Warbird Information Exchange

Today, Mon. March 24, we find the Easter weekend meant 4 more US soldiers killed in Iraq. This brings the official score to 4000. The true score is more like 5000 if it includes US civilians like contractors and journalists. This in 5 years. There are about 30,000 wounded also, many with horrible brain injuries so they are little more than breathing cadavers, and those with lifelong severe wounds like loss of limbs or eyesight. The cost figures run from $600 billion to as high as $3 trillion depending on sources and how inclusive the total is.
In my view, a lot more shock than awe.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I certainly wouldn't want to trivialize any service member's death however it should be noted that many service people die in peace time as well. It is dangerous work and it takes a brave and dedicated person to serve even during peacetime.

We have made some significant advances in tactics, equipment, and medicine that keep us from having casualties on the scale of WWII were we lost 380,000 service members in a time frame shorter that the current conflict.

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/C ... Rates1.pdf

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/C ... castop.htm

The price of freedom has a cost. Most of those folks volunteered to go over there to do their part. Let us celebrate that fact.

B-29, as for "volunteered to go over there", that's a good slogan, but not quite true for many. They joined the military since there is no draft, many were paid a big cash bonus, some have said it was to get money for school etc. They were then sent to Iraq, some for multiple terms despite the terms used when signing up. As for celebrating them, people truly volunteered to go on the Titanic, but their deaths nevertheless were a tragedy.
As for freedom, are you taking about the Sheites (sp) or here in the US? Are we any more free here than we were before the invasion in 2002? Are oil prices over $100/barrel, mortgage rates and terms, the economy, and unemployment giving most people the freedom to live as they want?

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Ryan, why use only 380,000 as a standard for war deaths? We haven't lost anywhere near the 500,000 killed in our Civil War, so why worry about a few now.
Kind of like O J, some consider him a despicable murderer, but if one just remembers that he only killed two and Ted Bundy may have done about fifty, then OJ, kind of like this war, really is no big deal and looks pretty good by comparison.
Some nitpicker might point out those others were much bigger wars, though.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Like Ryan quoted on the bottom of his reply.

“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.” - George S. Patton

I see some of the media is out celebrating the 4,000 th. KIA.

As far as "much bigger wars" go you can take Operation Overlord alone for instance where an estimated 10,000 allied servicemen lost their lives in the course of a couple of days.

Although, the Civil War was considered the first "modern war" by many historians I think the tactics were so vastly different that the comparison in casualties is almost irrelevant also considering that "Antiseptic Principle Of The Practice Of Surgery" wasn't published until 1867 and many, many wounded, or even sick men died needlessly due to simple lack of sanitation.

Also you failed to even address the fact that in some years nearly as many or even more military servicemen lost their lives in peace time.

Also my whole point was that things seem to be getting better as opposed to worse looking at statistics from WWII on. Sure it would be great if we could win a war by loosing nobody but we all know that doesn't seem realistic with current technology and perhaps ever. In the meantime I am glad that we are doing things smarter and that less are having to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

I realize that you think the war is unjust and that and I know even if we lost a single serviceman in this war it would be too many for you so why even mention the number as a rolling tally.

Your analogy of the OJ murder is an insult to your intelligence. It was a lame attempt to make it out as if I could care less about their lives when I specifically made the point of stating that no loss of life should be trivialized. Bill you are a smart individual and I am sure that you can make a point without bending people's words.

Ryan

.

[quote="rwdfresno"][quote="Bill Greenwood"]Ryan, why use only 380,000 as a standard for war deaths? We haven't lost anywhere near the 500,000 killed in our Civil War, so why worry about a few now.
Kind of like O J, some consider him a despicable murderer, but if one just remembers that he only killed two and Ted Bundy may have done about fifty, then OJ, kind of like this war, really is no big deal and looks pretty good by comparison.
Some nitpicker might point out those others were much bigger wars, though.[/quote]

As far as "much bigger wars" go you can take Operation Overlord alone for instance where an estimated 10,000 allied servicemen lost their lives in the course of a couple of days.

