← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · heritagelost
Thread ID: 13236 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2004-04-19
2004-04-19 15:08 | User Profile
With the month only 2/3 over, this has clearly been Americans' worst month of the war/police action. Our small army is spread out butter thin and has been beaten into a stand still across Iraq.
The absurd body count reported by the media previously is falling apart, as the pentagon notifies more and more families of the deceased, and the international media reports that half the Iraqi dead are women.
Spain (and most likely the Spanish Legion troops) are pulling out. Poland and others are standing by their original pull-out deadlines. Britain is a shaky ally, and one Madrid style bombing could turn the British political tide like it did in Spain. Russia and many other countries are pulling their civillian engineers.
The US has failed to pump any cheap oil into the US, in fact gas prices are peaking.
The US-backed Iraqi police have fled and their US donated body armor and weapons seized by insurgents. Large parts of the Iraqi defense force have either mutinied or quit. The only Iraqis fighting alongside US troops are Kurdish Marxists eager for a chance to kill Arabs.
If the US keeps dragging this on, I'm guessing that in one year we will be occupying Iraq all by ourselves. The entire world will hate Americans twice as much as they already do. We will be three times more likely to be the target of foreign terrorists. Iraqi will be much worse off than they were under Saddam, as tens of thousands starve, breath DU particles, and hide in their basements as 50 caliber shells rip through their homes.
If the US government intends to control Iraq, it is going to take about three times any many troops on the ground. Will they start a draft?
2004-04-19 15:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=heritagelost]With the month only 2/3 over, this has clearly been Americans' worst month of the war/police action. Our small army is spread out butter thin and has been beaten into a stand still across Iraq.
The absurd body count reported by the media previously is falling apart, as the pentagon notifies more and more families of the deceased, and the international media reports that half the Iraqi dead are women.
Spain (and most likely the Spanish Legion troops) are pulling out. Poland and others are standing by their original pull-out deadlines. Britain is a shaky ally, and one Madrid style bombing could turn the British political tide like it did in Spain. Russia and many other countries are pulling their civillian engineers.
The US has failed to pump any cheap oil into the US, in fact gas prices are peaking.
The US-backed Iraqi police have fled and their US donated body armor and weapons seized by insurgents. Large parts of the Iraqi defense force have either mutinied or quit. The only Iraqis fighting alongside US troops are Kurdish Marxists eager for a chance to kill Arabs.
If the US keeps dragging this on, I'm guessing that in one year we will be occupying Iraq all by ourselves. The entire world will hate Americans twice as much as they already do. We will be three times more likely to be the target of foreign terrorists. Iraqi will be much worse off than they were under Saddam, as tens of thousands starve, breath DU particles, and hide in their basements as 50 caliber shells rip through their homes.
If the US government intends to control Iraq, it is going to take about three times any many troops on the ground. Will they start a draft?[/QUOTE]
Good points Heritagelost. I tune in about once a week to ABC nightly world news and I've noticed their top reports on Iraq have taken on a more skeptical (realistic) tone. American body counts as of last week were right there on screen. I'm not in any way endorsing network news, but as this war against Islam deteriorates into a bloodbath, these news outlets can no longer fully deny the death happening on a daily basis in Iraq.
The other thing is, the oil fields of Iraq and their priceless stock was NOT to be destined for the US, but Israel. This nugget of truth is starting to creep it's way out into the mainstream. The Mosul-Haifa pipeline theory is gaining credibility.
With the war losing support on a daily basis, withdrawal by "coalition" partners is picking up steam and they'll all be gone soon. With Israel openly cleansing the Palestinian leadership with open support from the US Fedgov, it will be US and Israel vs. The Entire World. Countless deaths are inevitable.
2004-04-19 15:46 | User Profile
The US certainly has one of history's highest rate of injured to dead of any war. American personal are well armored, making them hard to kill, but not much harder to injure. You can't put a bullet through the American chest, but you can put a bullet through a limb. Thus, there are thousands and thousands of Americans who are suffering life-long disfigurations and crippling.
2004-04-19 18:47 | User Profile
Well, it looks like we are well on our way towards Lawrence Kaplan's "acceptable" number of [url="http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13178"]30,000 dead Americans[/url].
2004-04-19 19:04 | User Profile
If we use Vietnam is a guide, the ratio could be 1:15. 15 wounded for every one killed. The Pentagon is reporting something like 2,500 serious injures as a result of hostile action, plus 500 serious injuries from non-hostile. Plus thousands of other light injuries. Of course the data is probably manipulated, and is actually worse than that. Also, it doesn't include people "medically evacuated" that could handle the climate and got sick. This is rumored to be thousands more.
