.

More like Pandora's Box has been opened (Oo! Sounds a bit rude!

)

Quote:

Leaving will do more harm than good.

No sh*t, Sherlock!

Yep, you started it and now you have to finish it - worst of all Iraq will probably end up as a Islamic Fundamentalist state allied with Iran and what thanks will you get?

A situation even worse than you began with!

Ted Striker · August 26, 2003, 23:52

YOU = WE

Mr. United Kingdom

MOBIUS · August 26, 2003, 23:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm sorry, but only a moron ****s around with mad psychos and their nuclear dicks. It's too late to deal with North Korea; might as well take down the tyrants we can actually do something about.

So you admit the US totally lost the plot on that one then...?

Still, if you catch him now his missiles can't reach the US. Yet...

Not that anyone would notice if LA was nuked...

Spiffor · August 26, 2003, 23:56

I expect the Democratic candidate to promise stopping the Iraqi operation, if the campaign gets close.

The loss of interest by America for fixing the Iraqi mess is my main fear ever since the fall of Baghdad.

MOBIUS · August 26, 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
YOU = WE

Mr. United Kingdom

Oh please - we all know B-liar's got his tongue so far up Bush's backside that he's tickling his tonsils...

For the record, the majority of the people of the UK did NOT want to go to war with Iraq.

I am only sad that British troops have had to die needlessly in all this...

Drake Tungsten · August 26, 2003, 23:57

Quote:

So you admit the US totally lost the plot on that one then...?

Clinton sure did. Too bad Bush wasn't in office back when we could've stopped them.

Ted Striker · August 26, 2003, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Oh please - we all know B-liar's got his tongue so far up Bush's backside that he's tickling his tonsils...

For the record, the majority of the people of the UK did NOT want to go to war with Iraq.

I am only sad that British troops have had to die needlessly in all this...

Nope.

Why didn't YOU stop it then? Certainly YOU didn't care enough to stop it. YOU could have done so. But YOU DID NOTHING.

And the BRITISH GOVERNMENT sold the war to the world more than the US did!

So YOU = WE

So shut your mouth hypocrite

MOBIUS · August 26, 2003, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
The loss of interest by America for fixing the Iraqi mess is my main fear ever since the fall of Baghdad.

Let's see, power and water WORSE than when the war ended four months ago - still they got the oil up and running pretty quick until it got sabotaged...

Oh sorry, not supposed to mention the oil...

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

So you admit the US totally lost the plot on that one then...?

Clinton sure did. Too bad Bush wasn't in office back when we could've stopped them.

Yeah I agree - Clinton was a prize arse! In many ways his presidency was worse than Reagan and Bush combined.

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Why didn't YOU stop it then? Certainly YOU didn't care enough to stop it. YOU could have done so. But YOU DID NOTHING.

Sorry, I am not the Prime Minister, so short of assassinating him I fail to see what I could have done to prevent it except complain vociferously and go on the anti war march in London - which I did both...

Quote:

And the BRITISH GOVERNMENT sold the war to the world more than the US did!

No, the British government was desperately trying to get UN acceptance - except Bush kept shooting his mouth off and undermining B-liar's best attempts. Unfortunately for B-liar, with his ego he assumed that the UN would end up backing him, by the time he realised he was in too deep - he couldn't back out!

Quote:

So YOU = WE

I just said that the UK pop was AGAINST the war - Blair only succeeded in getting back despite a massive rebellion from his own party by deliberately misleading the country over the threat posed by Saddam!

Quote:

So shut your mouth hypocrite

Actually I think you'll find I am not...

Kuciwalker · August 27, 2003, 00:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Story

So that is an average of more than one US soldier dead per day since the war was officially declared over.

Well, if the war part was called 'Enduring Freedom', perhaps the occupation part could be called 'Enduring Bodycount'?

Now they are talking about increasing troop strengths, which in turn will increase the massive cost that this operation is incurring.

How can the US and the UK extricate themselves from a situation of their own making and how long will it take?

This says more about our ability at waging conventional war and the Iraq army's lack thereof than our inability to be a successful occupation force.

MOBIUS · August 27, 2003, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
This says more about our ability at waging conventional war and the Iraq army's lack thereof than our inability to be a successful occupation force.

Successful occupation forces get the power and water fixed within 4 months!

Successful occupation forces generally capture the leader of the forces fighting against them...

Successful occupation forces find the WMD they used to justify the war in the first place.

Successful occupation forces tend to suffer fewer than 138 deaths in less than 4 months.

Successful occupation forces normally provide effective law and order.

Successful occupation forces usually don't stand by and watch Embassies and UN missions get blown to smithereens...

Have I missed anything?

Kuciwalker · August 27, 2003, 00:20

I'm talking about your thread title.

MichaeltheGreat · August 27, 2003, 00:20

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Story

So that is an average of more than one US soldier dead per day since the war was officially declared over.

Well, if the war part was called 'Enduring Freedom', perhaps the occupation part could be called 'Enduring Bodycount'?

Now they are talking about increasing troop strengths, which in turn will increase the massive cost that this operation is incurring.

How can the US and the UK extricate themselves from a situation of their own making and how long will it take?

Most of the post-May 1 fatalities have been non-combat related. Vehicle accidents, a couple of illness and heat casualties, some ordnance disposal accidents, etc. **** happens on extended deployments, even without the added combat and booby traps from the *******s. If it was easy, then civilians would do it.