Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Vietnam war cost $111 billion from 1964-72. Here's a random cite pulled from Google. http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm
By 1972, our government was spending about .75 billion per day. So, Vietnam cost what we were spending in about 5 months. Do you really think that the difference between 5 months' spending in Vietnam and 2 months' (and counting) spending in Iraq is so enormous that one is a "war" and the other is a "minor skirmish"?
Here's another cite discussing present value. The numbers on this vary wildly, but the conclusion is pretty uniform.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042601601.html
|
1) Of course the deaths were much higher. I believe at this point we have lost one twentieth the lives we have lost in Vietnam. So to equal Vietnam we would have to stay in Iraq for another eighty years 2) You are using as an example another war where the costs were exaggerated to get us to throw in the towel. 3) the costs in terms of GNP were at least three times what we have spent so far 4) I think it is also ironic that you are using the Vietnam war as a example because the victorious Vietnamese stated that but for the American press they wouldn't have won the war. The insurgents in Iraq seem to be using the same strategy to great effect. Are you helping them? I believe we defeated ourselves in Vietnam and hope we don't defeat ourselves here.
Like I said, as war goes Iraq has been cheap in terms of lives and money compared to almost all the other wars. That is indisputable. So if you want to call it a war, you have to acknowledge that as wars go, this one has had limited casualties and has been inexpensive. If you stop calling it a war then you can start talking to me about the unprecedented death toll and the terrible costs. Do you really think that is an unreasonable statement?
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Who says I am not offended by murders, traffic deaths, etc? If the government adopted policies that increased murders or traffic deaths by 3000 people, I would oppose those policies.
Tell ya' what: Let's go to a meeting of families of soldiers who died in Iraq. You tell 10 people your "it's just a minor skirmish" theory, I'll tell 10 people my "it's a war, and should be called a war, and the cost is very high" theory. Let's see which of us offends more people.
|
There is a great idea. When trying to determine whether the death toll in any given military operation is acceptable in comparison to the objective achieved why don't we ask the parents of the soldiers that died in that operation. In addition, why don't we let those same parents frame the debate and be allowed to determine which terms are allowed in that debate so we can make sure we make prudent strategic and tactical military decisions in the future.
I even have a better idea. When trying to decide if we should let cops shoot suspects if they just have a suspicion they might be dangerous, why don't we let the parents of cops that have been killed by suspects frame the debate. Anyone that has the temerity to mention that the cost of insuring that suspects rights are not infringed upon, may be that some cops may have to die, be labeled offensive and not be allowed to have any influence on the debate.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And please -- when you volunteer for the military, you and your neo-con friends can call me an armchair spectator.
|
I have four fraternity brothers that are career military and all have served in both Gulf Wars and I have three relatives that have served in both Gulf Wars. Each and every single one (without exception) is a NeoCon on steroids. They all make me seem like a dove. Have people had different experiences with their friends and family members in the military?
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
"relatively low," not "low." As in, relative to other wars, to which you were making comparisons. Not as in "so low that this is just a walk in the park," as you seem to think.
|
When you contrast it to all the hyperbole out there about the terrible cost of the war in treasure and blood, the term low seems applicable to me. Not a walk in the park, but nothing compared to the hype in the media.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, the war in Afghanistan itself did that to the Soviets, not the number of dead. The body count idiocy is your own invention.
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t you say (and I quote) “The Soviet Union fought a war in Afghanistan (we call that one a "war", right?) that left the nation mortally (and thankfully) wounded. How many soldiers do you think died there -- 100,000? It was only 15,000, about .1% of what the USSR lost in World War II.”
The body count in relation to Afghanistan was my invention?
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If your conclusions are so self-evident, then others should have reached them. Please identify some publications that refer to the Iraq war as a "minor skirmish." Surely your neo-con buddies have reached the same conclusion as you.
|
Plenty of people have stated over and over again, in historical terms the “war” in Iraq has been relatively cheap in terms of blood and treasure. I don’t mind people calling it a war if they acknowledge it has been a cheap war. It is the people that say that it has been exorbitantly expensive and that there have been massive US casualities who shouldn’t refer to it as a war. Those statements of outlandish expense and exorbitant loss of life are only apt if you refer to it as a minor military skirmish in the Middle East and not as a war. Is that not fair?
Threaded Mode