Are the number of American deaths in Iraq acceptable?

I dont' even accept death as a good thing, and wasn't trying to say it is okay because under whatever amount have died..

What I was trying to get at and still am trying to get at is.. when I voted I thought the question was more from a military standpoint do you think the number of deaths is an acceptable number or could the military have performed much better and not had as many etc.. I think the military has performed pretty well considering the circumstances and that is why I voted that way.

I certainly don't trivialize any life..


fegwu.. what is his opinion on it?

 

The problem is that a good number of Americans still identify this war as part of the War on Terror. Despite whatever misgivings there are of Iraq currently, Bush still enjoys an advantage over Kerry in polls over issues like being tough on Foreign policy (trust) and handling terrorists threats.

Kerry has to break Bush's assurances of security with sensible alternatives on his own. The one he's given is going to the UN for support. Americans confidence in the UN has been shattered, so he better come up with something else if he plans to win.

 

This a poorly worded poll. No deaths are ever acceptable. But death is an inevitable element of almost any human endeavor. Is the death of a teenage driver acceptable? Shoud we not let teenagers drive? Is a death from cosmetic surgery acceptable? Should we not allow cosmetic surgery?

Military endeavors involve death and the soldiers who are fighting knew that before volunteering for the military. Freeing a population from the control of an evil, sadistic dictator should be enough justification for all the free people of the world to risk death. Not to the point of human waves of cannon fodder so evalutions of risk have to factor into the decisions.

This thing was just spun wrong from the beginning. It should have bee ennobled as a battle of free peoples against tyranny.
If we could have really garnered a coalition of free people and ousted Saddam, that really could have gone a long way toward the elimination of monarchy and dictatorships in the world, possibly without further violence so that the deaths of American ssoldiers in Iraq would be further justified.

Even with the current situation, it is the desire of the Islamic clerics to dictate to the Iraqi people that is perpetuating the violence, so it can still be said that we are battleing tyranny in the name of freedom for the people of Iraq.

We are just executing the propagana war so poorly.

 

What do you mean 'far better than anticipated?' We were told resistence would be minimal because we'd be welcomed as liberators, that Iraqis would be handlind most of the post Saddam security etc.

I do agree the rate might be less than expected for those who were realistic about what Post Saddam Iraq would be like. But this administration hasn't been realistic about that since the beginning.

 

here, four passages are apt:

The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli

http://www.bartleby.com/36/1/4.html
IV. Why the Kingdom of Darius, Conquered by Alexander, Did Not, on Alexander’s Death, Rebel Against His Successors

http://www.bartleby.com/36/1/5.html
V. How Cities or Provinces Which Before Their Acquisition Have Lived Under Their Own Laws Are To Be Governed

http://www.bartleby.com/36/1/17.html
XVII. Of Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether It Is Better To Be Loved or Feared

http://www.bartleby.com/36/1/19.html
XIX. That a Prince Should Seek to Escape Contempt and Hatred

 

George gambled and lost that the WMD most expected to be there would be found. It was a foolish bet at the time.

I don't think any military action would survive public second-guessing if the 'acceptable losses' numbers the military undoubtedly calculates were released. There are no 'acceptable' number of American deaths -- even if some may be inevitable. I expect, however, the casualties are greater than anticipated unless the June turn-over date was just wishful thinking.

The better question might be what should be done to reduce the risk of more deaths while not abandoning the objectives in Iraq.

Or whether they just abandon it altogether, let the Iraqies slaughter eachother and then see what we end up with.

 

FranchiseBlade, don't argue with me for the sake of arguing. It doesn't matter who was told what. The fact is that the casualty rate is far below the anticipated amount when that type of combat environment is. Get a clue.

 

It's not for the sake of arguing. I'm seriously curious as to who you are talking about that anticipated way more casualties. Because this administration certainly didn't anticipate more casualties than we are receiving.

Since there are so many Generals who have disagreed with the amount of troops needed to accomplish the occupation, then I wouldn't be surprised to see the deaths below what some generals had said to be prepared for. But if we are talking about the standard line coming out of the administration then we definitely are not below what they were predicting as far as casualties.