Although, the Civil War was considered the first "modern war" by many historians I think the tactics were so vastly different that the comparison in casualties is almost irrelevant also considering that "Antiseptic Principle Of The Practice Of Surgery" wasn't published until 1867 and many, many wounded, or even sick men died needlessly due to simple lack of sanitation.

Also you failed to even address the fact that in some years nearly as many or even more military servicemen lost their lives in peace time.

Also my whole point was that things seem to be getting better as opposed to worse looking at statistics from WWII on. Sure it would be great if we could win a war by loosing nobody but we all know that doesn't seem realistic with current technology and perhaps ever. In the meantime I am glad that we are doing things smarter and that less are having to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

I realize that you think the war is unjust and that and I know even if we lost a single serviceman in this war it would be too many for you so why even mention the number as a rolling tally.

Your analogy of the OJ murder is an insult to your intelligence. It was a lame attempt to make it out as if I could care less about their lives when I specifically made the point of stating that no loss of life should be trivialized. Bill you are a smart individual and I am sure that you can make a point without bending people's words.

Ryan

.[/quote]

Your talking to a guy that wouldn't risk his skin to go 30 feet to save a pregnat ladies life.. Let alone half way around the world. Don't waste your breath or time typing

B-29, I think there are many parents, wives, sons, daughters who are mourning these losses, not celebrating them. One man was on CBS News tonight, "He was my son, my only son, " with tears in his eyes. Where did you see any media "celebration" of these losses, as you wrote? i think we can celebrate their efforts, in some wars their results, but we should never forget their losses.
As for the quote from Patton, he was the general almost busted from his command for hitting a combat vet in a hospital bed in WWII. I think he was known for little regard for the lives of the men in his command. I feel the opposite about the worth of our young people.

Ryan, I wasn't trying to "bend" your words. It seemed to me the point you were making these 4000 or 5000 dead were insignificant compared to WWII. I could as easily have said the 50,000 in Korea or 58,000 dead in Vietnam are of small matter compared to your 380,000. Not true of course.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

AP, New York Times, Dallas Morning News, to name a few. Just look at the head lines and read between the lines. Why do you think the media is reviled more than lawyers?

Every man and woman who signed the papers, took the Oath, and accepted the benefits, knew when they did that getting killed in a war was a possibility, and they accepted the risks. If they did not, then they should have never accepted the offer. That is the difference between a volunteer, and a draftee. They were given plenty of chances to quit before they took the oath.

The death toll in Iraq is far less than it might have been- more than it should be, but I will not recount missteps by this administration: to cry over spilled milk is absurd. To figure how to stop the milk from spilling more is the best plan. Lots more blood will spill if we were to start pulling out our troops in anything less than a stable environment, not to mention the loss of face in the eastern world, which is more important to them than us. We will lose face, and it will become open season on us here, rather than there. Pin them there, and keep the fight away from our shores.

As to Patton, he loved his men. They got killed, but they took the objectives at a minimal cost, rather than getting ground down in a siege. And as to Patton slapping troops, he darn well should have! It may seem extreme to many, but the honest truth is that cowardice begets cowardice- which is why when troops break and run, others follow. Just be glad he didn't subscribe to the Roman tradition of "Decimation", where, to keep the troops loyal, they killed every tenth man, hence the term. And most of Patton's troops loved him. The 4th Armored Division was shipped home after the war, not as a unit, like all the other divisions, but broken up and placed into other units. Why? Because they were Patton's Best and Most Loyal unit. The US Army was afraid that they may revolt if Patton was mistreated- so they broke them up. There was a reason Patton was a Great field General- He knew how to do the job. He could never have been a staff general, it was beyond his capability. All we have now are staff Generals. We need a Patton, and we need for the military to be allowed to do their job without being hindered by politicians. We learned that the hard way in Viet Nam. We are relearning it in Iraq. We shouldn't have had to. But too many protesters have screwed this country's ability to wage war.

War is dirty, smelly, deadly, evil and horrible. It needs to be. It needs to be so awful no one will want to go to war. It needs to be so terrible, no country will want to expose their soldiers to it. But we must always be ready, and prepared to do so- so no one will want to draw us into one.

