Kerry's Tank Ride

[??????????]

khirkhib,

Those figures record all that have died due to the war, not just in theater.  That includes the injured which have been flown out to Germany and the US to recover from injuries.  As far as the "2 a day" figure, it comes from the Pentagon itself.  It's a standard figure used for years to be used in statistical models.

The DoD has been using that method for tallying war dead since the civil war. I personally think it's ridiculous. If you served in the US Army in 1943 and your jeep rolled over in Camp Benning you would have been considered a casualty of WW2.

People die for all kinds of reasons while serving seperate from enemy fire. And anyone who serves and dies while serving is no less a soldier to me whether they died from gun fire or a meteorite falling on their head. I think I know what youre trying to say States, but it doesnt sound that way.

To die in an accident or incident outside of regular combat should NOT be included in war casualities. The current system I find ridiculous.

I would disagree with you then. To serve is to serve.

So if you joined the military right now and died in a Humvee acccident in Detroit then your death should be included as a "Casualty of the Iraq War"?

[MODU]

khirkhib,

Those figures record all that have died due to the war, not just in theater.  That includes the injured which have been flown out to Germany and the US to recover from injuries.  As far as the "2 a day" figure, it comes from the Pentagon itself.  It's a standard figure used for years to be used in statistical models.

The DoD has been using that method for tallying war dead since the civil war. I personally think it's ridiculous. If you served in the US Army in 1943 and your jeep rolled over in Camp Benning you would have been considered a casualty of WW2.

No, it's not to be used as far as war deaths.  It's just to indicate that approximately 700 military personnel die each year domestically for various reasons.  My point is that if the death rate during a war is less than that normally occurs here at home, that's a good sign that our troops are well trained and protected, and aren't being sent out on suicide missions.

[Patunia]

khirkhib,

Those figures record all that have died due to the war, not just in theater.  That includes the injured which have been flown out to Germany and the US to recover from injuries.  As far as the "2 a day" figure, it comes from the Pentagon itself.  It's a standard figure used for years to be used in statistical models.

The DoD has been using that method for tallying war dead since the civil war. I personally think it's ridiculous. If you served in the US Army in 1943 and your jeep rolled over in Camp Benning you would have been considered a casualty of WW2.

People die for all kinds of reasons while serving seperate from enemy fire. And anyone who serves and dies while serving is no less a soldier to me whether they died from gun fire or a meteorite falling on their head. I think I know what youre trying to say States, but it doesnt sound that way.

To die in an accident or incident outside of regular combat should NOT be included in war casualities. The current system I find ridiculous.

I would disagree with you then. To serve is to serve.

So if you joined the military right now and died in a Humvee acccident in Detroit then your death should be included as a "Casualty of the Iraq War"?

No, since I was not stationed in Iraq.

[??????????]

khirkhib,

Those figures record all that have died due to the war, not just in theater.  That includes the injured which have been flown out to Germany and the US to recover from injuries.  As far as the "2 a day" figure, it comes from the Pentagon itself.  It's a standard figure used for years to be used in statistical models.

The DoD has been using that method for tallying war dead since the civil war. I personally think it's ridiculous. If you served in the US Army in 1943 and your jeep rolled over in Camp Benning you would have been considered a casualty of WW2.

People die for all kinds of reasons while serving seperate from enemy fire. And anyone who serves and dies while serving is no less a soldier to me whether they died from gun fire or a meteorite falling on their head. I think I know what youre trying to say States, but it doesnt sound that way.

To die in an accident or incident outside of regular combat should NOT be included in war casualities. The current system I find ridiculous.

I would disagree with you then. To serve is to serve.

So if you joined the military right now and died in a Humvee acccident in Detroit then your death should be included as a "Casualty of the Iraq War"?

No, since I was not stationed in Iraq.

Currently the system works that way that I stated. Thats what I feel is ridiculous.

[Patunia]

Do you have a link.  And yes I know I said that it included people that were injured in the theatre and were flown to Germany or home to recover but died.

