Not enough US casualties?

PH01

From - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2483085

According to a senior US military person that U.S. casualties in the 12-day-old war had so far been "fairly" light.

And,

There will come a time maybe when things are going to be much more shocking," he said, adding: "In World War II, there would be nights when we'd lose 1,000 people.

Amazing stuff. And it makes me wonder at what stage would these guys become 'concerned' about their own casualties? Sounds like the US are prepared to lose quite a lot of their own people, not to mention the Iraqi people

casualties to the allies have been very light in this war. Western armies have grown soft in the last 20 years, simply because they rely so much on technology to take out the enemy from afar. This will change in Iraq, just as it was in Vietnam.

The US will see alot more casualties, since their superior armour and air power cannot help them in the streets of a city.

davej

There are already at least 135 dead coalition soldiers and 480 wounded according to unofficial sources. There is little doubt that the figure will be in 4 digits before the end of the conflict. The americans are going to have to make a judgement call between the levels of US casualties they think their public can accept and the levels of Iraqi civilian casualties they (the public) can accept. It seems to me that these two figures are probably inversely proportional to each other. You can bet that there's a think tank out there trying to work out the magic numbers.

davej

MAC_E

"We Americans aren't very good at judging what a totalitarian regime looks like, does, acts like," he said. "I just don't think we're very good at it."

I think that us offical hit the nail on the head.

Éomer of Rohan

FFS! It is unreal how the casualties are being discussed! These men have wives, children, parents! They seem to be only numbers on a page to most senior staff at the Pentagon and in the White House - is it any fecking wonder why the US is so ready to go to war? They don't give a stuff about men getting slaughtered, having limbs blown off and so on - the realities of war seem to have escaped them. I think OBL should have sent two or three planes to finish off the damn Pentagon!

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I think OBL should have sent two or three planes to finish off the damn Pentagon!

Oh Good God Éomer, is there no end to the lenghth you are going to make Sands signature by the years end!!
mm

Victor

Hmmm. If the USA suffers too few casualties, it will create problems in the future where the threshold for war will be too low.

Originally posted by Man
Oh Good God Éomer, is there no end to the lenghth you are going to make Sands signature by the years end!!

He is "merely" advocating an attack on a military target ....

Coalition casualties in the 12-day-old conflict total 67, including 43 Americans and 24 Britons, a light tally beside the hundreds of Iraqis the coalition has reported killing.

http://www.canada.com/national/features/iraq/story.html?id=9BEF17C1-264C-48DA-BC9D-2054981258F7

Éomer of Rohan

Tell me it is not a viable military target?? Yeah well, anymore quotes in Sand and I will be asking Bonkey or Gandalf to remove them. They can be read out of context as it is.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Tell me it is not a viable military target??

That depends. Are you going to let the passengers off those planes before you crash them?

Éomer of Rohan

Did I say there were passengers on the planes? Did I ask were passenger planes a viable weapon? Did I suggest so? I was questioning whether or not the Pentagon was a viable military target. Of course it is.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Did I suggest so? I was questioning whether or not the Pentagon was a viable military target. Of course it is.

Sometimes Éomer what you leave out of your statements,lead to Baaaaad conclusions being drawn from them.
It's reasonable to infer, that you were talking about hi-jacked passenger planes, and that you had wished that OBL had sent a few more in to finish the job on 9-11, or in the future.

OBL is a terrorist, so the Pentagon is not a military target for him, it's just a target for terror via arson, explosion and murder, by a passenger plane.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

Allow me to clarify - terrorist or not, the Pentagon is a viable target upon which to unleash one's fury against America, her warmongering, insensitivity and stupidity amongst other things. Mind you, using the military logic of the Americans, those passenger planes were viable weapons - the people on them would be called collateral damage just like those people 'accidentally' annihilated when American bombs destroy the tv station next door. I'm a fecking humanitarian compared to them!

mike65

Allow me to clarify - terrorist or not, the Pentagon is a viable target upon which to unleash one's fury against America

You're beginning to sound like a terrorist to me Eomar...or just a nutty humanitarian.

Mike.

Sometimes Éomer what you leave out of your statements,lead to Baaaaad conclusions being drawn from them.

It's reasonable to infer, that you were talking about hi-jacked passenger planes, and that you had wished that OBL had sent a few more in to finish the job on 9-11, or in the future.

Personally i thought he was referring to if Iraq, attacked the US, who they are currently at war with. And before anyone jumps up abt Iraq using passenger planes also, Saddam hasn't been linked to terrorism, as such.

Question though, if Saddam launches a biological attack on the Pentagon, is that a valid attack? it is against a military target.

Éomer of Rohan

Question though, if Saddam launches a biological attack on the Pentagon, is that a valid attack? it is against a military target

Now that I would cheer. America would deserve it after what they have done to that country.

