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

[Defiant]

I am just curious, I saw on the news last night that on average we are losing 1.2 souls/day in Iraq but in California we are losing 6.6 souls/day.
Mobius in your good conscience, why don't you do a thread on the 6.6 souls/day lost in California.

[Kuciwalker]

We should pull out of California.

[Defiant]

Now there is an idea. Betcha, Davis would like to think that route.

[Defiant]

Hell, when you think about it, our soldiers are probably safer in Iraq then California.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, we should have pulled out of Florida

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Defiant
I am just curious, I saw on the news last night that on average we are losing 1.2 souls/day in Iraq but in California we are losing 6.6 souls/day.
Mobius in your good conscience, why don't you do a thread on the 6.6 souls/day lost in California.

Because no one cares about California.

You know I can't wait until there are 100 soldiers dying every day and the Conservative numbskulls start saying, "Well more people die in Pennsylvania every day".

No integrity or credibility, that's your problem.

[Kuciwalker]

If the one per day has stayed relatively constant, why would you think it would change?

[Defiant]

Agathon,
What if a asteroid hit the earth and we all die, 100/day, what do you base that on, dumbass, rediculous argument.
Here is one for you, we do nothing and they load up a whole lot more planes and we lose thousands more, anything possible in "what if" scenarios.

[SlowwHand]

Stop the war because of casualties.

More people killed every day in auto accidents than the total in this war.
Ban cars.

[MikeH]

YEAH! Ban cars!

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


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.

That's an interesting point - I saw the full list of causes of Australian deaths in Vietnam. Only about a third to half were directly combat related. The rest were deaths from disease or accidents.

[SlowwHand]

More fat slobs die of congestive heart failure.
Ban damn McDonald's.

[Defiant]

That's also a point, if you take the 150M troops that we have there and brought them home and tag them and watch, I'll bet you will lose some through natural occurances and accidents. I don't know number but that has to be offset by the 1.2/day lost souls.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant
Hell, when you think about it, our soldiers are probably safer in Iraq then California.

Compare the number of people in California to the number of soldiers in Iraq. According to the numbers I've seen in this thread... 1.2 Americans dying in Iraq per day... 6.6 dying in California per day... except there are only about 200k Americans in Iraq compared to what, 30 million in California? In California numbers... there are 150 people dying per day compared to 6.6...

[Alexander's Horse]

My cousin was a chaplain in Vietnam. He told me about one incident where some dozy digger got a grenade caught in his webbing and the pin fell out. The grenade killed several soldiers in the back of the truck he was travelling in. All pretty pointless tragedy.

Another soldier got run over by his own tank

Be aware armies usually don't list suicides as suicides.

[Defiant]

I know Sava, that is why I did the little laughy guy at the end, but there are still 6.6 souls a day lost in California.

[Alexander's Horse]

One big cause of deaths is accidents cleaning weapons and misfires.

[Sava]

I know Sava, that is why I did the little laughy guy at the end, but there are still 6.6 souls a day lost in California.

Yup... 3,000 people died in America from foreign terrorism since 1990... how many other died from other causes? But yet, look at how much money we are pissing away on the war on terror. As percentage of deaths per year, terrorism is low on the totem pole, yet probably receives the most money. Imagine if we spent that money on making safer cars or offered... god forbid... HEALTH CARE TO AMERICANS... you talk about saving lives, but yet, you support a political party that doesn't want to contribute to the biggest life saving service... HEALTH CARE.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yep... I only wonder how they were dumb enough to fall for it. OBL must be jumping with joy - this is what he was trying to do with S11.

Yeah, assuming he's anything more than fragments of taped voice to be spliced into a new audio tape every few months, and that if alive, he has enough room to even stand up in whatever little shithole he's hiding in like some cur dog, he's probably boogieing down to Saturday Night Fever.

Due to the US support of Israel and it's heavy handedness in the region he now has an endless supply of recruits and now a handy place to kill the infidels, which has been his plan all along.

We've really seen evidence of that "endless supply of recruits," haven't we? And even if he has new recruits, where are they going to train?

All he needs to do is destablilze the occupation so that the ordinary Iraqi sees the US as making things worse and he'll be on the road to winning. So far, so good.

Whatever gets you through the night.

I don't like him much, but when he said "America is much weaker than it appears", he was absolutely right.

Doesn't matter, because the rest of the world is even weaker still.

[Q Classic]

i like how shinseki, a veteran of peacekeeping operations, was ignored and pretty much told he didn't know jack when he said we'd need more troops there not for combat, but for the occupation.

other than that, it's pointless griping about what was and wasn't done before the war and during the war.

we're stuck there. pulling out will yield worse results, and doesn't guarantee the fertilization and spreading of the democratic seed in iraq. we have to stay until we're done, and it's as simple as that.