Patunia which should we take on first Syria or Iran and how far into Bush's next administration.  2005? 2006?  Iran will be trickier because it does have a population of like 70 million compared to Iraq with 25 million and Afghanistan with 30 million.  Syria might be fairly easy they have a population of about 20 million but it is a small country and we can base in Iraq and Isreal.  Though we do have Iran surrounded as well with Iraq and Afghanistan on both sides.  I wondered if they are worried.

I trust this administration to make that choice. I would pick Syria myself though. Give Iran more time to come to their senses. And eliminating Syria as a threat also strengthens Israels position in the region.

[??????????]

Do you have a link.  And yes I know I said that it included people that were injured in the theatre and were flown to Germany or home to recover but died.

Patunia which should we take on first Syria or Iran and how far into Bush's next administration.  2005? 2006?  Iran will be trickier because it does have a population of like 70 million compared to Iraq with 25 million and Afghanistan with 30 million.  Syria might be fairly easy they have a population of about 20 million but it is a small country and we can base in Iraq and Isreal.  Though we do have Iran surrounded as well with Iraq and Afghanistan on both sides.  I wondered if they are worried.

I trust this administration to make that choice. I would pick Syria myself though. Give Iran more time to come to their senses. And eliminating Syria as a threat also strengthens Israels position in the region.

Plus since the majority of the WMDs were moved to Syria, I'm sure once there we would find them.

[khirkhib]

Still you are twice as likely to die in the military now than you were before the War in Iraq. So is two a day an acceptable death rate/

[??????????]

Would you rather lose 6k in one day? Like on DDay? Or 4k in 5 minutes at cold harbor? Two a day is dern low.

[mddem2004]

First off, Ive never personally cared about WMDs. Ive felt since shortly after 9/11 that the best way to get rid of terrorism is to make the middle east an area we dont have to worry. I look back to WWII for an example of how to do that. Im of the opion that (and have been for quite some time) we should invade Syria and Iran as well. Occupy and then transform them. Democracies dont produce groups like Al Queda.

Try telling that to the families that have lost someone for Bush's War of Choice. Man.....I AM glad you are supporting the other guy........

It appears that you and others that think like you are gonna have to learn the hard way:
a) You can't impose Democracy by force of Arms. And don't give me the Germany/Japan comparison BS. NOT relevant to the Middle East.
b) Democracies (as we claim to be) don't put up with "Occupy and Transform them" by force of arms policys from our leadership.....as this election WILL prove.
c) You obviously know nothing of the history of other "Great Powers" that have tried to "occupy and transform" this region. They've ALL failed and we would be no different with that approach.

Again.....I feel quite fortunate you support the other guy......

[MODU]

Still you are twice as likely to die in the military now than you were before the War in Iraq. So is two a day an acceptable death rate/

Yes.

[??????????]

War of Choice is the biggest lie of a phrase ever.

Saddam chose to battle us. He chose to violate the cease fire and ignore 15 UN resolutions...but keep overlooking that fact, ok?

[??????????]

Still you are twice as likely to die in the military now than you were before the War in Iraq. So is two a day an acceptable death rate/

Yes.

Expect to be called a war monger or something... Fair warning.

[Patunia]

First off, Ive never personally cared about WMDs. Ive felt since shortly after 9/11 that the best way to get rid of terrorism is to make the middle east an area we dont have to worry. I look back to WWII for an example of how to do that. Im of the opion that (and have been for quite some time) we should invade Syria and Iran as well. Occupy and then transform them. Democracies dont produce groups like Al Queda.

Try telling that to the families that have lost someone for Bush's War of Choice. Man.....I AM glad you are supporting the other guy........

It appears that you and others that think like you are gonna have to learn the hard way:
a) You can't impose Democracy by force of Arms. And don't give me the Germany/Japan comparison BS. NOT relevant to the Middle East.
b) Democracies (as we claim to be) don't put up with "Occupy and Transform them" by force of arms policys from our leadership.....as this election WILL prove.
c) You obviously know nothing of the history of other "Great Powers" that have tried to "occupy and transform" this region. They've ALL failed and we would be no different with that approach.