Robbie

[quote="Broken-Wrench]
Your talking to a guy that wouldn't risk his skin to go 30 feet to save a pregnat ladies life.. Let alone half way around the world. Don't waste your breath or time typing [/quote]

reign it in wench. Bills good people. Just because he has different views doesn't mean he isn't worthy of a respectful attitude. I, on the other hand, am a scumsucking pinko liberal who throws fish at people.

*throws fish at Wench*

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

[quote="muddyboots"][quote="Broken-Wrench]
Your talking to a guy that wouldn't risk his skin to go 30 feet to save a pregnat ladies life.. Let alone half way around the world. Don't waste your breath or time typing [/quote]




it is what it is

B-29, I saw our local paper as well as the Denver Post/News and national TV channels and I saw no "celebration" of these deaths. I will take a look at the NY Times in the morning if I can find it. Perhaps you can post a quoe of the headline you refer to. I can only read what is written, but you may see something else "between the lines".
Robbie, some of these "volunteers to go over there" joined during peacetime and before we started this war. Others joined for patriotic reasons that were based on false information like WMD. Others joined because they could get $30,000 to pay debts, or hope to pay for school.
If one really wanted to see if there was volunteer army, let there be transport, ships and planes available for those who want to come home. Let those who want to stay with the Iraqis stay. Most of all don't have the deceitful practice of telling people there will be a 12 month term, the keeping them there 15, or the hugely unfair practice of sending the same soldiers back time after time when once should have fulfilled their duty. Some have been 3 or even 4 tours before being killed or maimed.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

In Peace or war, they knew the chance was there, and they had no excuse to say they did not. What did they think the military was for, if not to fight the wars this country gets involved, by choice or not, and to defend the American way of life? Did they think the military was an education and money machine? No- they did not. Every recruiter is required to explain "If we go to war, you may be called to go" Whether they chose to discount this to themselves to take the education, or the money, or just play John Wayne on their own mind(I think that's why I joined...) the sole purpose of the military in this country is to go to war when told to. It does not matter if they "joined during peacetime" or not- their contract did not say "Sunny Days only, no rain or war" and had no "In case of conflict, stay home" clause. It was all there in back and white, and every recruit is instructed to read the whole contract before signing it.

Free education, money for college and debts, are the carrot. The recruiter explains the deal. It was their CHOICE to decide if they wished to take the deal or not- no one forced them. We in the military have no choice in the fight: We do what we are told. It is not our place to pick and choose what wars we want to be in(If we could, I'd pick WWII, with Viet Nam as my second choice.) We go where we are told, do what we are instructed, and pray we make it through. There is nothing in the contract about wars being optional, and at the buyer's discretion.

You can't say say "patriotic reasons that were based on false information like WMD" because the best information WE ALL had was that they were there. The people coming out of Iraq were telling us this. The indicators said so. GWB doesn't have a crystal ball, the CIA has no way to tell what is going on in someone else's head. Anyone who says they knew the WMD was a white herring before hand is either a liar or excessively prescient. The facts given to us by defectors, and the way things added up, it certainly looked like there was a case. Whoops. Sierra happens. I would rather get into a war with a ruthless dictator(and Saddam Hussein fits that description- just ask the millions of Kurds he gassed. Oh, wait, they're DEAD) who we believe has WMD, than just play sunshine and lollipops, and go along till the Kurds he gasses are in my cottage cheese!(Apologies to Kurds, but I think you can see the analogy) The mistake we made was dicking around so long after taking over the country, and having no solid plan after victory. So quit whining- those of us in the military are often ashamed of the people back here saying how terrible we are doing, etc. It is a dishonor to those who have died to say they were fooled into taking their contract in the military. If we leave before the job is properly done, then they will all have died in vain- and it will be the fault of every singe person who derides what we are doing there, and wants peace at any price. Peace at any price is too expensive, as you will lose everything in the end. David Lloyd George thought he had peace in his time at Munich, with another dictator, and look what that got the world.

Robbie