I hope that you will explain your comments Mike 65

Now that I would cheer. America would deserve it after what they have done to that country

well i wouldn't. Any more than i cheer when i see baghdad being bombed. I'm not anti-war, but i don't have any time for wars that could easily have been avoided, or wars i find to be for the wrong reasons.

An attack on the US by Iraq, would at least bring america into the real world. Since they haven't ever been attacked on their home ground by a nation they were currently at war with, with the possible exception of Canada. At least then, they would realise what they bring to other nations, with their warmongering.

mike65

I hope that you will explain your comments Mike 65

See Klaz post above....humanitiarians don't urge the murder of thousands coz a countries politics pisses them off!

Mike.

humanitiarians

If i knew a proper definition for this, i probably wouldn't so insulted

Éomer of Rohan

I am not saying it is a good thing because I disagree with the politics of the US, I am saying it because it would make America understand precisely what it means to be engaged in a proper war where you might face invasion, have your cities bombed and so on, maybe forcing them to reintroduce reality to their warmongering - avoiding more wars possibly? Thus saving many more lives than would be lost - unless of course the stories of a nuclear reactor under the Pentagon are true.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I am saying it because it would make America understand precisely what it means to be engaged in a proper war where you might face invasion, have your cities bombed and so on, maybe forcing them to reintroduce reality to their warmongering - avoiding more wars possibly?

Unless some military is actually going to invade the US, then this is no more than wishful thinking. It will not make the US understand anything.

No-one (well, statistically....almost no-one) in the US is ever going to equate guerrilla tactics used on the US mainland as anything but "terrorism".

If it is an attack on military forces, by a clandestine "special Ops" from another nation, it will still get classified as terrorism....if for no other reason than that as a strike in and of itself it has no strategic value. It is purely a strike to send a message. Multiple strikes just become repeated messages.

The US bombed Saddam's palace....as part of a war. If you were to bomb the White House, it wouldnt be seen as part of a war...just as an isolated incident....and thus will still be billed as nothing more than more terrorism.

Lets say an Iraqi bombed some military resources in the US tomorrow....it will still be sold as terrorism, and the people will still believe it. So who would learn anything? The government? Hell - they already know. They just choose to sell a different story.

As an aside, I really do find it hard to understand how you can claim to be humanitarian and/or pacifist (or "humanitarian/pacifist compared to.....) and repeatedly come up with statements wishing that some death and destruction was visited on "the other side", and saying that you would cheer such.

Humanitarianism and Pacisifism do not have sides. You oppose violence or you dont. If you do, then quit making these comments about attacks on America, otherwise quit claiming your a pacifist or a humanist because quite honestly no humanist or pacifist would ever suggest cheering if any group of humans got killed in an attack of any nature.

You are advocating (or would welcome) violence on a nation who's ideals and methods you disagree vehemently with. You criticise this nation for advocating violence on a nation who's ideals and methods they disagree vehemently with. Can you not see that you are now no different to them?

Also...if you have a problem with Sand's sig, then turn off sig-showing. Alternately, take it to the admins....its not a forum-specific issue, so there's nothing I can do about it as a result. Oh - and you forgot to mention our hard-working third mod as well

jc

Unless some military is actually going to invade the US, then this is no more than wishful thinking. It will not make the US understand anything.

It doesn't necessary involve an invasion. Constant bombing by conventional methods would have the same effect, however theres not much point of that except get the US mad at you. Which, would probably mean a nuke thrown at you.

dathi1

Again when this war is so called "won" the repercussions for the US and Britain (and us since we live next door) will be phenomenal. They’ve already galvanized Arab opinion and are creating thousands of OB's across the Islamic world. It just takes one tactical mini N Bomb in a Taxi in downtown Chicago to bring reality home to Rumsfeild+Co and unfortunately American and British Citizens that the world really did change on Sept 11th. And don’t give me what they will do in Iraq afterwards will make the difference...the track record of the British and American Imperialism (especially the Bush crew) doesn’t bode well for the future.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
No-one (well, statistically....almost no-one) in the US is ever going to equate guerrilla tactics used on the US mainland as anything but "terrorism". If it is an attack on military forces, by a clandestine "special Ops" from another nation, it will still get classified as terrorism....if for no other reason than that as a strike in and of itself it has no strategic value. It is purely a strike to send a message. Multiple strikes just become repeated messages.

Of course the Americans consider guerilla tactics in Iraq as terrorism, when patently it isn't. This raises the question as to whether American group consciousness can identify the difference.