This summer, when the temp hits 110-120 degrees it will be impossible for US to use tanks and bradleys for anything but extremely brief assaults. The troops would be cooked to death after too long.
We will have too wait a see what happens, but if the US doesn't take Najaf, Fallujah and others within the next couple weeks, then ten of thousands of militants will have an entire summer to fortify positions and train. You can bet that every metal shop will be running day and night producing more cheap guns, RPG rounds, rockets, morters, ect. (keep in mind that alot of the insurgents weapons are domestic any easily manufactured).
Hell, half the Iraqi economy is probably the manufacter and sale of guns right now.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The US certainly has one of history's highest rate of injured to dead of any war. American personal are well armored, making them hard to kill, but not much harder to injure. You can't put a bullet through the American chest, but you can put a bullet through a limb. Thus, there are thousands and thousands of Americans who are suffering life-long disfigurations and crippling.[/QUOTE]
2004-04-19 21:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=heritagelost]Hell, half the Iraqi economy is probably the manufacter and sale of guns right now.[/QUOTE] It is interesting that when the Neo-cons were beating the wardrums, no one raised the question of weapon ownership in Iraq.
By anyone's standards, ordinary Iraqis are phenomenally well-armed - going into the streets and firing their AK-47s to celebrate an occasion. When one takes a population of 22 million that is armed to its teeth and doesnt like the intruders, youve got a serious problem.
Combine that with Iraq's phenomenal Oil wealth, any would be "Saddam successor" knows that once the foreginers are out and his gang takes control, the moolah is there to rake it all in. And, the US military only creates more enemies every minute by shooting the wrong people, shooting at random and killing the infirm, children and women. Add to that the religious fundamentalists who are possessed as only fanatics can be possessed.
This is a disaster of incalculable proportions.
2004-04-19 22:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=heritagelost]If we use Vietnam is a guide, the ratio could be 1:15. 15 wounded for every one killed.
Checking the first website to popup on Google, "The hostilities in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans. Another 304,000 were wounded." That's 1:5.
The Pentagon is reporting something like 2,500 serious injures as a result of hostile action, plus 500 serious injuries from non-hostile.
I suspect the Pentagon is low-balling that. Over 10,000 have been evacuated. Of course, that doesn't mean they were shot.
This summer, when the temp hits 110-120 degrees it will be impossible for US to use tanks and bradleys for anything but extremely brief assaults. The troops would be cooked to death after too long.
Yes, if the resistance can keep up, it will be very hot for occupation troops.
2004-04-19 22:26 | User Profile
There are statistics and documentaries that say 15 Vietnam Vets were wounded for 1 killed. However, the 304,000 is probably serious debilitating injuries. I've seen figures that 3/4 of a million Americans were "wounded."
The problem with military statistics, is different stats include different things.
I just did a quick search on yahoo. Here is a page that says over 100,000 Americans died in Vietnam.
[url]http://www.libraryspot.com/lists/listwars.htm[/url]
This one is really screwed up. It says 47,000 died and 150,000 wounded.
[url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Checking the first website to popup on Google, "The hostilities in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans. Another 304,000 were wounded." That's 1:5.
I suspect the Pentagon is low-balling that. Over 10,000 have been evacuated. Of course, that doesn't mean they were shot.
Yes, if the resistance can keep up, it will be very hot for occupation troops.[/QUOTE]
2004-04-19 23:18 | User Profile
[B]heritagelost[/B] [QUOTE]If we use Vietnam is a guide, the ratio could be 1:15. 15 wounded for every one killed. The Pentagon is reporting something like 2,500 serious injures as a result of hostile action, plus 500 serious injuries from non-hostile. Plus thousands of other light injuries. Of course the data is probably manipulated, and is actually worse than that. Also, it doesn't include people "medically evacuated" that could handle the climate and got sick. This is rumored to be thousands more.[/QUOTE]America in World War I had little over 50,000 dead from combat with another 100,000 or so seriously wounded plus 100,000 or so wounded slightly, but carded for records.
In Vietnam about 48,000 died from combat and 10,000 from accidents. (In World War I American non-combat dead was 53,000, primarily from influenza). In Vietnam there were about 150,000 wounded seriously. For many years these were the figures published. Please note that in World War I there were 4 wounded for every man killed while in Vietnam there were 3 wounded for every man killed. Intelligent people would be puzzled as to how the ratio could decrease in 50 years when medicene had undoubtedly progressed, and helicopters were used to transport the wounded to aid stations. The answer was in how the wounded were computed. There were another 150,000 lightly wounded who were not counted.