Again.....I feel quite fortunate you support the other guy......

Your ignorance is your bliss. All the other "Great Powers" you refer to had an agenda the polar opposite of the US agenda. I would argue that Germany and Japan are perfect examples of what is happening here. There is no difference. Taken by force, occupied by force and withdrawl by democracy. The old colonial powers never had withdrawl in mind. I want you to name one country that was occupied by the US (or any other country) with the intention of leaving it a democracy that failed. Youll name Viet Nam, but what happened after we left there was an invasion from the north. And any of those formerly occupied countries that old Euorpean powers abandoned dont count either. They were forced out and never left any kind of stable system behind.

[mddem2004]

War of Choice is the biggest lie of a phrase ever.

Saddam chose to battle us. He chose to violate the cease fire and ignore 15 UN resolutions...but keep overlooking that fact, ok?

I will as long as you persist in overlooking the fact that the UN inspectors were asking for a mere 90 more days to verify what has cost us 1000 lives and 6500+ wounded to prove -  That Iraq posed DIDN'T POSSESS WMD'S AND POSED NO WMD THREAT.

War of Choice is the only fitting discription of Bush's quagmire.

[A18]

Yes, but even if we went in to Syria they could still hide them pretty damn well.

I think it's important to disarm Iran before it's too late.

[MODU]

Still you are twice as likely to die in the military now than you were before the War in Iraq. So is two a day an acceptable death rate/

Yes.

Expect to be called a war monger or something... Fair warning.

Fine by me.  I've got (and retained) my ribbons.  I've lost some friends.  Bring it on.  

[Patunia]

War of Choice is the biggest lie of a phrase ever.

Saddam chose to battle us. He chose to violate the cease fire and ignore 15 UN resolutions...but keep overlooking that fact, ok?

I will as long as you persist in overlooking the fact that the UN inspectors were asking for a mere 90 more days to verify what has cost us 1000 lives and 6500+ wounded to prove -  That Iraq posed DIDN'T POSSESS WMD'S AND POSED NO WMD THREAT.

War of Choice is the only fitting discription of Bush's quagmire.

You love throwing around the numbers dont you? How about the 10s of thousands that Saddam can not butcher now? How about a potentially stable democracy in Iraq that has the potential to influence the entire region uplifting 10s of millions? How about the great big fat 0 deaths on American soil from terrorists attacks since 9/11?

[??????????]

War of Choice is the biggest lie of a phrase ever.

Saddam chose to battle us. He chose to violate the cease fire and ignore 15 UN resolutions...but keep overlooking that fact, ok?

I will as long as you persist in overlooking the fact that the UN inspectors were asking for a mere 90 more days to verify what has cost us 1000 lives and 6500+ wounded to prove -  That Iraq posed DIDN'T POSSESS WMD'S AND POSED NO WMD THREAT.

War of Choice is the only fitting discription of Bush's quagmire.

What about from 1992-1998? Do you think Saddam really wanted to cooperate and just throw open the doors for the inspectors? Of course he wouldn't. Read about his rise to power and how is Uncle raised him. He was raised to be an animal.

[mddem2004]

First off, Ive never personally cared about WMDs. Ive felt since shortly after 9/11 that the best way to get rid of terrorism is to make the middle east an area we dont have to worry. I look back to WWII for an example of how to do that. Im of the opion that (and have been for quite some time) we should invade Syria and Iran as well. Occupy and then transform them. Democracies dont produce groups like Al Queda.

Try telling that to the families that have lost someone for Bush's War of Choice. Man.....I AM glad you are supporting the other guy........

It appears that you and others that think like you are gonna have to learn the hard way:
a) You can't impose Democracy by force of Arms. And don't give me the Germany/Japan comparison BS. NOT relevant to the Middle East.
b) Democracies (as we claim to be) don't put up with "Occupy and Transform them" by force of arms policys from our leadership.....as this election WILL prove.
c) You obviously know nothing of the history of other "Great Powers" that have tried to "occupy and transform" this region. They've ALL failed and we would be no different with that approach.

Again.....I feel quite fortunate you support the other guy......

