North Dakota Preps

I don't know if this to hot of a topic but I want other peoples opinion about Bush's war.  personally, I think this war has been a disaster and it's time we cut our losses and the heck out of there.  The situation just keeps getting worse.  How egotistical are we to think we can change the culture in Iraq.  Before some one calls me unpatriotic let me say this:  I support the troops 100%.  They are doing what they are told which is what makes our military the best in the world.  It's the leaders who put them there in the first place that I have the problem with.  As far as I'm concerned, Dubya has the blood of over 3000 US soldiers on his hands.  He and his war will go down as one if not the biggest blunder in US history. 

i was all for going after bin laden...i didn't/don't understand how or why we ended up in iraq. well...i think i get why the u.s. went there, but i don't understand the logic behind it.

i think a war on 'terror' is too ambitous (that is putting it nicely) and i think that more than likely it is an impossible battle.

 all in all, there is something to be said about being pro-active versus re-active, but at the same time what the war has cost the country both in blood and in lives seems kind of over the top to me.

keep the troops safe and bring them home already. besides, i was kind of always of the mind that our wars should be fought by full-time military while the country would be protected and cared for in time of an emergency by the national guard.

nativegolfer wrote:I don't know if this to hot of a topic but I want other peoples opinion about Bush's war.  personally, I think this war has been a disaster and it's time we cut our losses and the heck out of there.  The situation just keeps getting worse.  How egotistical are we to think we can change the culture in Iraq.  Before some one calls me unpatriotic let me say this:  I support the troops 100%.  They are doing what they are told which is what makes our military the best in the world.  It's the leaders who put them there in the first place that I have the problem with.  As far as I'm concerned, Dubya has the blood of over 3000 US soldiers on his hands.  He and his war will go down as one if not the biggest blunder in US history. 

Maybe you don't think this war is good and maybe you do. That is for you to decide. But what gets to me is how people say this war is so terrible and how we are losing all these soldiers (God bless their souls) but the truth is, compared to past wars, this war isn't even that bad at all.

As of April 24, 2007, there have been 3,196 casualties in the War in Iraq with another 396 casualties in the Afghan war. That is 3,592 casualties in these two wars. Compare that number to the number of casualties listed below and tell me if you think this war is all that devistating...

*Casualties include three categories: 1) dead; 2) wounded; and 3) missing or captured.*


Civil War (1860-1870) -about 620,000 casualties
WWI (1917-1918) -about 118,000 casualties
WWII (1941-1946) -about 406,000 casualties
Korean War (1950-1953) -about 37,000 casualties
Vietnam War (1964-1973) -about 59,000 casualties
War in Iraq + Afgan War (2001-present) -3,592 casualties

I'm not saying this war is good, because nothing in which people die is good, but like I said. There is no comparison to past wars when it comes to casualties.


*Interesting fact*
There were over 6 times more casualites in the Battle of Antietam, the bloodiest battle in the history of the United States, then there currently are in the present day war. This lone battle produced 22,720 casualties compared to 3,592 in this whole present day war. Think about that when you think this war is devistating.

either your a history buff or u did alot of research haha.  but i think he means the war is terrible because some of the troops probably dont even know what they are fighting for.  I thought the war on terror was on Bin Laden, not Saddam.  and since they were in Iraq to get Saddam, which they did, why are they still there?

baseball wrote:either your a history buff or u did alot of research haha.  but i think he means the war is terrible because some of the troops probably dont even know what they are fighting for.  I thought the war on terror was on Bin Laden, not Saddam.  and since they were in Iraq to get Saddam, which they did, why are they still there?

I think instead of rushing into Iraq we should have tried harder at Bin Laden for what he did on 9/11. He's out there on the loose making who knows what kind of plans to strike again and he still hasen't payed for the lives of the people he killed.

rumbles wrote:

baseball wrote:either your a history buff or u did alot of research haha.  but i think he means the war is terrible because some of the troops probably dont even know what they are fighting for.  I thought the war on terror was on Bin Laden, not Saddam.  and since they were in Iraq to get Saddam, which they did, why are they still there?

I think instead of rushing into Iraq we should have tried harder at Bin Laden for what he did on 9/11. He's out there on the loose making who knows what kind of plans to strike again and he still hasen't payed for the lives of the people he killed.

Exactly.....doesnt make any sense

baseball wrote:

rumbles wrote:

baseball wrote:either your a history buff or u did alot of research haha.  but i think he means the war is terrible because some of the troops probably dont even know what they are fighting for.  I thought the war on terror was on Bin Laden, not Saddam.  and since they were in Iraq to get Saddam, which they did, why are they still there?