Why they were not counted is the great mystery. Powerful people did not wish to note that Vietnam was bloodier than World War I for America and did not wish to count the additional 150,000 as they did in World War I. In Vietnam there were about 6 wounded for every man killed.
In World War II, if I remember correctly, America infantry dead were about 140,000 with 520,000 wounded. A ratio of about 3.5 to 1. If the gallant Nisei are to be believed, the most heavily decorated American unit of all time suffered 16 wounded for every man killed. I urge extreme caution in accepting this factoid.
I covered most of this in my book.
2004-04-19 23:23 | User Profile
The point I think that needs to be stressed is how, by sheer coincidence mind you, none of the armchair warriors pushing for this war have ever had to dodge a bullet, from the Michael Savages and Billy Kristols media shills on up through the Wolfowitzes and the Perles puking sweet nothings into Bush's ear. I don't really count Bush's time joyriding in an F-102 as service, since even flying supersonic aircraft wasn't enough to hold his interest. Sean Hannity and Joe Farah simply must, for the sake of the country and our way of life, grab an M-16 and get over there and show our GIs how it's really done. That goes double for Neal Boortz, Mike Gallagher and especially Limbaugh, who could use "the lovely Marta" as a human shield as far as I'm concerned.
I just hope Farah doesn't suffer permanent injury to his moustasche. :saddam:
Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter could do yeoman's work shoring up troop morale by volunteering to be "comfort women." I mean they're pretty much already pros anyway. Dollars for services rendered and all. Of course that also applies to the above brave heroes as well.
2004-04-19 23:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The US certainly has one of history's highest rate of injured to dead of any war. American personal are well armored, making them hard to kill, but not much harder to injure. You can't put a bullet through the American chest, but you can put a bullet through a limb. Thus, there are thousands and thousands of Americans who are suffering life-long disfigurations and crippling.[/QUOTE]ZOG's soldiers over in Iraq better hope the Iraqis don't stop their spraying-n-praying in order to start taking more headshots. American helmets are only rated to NIJ Class IIIA, so while that provides good protection (it'll stop a 9mm submachine gun round or a .44 Mag), an AK or Dragunov round will zip right though it. (And then there's the exposed face as well....)
By the way, those helmets can be bought here in the states, and even though they don't provide much protection from rifles, they will stop rounds fired from the MP5, the favorite weapon of most of ZOG's jack-booted thugs. (Mine is made by RBR, and I'm very happy with it.) Who knows what the future holds? I encourage everyone to get some ballistic armor for himself before it's outlawed.
2004-04-20 16:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]The point I think that needs to be stressed is how, by sheer coincidence mind you, none of the armchair warriors pushing for this war have ever had to dodge a bullet, from the [B]Michael Savages [/B] and [B]Billy Kristols[/B] media shills on up through the [B]Wolfowitzes[/B] and the [B]Perles[/B] puking sweet nothings into Bush's ear. I don't really count [B]Bush'[/B]s time joyriding in an F-102 as service, since even flying supersonic aircraft wasn't enough to hold his interest. [B]Sean Hannity[/B] and [B]Joe Farah[/B] simply must, for the sake of the country and our way of life, grab an M-16 and get over there and show our GIs how it's really done. That goes double for [B]Neal Boortz[/B], [B]Mike Gallagher[/B] and especially [B]Limbaugh[/B], who could use "the lovely Marta" as a human shield as far as I'm concerned.
I just hope Farah doesn't suffer permanent injury to his moustasche. :saddam:
[B]Laura Ingraham[/B] and [B]Ann Coulter[/B] could do yeoman's work shoring up troop morale by volunteering to be "comfort women." I mean they're pretty much already pros anyway. Dollars for services rendered and all. Of course that also applies to the above brave heroes as well.[/QUOTE]Most American wars in the past have been incited by those who will not endanger themselves or their offspring. Jews have been documented by me for their cowardice in now 6 American wars.
Coulter and Ingraham as comfort women!!! Where are the lovely Eurasians from Vietnam?
2004-04-20 16:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]ZOG's soldiers over in Iraq better hope the Iraqis don't stop their spraying-n-praying in order to start taking more headshots. American helmets are only rated to NIJ Class IIIA, so while that provides good protection (it'll stop a 9mm submachine gun round or a .44 Mag), an AK or Dragunov round will zip right though it. (And then there's the exposed face as well....)
By the way, those helmets can be bought here in the states, and even though they don't provide much protection from rifles, they will stop rounds fired from the MP5, the favorite weapon of most of ZOG's jack-booted thugs. (Mine is made by RBR, and I'm very happy with it.) Who knows what the future holds? I encourage everyone to get some ballistic armor for himself before it's outlawed.[/QUOTE]What use do you have for a helmet?