[Alexander's Horse]

Come to think of it, soldiers do incredibly dumb and dnagerous things just being the kids that most of em are. I'm surprised there haven't been more deaths so far..........

[Sava]

i like how shinseki, a veteran of peacekeeping operations, was ignored and pretty much told he didn't know jack when he said we'd need more troops there not for combat, but for the occupation.

in the words of my Serbian grandfather.... (in broken English of course)

"These Americans are stupid! This is guerilla war. Americans aren't policemen, they are soldiers. It's the same with Nazis! They conquer... but die in occupation and then lose. Let the UN play policeman. For each German who die in occupation, Hitler kill 100 Serbians. Americans are smart and pretend to help Iraqis, but still losing..."

[MikeH]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat We've really seen evidence of that "endless supply of recruits," haven't we? And even if he has new recruits, where are they going to train?

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, the countries in which they are going to operate (eg taking flying lessons in the US).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Especially with the amount of Iraqi ordnance that we're confiscating and destroying. We've had a few people blown up that way, but very few.

[Defiant]

"Yup... 3,000 people died in America from foreign terrorism since 1990... how many other died from other causes? But yet, look at how much money we are pissing away on the war on terror. As percentage of deaths per year, terrorism is low on the totem pole, yet probably receives the most money. Imagine if we spent that money on making safer cars or offered... god forbid... HEALTH CARE TO AMERICANS... you talk about saving lives, but yet, you support a political party that doesn't want to contribute to the biggest life saving service... HEALTH CARE. "

Here's the point, we cannot allow terrorism to even get off its feet, these dickweeds ever plant a glow-in-the-dark bomb in a major city then you will see catastrophe at its highest, we cannot allow this at all costs. Maybe I differ with you on this(there's a surprise) but I view terrorism a major threat, risk.
And don't worry about welfare programs, out of a 2.2 trillion budget, 1.4 is spent on social welfare programs, you are getting more than your fair share of money. My only criticism of Bush is his spending, in that regard he is acting a bit like a liberal.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Libya seems to be all touchy-feely hands offy, lately. The Saudis are two-faced bastards, of course, but it's rather hard to set up training camps there without us knowing about it.

Iran might work, but why would the Iranians pursue a high-risk, no return (to them) strategy like that? They're not nicer fundies, they're smarter fundies, and if they think the US occupation is going to be significantly destabilized, their best strategy is to increase their influence with the Shiite majority, and wait for the situation to fall in their laps. Why should the Iranians run any risk of getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar?

[GePap]

I doubt that terrorists lack for training facilities: all it takes is a room to show some guy to make a bomb. Terrorirsm existed long before this whole "terrorist training camp" thing even got started.

[Sava]

Here's the point, we cannot allow terrorism to even get off its feet, these dickweeds ever plant a glow-in-the-dark bomb in a major city then you will see catastrophe at its highest, we cannot allow this at all costs. Maybe I differ with you on this(there's a surprise) but I view terrorism a major threat, risk.
And don't worry about welfare programs, out of a 2.2 trillion budgest, 1.4 is spend on social welfare programs, you are getting more than your fair share of money. My only criticism of Bush is his spending, in that regard he is acting a bit like a liberal.

But you are missing the point. Have you even bothered to ask why OBL and company hate America? Because of our military presence in Saudi Arabia. Americans generally don't get it. Militant muslims don't want us in their "holy land". The longer we are there, the more they will try to kill us. I'm not saying we shouldn't spend money on protecting ourselves... but the war in Iraq is a terribly ineffective use of money, resources, and manpower. Still, according to what I hear in the media, less than 10% of cargo in America is inspected. With 90% of cargo going unchecked, it's just a matter of time before a nuke gets sneaked in. But yet, our geniuses in Washington don't want to inspect more cargo because of business opposition to it. Instead, they'd rather go stomping around in someone else's holy land the spend the money to protect Americans at home.

And don't give me that broad 1.4 trillion BS... unless you are going to give a detailed explanation of figures don't bother mentioning any numbers. A great percentage of that is probably waste, pork, and other excess spending that doesn't help people. Spending and waste is a problem that we agree on. I'm pissed off because social programs are suffering, you're pissed off because the money is being wasted... both parties are to blame. And don't give me that liberal spending crap, either. Bush has set records for spending and propogated the largest increases in government.

[SlowwHand]

Kadaffy learned his lesson.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by skywalker
Actually, we should have pulled out of Florida

Your dad should have pulled out of your mom so we wouldn't have to listen to you.

(Sorry but the set up was just to good to pass up. )