I think instead of rushing into Iraq we should have tried harder at Bin Laden for what he did on 9/11. He's out there on the loose making who knows what kind of plans to strike again and he still hasen't payed for the lives of the people he killed.

Exactly.....doesnt make any sense

I guess I didn't exactly mean Nativegolfer's comment specifically. I just meant a lot of people act like this war posses a lot of war casualities when actually, if you ask me, less then 4000 casualities and we've been in war since 2001 is pretty darn good.

The war in Iraq is obviously no longer about Saddam, it may have been well intentioned or it may have been a hoax all along, but it is now a war on terrorists. 

This topic is similar in nature to the article concerning parents and coahces.  We don't know everything, we could never know everything, we will never know everything.  Our armchair QBing of this situation will not make it better and our 20/20 hindsight doesn't make us intelligent. 

speaking of the war, i have to show this video of how dumb ppl really are... http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/29/video-oreilly-on-oprah-bill-takes-on-military-hater/

By the way I am a fan of Bill O'Reilly

something to consider about the civil war numbers...a good chunk of those deaths (i don't know an exact number, but if you are curious, i'm sure it is find-able) came from disentary (sp?) and some other afflictions and not actual combat.

the conditions the soldiers had then, weren't exactly, uh....ideal.

We're never going to win this "War on Terror" why? Well because there's no way we're ever going to get rid of terrorism. You kill one terrorist, another will just take his place. This "War on Terror" will be the downfall of the US sooner or later. The world is hating us more and more. Just my .02

 I would love to see the US pull all it's troops out because it's so agonizing hearing about the daily casualties.  But on the other hand, I know that the last thing we need is another government in that area hostile to the US.  I just wish that there was some hope of training the Iraqi military to defend the new government, but it doesn't look likely.  Another Vietnam-like exit strategy.

look at the Pat Tillman case, his family is mad because he got killed in friendly fire.  im sure hes not the only one, and the longer this goes on the more families will get involved and the worse our government will look.

NDSportsFan wrote: I would love to see the US pull all it's troops out because it's so agonizing hearing about the daily casualties.  But on the other hand, I know that the last thing we need is another government in that area hostile to the US.  I just wish that there was some hope of training the Iraqi military to defend the new government, but it doesn't look likely.  Another Vietnam-like exit strategy.

Do you expect to be in a war and not have casualties? It is war. Of course there are going to be casualties.

baller01 wrote:

NDSportsFan wrote: I would love to see the US pull all it's troops out because it's so agonizing hearing about the daily casualties.  But on the other hand, I know that the last thing we need is another government in that area hostile to the US.  I just wish that there was some hope of training the Iraqi military to defend the new government, but it doesn't look likely.  Another Vietnam-like exit strategy.

Do you expect to be in a war and not have casualties? It is war. Of course there are going to be casualties.

i think its just weird how they all end up dead, car bombs, suicide missions.   Ive always thought war was a stategic thing to attack the opponents in bulks, and not one suicidal person blowing up his car as he drives by a group of 6 Americans.

baseball wrote:

baller01 wrote:

NDSportsFan wrote: I would love to see the US pull all it's troops out because it's so agonizing hearing about the daily casualties.  But on the other hand, I know that the last thing we need is another government in that area hostile to the US.  I just wish that there was some hope of training the Iraqi military to defend the new government, but it doesn't look likely.  Another Vietnam-like exit strategy.

Do you expect to be in a war and not have casualties? It is war. Of course there are going to be casualties.

i think its just weird how they all end up dead, car bombs, suicide missions.   Ive always thought war was a stategic thing to attack the opponents in bulks, and not one suicidal person blowing up his car as he drives by a group of 6 Americans.

I'm tired of this cowbay attitude of "we can't leave until the job is done".  It's not going to get done because these terrorists aren't going to give up.  One dies and another takes thier place.  And these poor national guards.  To me the name implies they help the U.S. in times of national crisis.  Why are they being sent over seas?  I just don't understand it!

Defeatist attitudes rarely result in a better situation.

If we are never going to win, you might as well become Muslim.

This country is not at war in the same sense as WWi or WWII.  What have we given up how have we sacrificed as a society.

Wild Wolves wrote:Defeatist attitudes rarely result in a better situation.

If we are never going to win, you might as well become Muslim.

This country is not at war in the same sense as WWi or WWII.  What have we given up how have we sacrificed as a society.

I don't get what you're trying to say...terrorist = Muslim? Terrorism has and will always be around. As long as we're occupying another country, you'll always have insurgents. We're never going to win this "War on Terror" sad, but true. Terrorism wasn't something that muslims or any other race/religion just made up, it's been around for ages.

Look at it this way...say if another country invaded the US and tried to force it's gov't on us... Do you honestly think there won't be people like you and I fighting them?