Originally posted by bonkey
As an aside, I really do find it hard to understand how you can claim to be humanitarian and/or pacifist (or "humanitarian/pacifist compared to.....) and repeatedly come up with statements wishing that some death and destruction was visited on "the other side", and saying that you would cheer such. Humanitarianism and Pacisifism do not have sides. You oppose violence or you dont. If you do, then quit making these comments about attacks on America, otherwise quit claiming your a pacifist or a humanist because quite honestly no humanist or pacifist would ever suggest cheering if any group of humans got killed in an attack of any nature.

There is a middle ground here and while I neither agree with nor condone Éomer's comments, I can understand, in part, where he is coming from. There is a threshold where violence must be used, but that must be a very high threshold and I agree that both the Bush administration (and unfortunately the American group consciousness) and Éomer have too low a threshold.

Is there a better word for "American group consciousness". I want to claim to be anti-"American group consciousness".

I want to claim to be anti-"American group consciousness".

this is probably going to create a 3 page thread discussion, that actually goes nowhere... lol

Éomer of Rohan

As an aside, I really do find it hard to understand how you can claim to be humanitarian and/or pacifist (or "humanitarian/pacifist compared to.....) and repeatedly come up with statements wishing that some death and destruction was visited on "the other side", and saying that you would cheer such.

Humanitarianism and Pacisifism do not have sides. You oppose violence or you dont. If you do, then quit making these comments about attacks on America, otherwise quit claiming your a pacifist or a humanist because quite honestly no humanist or pacifist would ever suggest cheering if any group of humans got killed in an attack of any nature.

You are advocating (or would welcome) violence on a nation who's ideals and methods you disagree vehemently with. You criticise this nation for advocating violence on a nation who's ideals and methods they disagree vehemently with. Can you not see that you are now no different to them?

I never claimed to be a pacifist. I accept the necessity of violence on some occasions but once a precedent is set, dangerous things result and this is one such precedent.

By the way, humanism (you called me a humanist) is a religios belief. What you meant was a humanitarian. On this matter, see above - I do not necessarily have to like death in order to see that it may serve a greater purpose. For example if America was properly engaged in a war by every other nation on earth for example (sheerly hypothetical and somewhat unrealistic but give me the benefit of the doubt) and was defeated without things going 'nuclear' many people would die but the power of America would be removed - Canada would get territory, Mexico. states would become nations and so on - removing an aggressive, corrupting power and so benefitting the rest of humanity - so, as in a Democracy, doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
By the way, humanism (you called me a humanist) is a religios belief. What you meant was a humanitarian.

Apologies - you're right. I did mean humanitarian - and I still maintain that a humanitarian would not be so quick to embrace death and destruction. Surely seeking other options is what you should be advocating, instead of echoing sentiments that are scarily like those the US are putting out about Iraq - that diplomacy has failed and nothing short of a good ol' bit of violence will sort it out.

I accept that there are cases where war may be the only resort as the lesser of certain evils (although usually that evil is an even bigger war), but given that we both agree that Iraq is not such a case, I find it hard to accept that you are so...I dont know....wishful that someone would visit violence on the US, when clearly there are other avenues which should be given their chance first.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Haven't the other avenues all been tried with that particular country? The people are even too stupid to see that they are ensconsed in a dictatorship.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?

Unfortunately in your example the many would be dead. I suspect Hitler / random demagog would also have said "doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?" - it is a principle that needs to be used carefully. Why don't you just cut off their oil?

PS Have I lost the argument by invoking Hitler?

Éomer of Rohan

Unfortunately in your example the many would be dead

Which example was that?

Why would invoking Hitler forfeit the argument? Actually knowing many examples of demagogues from history, I would have said Hitler was plainly insane rather than a man with any real interest in the 'populares.'

Cutting off the oil would be an excellent idea but two things prevent it;
1) they would proceed to militarily invade every country with oil to ensure the supply.
2) The people with oil tend not to sell it in the interests of the many - oiligarchies, to use an almost clichéd term is a derivative of the word 'oligarchy' or government of ther few - the few who are interested in profit regardless of any nation or political ideal and so on (again, one of my grievances with capitalism but that is OT) - they would sell the oil to the highest bidder; hence the USA.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Why would invoking Hitler forfeit the argument?

Godwin's Law

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Haven't the other avenues all been tried with that particular country? The people are even too stupid to see that they are ensconsed in a dictatorship.

Are you talking about the US or Iraq?

I know you intend to be referring to the US, but you are using exactly the same language as the US have used about Iraq.

So...if the US are wrong (which you maintain) about Iraq, how can you be correct about the US, without acknowledging that such issues of right and wrong are simply a matter of perspective.....at which point you once again legitimise the US action in Iraq - they see diplomacy as failed, so they are right to use force. You see diplomacy as failed with the US, so for you its ok to use force.

Same logic, same argument, but you're taking both sides, depending on the nation....again, exactly the type of thing youve been criticising the US for doing.

Once you join them, you can no longer credibly criticise them, for you are just like them.

jc