 

Urban combat has long been anticipated as producing high casualties. It has nothing to do with any administration. It has to do with the facts of combat.

 

You are either intentonally overlooking, or are unable to grasp, the cenbtral point FB and others are making. Irrespective of the nature of urban combat probabilities, etc., this administration told us it wouldn't matter, because we wouldn't have to face it. Once we invaded, we were told, we would be welcomed as liberators, and greeted with open arms andflowers.


Now unless military euphamism have extended even farther than calling a bomb an anti-personel device, that right there goes to the point of what FB is saying about 'expectations'. We were told to expect no serious resistance post-invasion. As usual with this admin: Wrong.


Your attemot to reduce the argument to one of the nature of specific terrain adjustments on forseeable causalty rates is silly.

Husband: We don't need to leave till the game is over.

Wife: But the sitter leaves as 5, and it's 4:30 now.

Husband: I know a shortcut that'll get us there in 10 minutes.

Wife: But it's rush hour...

Husband: Didn't you hear me. Short-cut. Don't worry about it, I know what I'm talking about.


[1]6:18 pm, in the car.[/I]

Husband: Hey, don't blame me...blame the city planners, or God. I can't control rush hour...

 

Another person buying into the media's portrayal of the Iraqi situation. Most of the people in Iraq have welcomed the US military. Most of them are grateful for us liberating them. The ones who are doing all the fighting are leftover from Saddam's old regime and newly liberated terrorists. The middle east mass produces terrorists. I am not overlooking anything. I am stating the fact that everyone is whining about a bunch of crap. The poll says, "Are the number of American deaths in Iraq acceptable?" not "Did the Bush Administration lie to us about the level of combat in Iraq?"

 

While condemning me for repeating the words of others without real knowledge, tell me something about the statements above:




How do you know? Where do you get your information?


Shall I venture a guess?


BTW, I know the CIA was in no way involved in JFK's assassination, because the CIA says so.

 

Or from people I am close to that are over there.

 

Meaning what? you're firends with those conducting polls over there?

Cause short of that, as I metnioned in another thread, there is a reason why studies do not use limited personel experiences as a means of determining general conclusions. In this case there are several reasons why that would be true, as I will illustrate just a few of the legion problems with your using your freinds over there as a means of concluding who our enemy is:


1) That may be their genuine epxerience, but not correlative to the norm.

2) They may posses an inherent bias which affects their percpetion.

3) You may be subject to an inherent bias which affects what you hear from them.

4) Those people with whom they are in contact in iraq are arguably those who are most positive towards us, thus giving your friends a subjective perspective.

5) Generally those who are fighting us don;t stop to chat with GI's before or after incidents.

6) Iraqis might easily give a more positive rendition of their feelings in the presence of armed US forces than they would otherwise out of fear.


Etc. etc. Hopefully, you will see what I'm saying. If I have friends over there, and they're saying the opposite, does that trump you? Or would we get in a competition of how many friends over there we each have?

But finally, allow me to say this: We have no real, complete, absolute and objective sources for a complete picture at this point. US command is having a hard time defining the enemy at this point, and even they are disagreeing with your assesment. But the closest thing we have to an objective perspective is the media. You may have a theory about them leaning to the left...the history of the coverage of this war would seem to disagree with you, but I'll grant you your theory...but it's still just a theory affecting a general tendancy, nowhere near as strong of a motivation for giving us a skewed picture as the administration itself. Do you see that?

 

I do see a donkey who claims to be an elephant in the past.

 

Uh-huh.

Why try and refute arguments when you can throw out lables and thereby dismiss points against you. Maybe I'm a terrorist.

 

Why do insist that your distorted views are the right way? Why must you argue with everything I say? Why do you want to take facts and manipulate them into something completely different?

 

Oh...I see...my views are distorted. Gosh, I wish someone as informed as you would have enlightened me previously. Besides, where did I insist my views were anything? I believe you were the one calling your opinion fact.

If you don;t want people to argue with you, you can either become more informed ( in which case people will still argue with you, but from a different perspective), or NOT POST YOUR IDEAS IN THIS FORUM. Sheesh. Where do you get off acting like your version of things should be treated as unassailable gospel?

What facts have I manipulated?