Your ignorance is your bliss. All the other "Great Powers" you refer to had an agenda the polar opposite of the US agenda. I would argue that Germany and Japan are perfect examples of what is happening here. There is no difference. Taken by force, occupied by force and withdrawl by democracy. The old colonial powers never had withdrawl in mind. I want you to name one country that was occupied by the US (or any other country) with the intention of leaving it a democracy that failed. Youll name Viet Nam, but what happened after we left there was an invasion from the north. And any of those formerly occupied countries that old Euorpean powers abandoned dont count either. They were forced out and never left any kind of stable system behind.

Well I for one am glad to be counted as "blissfully Ignorent" in your eyes - given your alternative view of that part of the world.

There is no difference? Who are you trying to kid? Where is there a similarity?
Language, religion, culture, historic animosity to the West dating back centuries, ethnic ties to the "old country", a unifying force against both the USSR and Red China.

Just where - except of course the means (ie military occupation) is there anything like a similarity?

Hasn't it occured to you, or maybe you haven't bothered to listen to what our real enemy (the Al Queda Movement) has been saying to us, your "Western Dominant" view of the world is exactly what they view themselves as fighting against.

We can not and will not remake the middle east in our own vision, not that democracy can't work there, but it MUST be from within - not imposed from without.

[Patunia]

First off, Ive never personally cared about WMDs. Ive felt since shortly after 9/11 that the best way to get rid of terrorism is to make the middle east an area we dont have to worry. I look back to WWII for an example of how to do that. Im of the opion that (and have been for quite some time) we should invade Syria and Iran as well. Occupy and then transform them. Democracies dont produce groups like Al Queda.

Try telling that to the families that have lost someone for Bush's War of Choice. Man.....I AM glad you are supporting the other guy........

It appears that you and others that think like you are gonna have to learn the hard way:
a) You can't impose Democracy by force of Arms. And don't give me the Germany/Japan comparison BS. NOT relevant to the Middle East.
b) Democracies (as we claim to be) don't put up with "Occupy and Transform them" by force of arms policys from our leadership.....as this election WILL prove.
c) You obviously know nothing of the history of other "Great Powers" that have tried to "occupy and transform" this region. They've ALL failed and we would be no different with that approach.

Again.....I feel quite fortunate you support the other guy......

Your ignorance is your bliss. All the other "Great Powers" you refer to had an agenda the polar opposite of the US agenda. I would argue that Germany and Japan are perfect examples of what is happening here. There is no difference. Taken by force, occupied by force and withdrawl by democracy. The old colonial powers never had withdrawl in mind. I want you to name one country that was occupied by the US (or any other country) with the intention of leaving it a democracy that failed. Youll name Viet Nam, but what happened after we left there was an invasion from the north. And any of those formerly occupied countries that old Euorpean powers abandoned dont count either. They were forced out and never left any kind of stable system behind.

Well I for one am glad to be counted as "blissfully Ignorent" in your eyes - given your alternative view of that part of the world.

There is no difference? Who are you trying to kid? Where is there a similarity?
Language, religion, culture, historic animosity to the West dating back centuries, ethnic ties to the "old country", a unifying force against both the USSR and Red China.

Just where - except of course the means (ie military occupation) is there anything like a similarity?

Hasn't it occured to you, or maybe you haven't bothered to listen to what our real enemy (the Al Queda Movement) has been saying to us, your "Western Dominant" view of the world is exactly what they view themselves as fighting against.

We can not and will not remake the middle east in our own vision, not that democracy can't work there, but it MUST be from within - not imposed from without.

I think that you are wrong. The complaints you raise about democracy in the middle east were the same complaints made about Japan.

And Al Quedas motives are motives of convience. It is convient to hold up the US as the devil in order to recruit individuals to their cause. This also works to divert attention away from the ills of their own governments in their own countries.

If you choose to have a defeatist attitude about how much good the US can relly do in the world then so be it. But dont feel to bitter when you are proven wrong. Of course if Kerry is elected and screws this all up, you can feel proud that he half assed us out of there.