A lot of people have an obscured view on this war.  I blame the media for all of this.  I am not saying we should be there, but the majority of the media leans to the left so of course we're going to hear everyday about the casualities and how we should leave.  They only tend to point out the bad things and fail to mention any of the good.  The media fails to mention anything about us helping the children and other ppl over there, by helping build new buildings (a lot of schools) and aiding them with shelter, food, and clothing.  For example the Iraqi Burn Clinic. 

The fact is, we hear all this b.s. about the war from ppl who don't even want us to win over there.  David Letterman for example.  It's a load of crap.

Ming01 wrote:A lot of people have an obscured view on this war.  I blame the media for all of this.  I am not saying we should be there, but the majority of the media leans to the left so of course we're going to hear everyday about the casualities and how we should leave.  They only tend to point out the bad things and fail to mention any of the good.  The media fails to mention anything about us helping the children and other ppl over there, by helping build new buildings (a lot of schools) and aiding them with shelter, food, and clothing.  For example the Iraqi Burn Clinic. 

The fact is, we hear all this b.s. about the war from ppl who don't even want us to win over there.  David Letterman for example.  It's a load of crap.

That's good and all, but we could be doing that here in the US without having our soldiers/friends/family die. Just my .02

rez01 wrote:

Ming01 wrote:A lot of people have an obscured view on this war.  I blame the media for all of this.  I am not saying we should be there, but the majority of the media leans to the left so of course we're going to hear everyday about the casualities and how we should leave.  They only tend to point out the bad things and fail to mention any of the good.  The media fails to mention anything about us helping the children and other ppl over there, by helping build new buildings (a lot of schools) and aiding them with shelter, food, and clothing.  For example the Iraqi Burn Clinic. 

The fact is, we hear all this b.s. about the war from ppl who don't even want us to win over there.  David Letterman for example.  It's a load of crap.

That's good and all, but we could be doing that here in the US without having our soldiers/friends/family die. Just my .02.

My point is, because of the media's unfair, biased, and unbalanced views, ppl have an obscure view on the War.  They hide the good and show the bad.  Just my $.02.

Currently the terrorists we are incountering are Muslim.  They are radical in nature and are "crusaders" against western ideals.  I didn't say all Muslims are terrorists or all terrorists are Muslim, but our current situation indicates that radical Muslims are the majority of our opposition. 

Ming01 wrote:A lot of people have an obscured view on this war.  I blame the media for all of this.  I am not saying we should be there, but the majority of the media leans to the left so of course we're going to hear everyday about the casualities and how we should leave.  They only tend to point out the bad things and fail to mention any of the good.  The media fails to mention anything about us helping the children and other ppl over there, by helping build new buildings (a lot of schools) and aiding them with shelter, food, and clothing.  For example the Iraqi Burn Clinic. 

The fact is, we hear all this b.s. about the war from ppl who don't even want us to win over there.  David Letterman for example.  It's a load of crap.

You know it's all fine and good that we are helping the "poor" Iraqi's but how many people in the world are worse off than the Iraqi's?  Most of the people in the world live in poverty.  Heck there's a signifigant number of americans who live in poverty.  Why aren't we occupying every poor country and "making it better?"   Maybe the press is skewing the war coverage one way but the government is not telling alot of things about this war to the american people.  Why are the desertion rates and suicide rates so high for our soldiers.  Those are facts that the feds don't want us to know.  One of my former students got back from Iraq a few months ago and he said the moral in his unit sucked!  Just because one soldier comes out with the gung ho attitude that we have to finish the job doesn't mean that all of the troops feel that way. 

And just becasue one came back and said moral sucked doesn't mena they all thought that.

Keep arm chair QBing, I am sure when it is all over we will all be absolutely correct in our assumptions about the war.

People went without sugar, gas, meat, etc.. during WWII.  What have you gone without?  I live just as I did prior to 9/11.  I often feel guilt over this.  Having done little to help in our country's efforts.

Wild Wolves wrote:And just becasue one came back and said moral sucked doesn't mena they all thought that.

Keep arm chair QBing, I am sure when it is all over we will all be absolutely correct in our assumptions about the war.

People went without sugar, gas, meat, etc.. during WWII.  What have you gone without?  I live just as I did prior to 9/11.  I often feel guilt over this.  Having done little to help in our country's efforts.

theres a difference between what happened on 9/11 and the war in Iraq.  it's been proven that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  I have no problem with the troops being in Afghanistan and fighting terrorism and hunting bin Laden.  And what are our assumptions about the war in Iraq?  They had no WMD's?  That's been proven.  And that is supposed to be why we invaded in the first place.  Over 2/3 of americans are against the war in Iraq so I have alot of company in my armchair QBing!