Should We Still Be In Afghanistan / Iraq???

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:34 am

SoDaSeeD wrote:

Who was he and why was he banned? I was just getting into that.

voidsurfer - new account/ban evasion

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:37 am

Go Amerika!

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:39 am

In the title it ask should " WE " still be in Iraq, may I just clarify who you mean by we?

I'm not at war therefore 'we' doesn't concern me and I doubt than anyone commenting here is fighting in Iraq right now. (don't mean to be an arse or anything)

Not everyone is involved in the war, some country's are there solely for peacekeeping and training, mostly to clean up the huge mess made by Bush.

America would crash without war even though they're no good at it, just take a look at how many times they've accidentally attacked themselves or other friendly's during the "Invasion of Iraq" They've lost just under 100 men to friendly fire. Thats like 4.7% of the total coalition casualties!

P.S Im going to be 'politicaly correct' in how i phrase this: IN MY OPINION America likely captured Osama Bin Laden a long time ago, but if they were to announce this they would have no reason to still be there! That is of course if Bin Laden did ever actually exist, just a speculation not a conspiracy.

Cheers,

SuniX

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:40 am

eldestFLeTcH wrote:

SoDaSeeD wrote:

Who was he and why was he banned? I was just getting into that.

voidsurfer - new account/ban evasion

Figures.

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:04 am

eldestFLeTcH wrote:

SoDaSeeD wrote:

Who was he and why was he banned? I was just getting into that.

voidsurfer - new account/ban evasion

Damn, it was just getting interesting. Cursed timezones too.

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:22 am

SuniX wrote:

In the title it ask should " WE " still be in Iraq, may I just clarify who you mean by we?

I'm not at war therefore 'we' doesn't concern me and I doubt than anyone commenting here is fighting in Iraq right now. (don't mean to be an arse or anything)

Not everyone is involved in the war, some country's are there solely for peacekeeping and training, mostly to clean up the huge mess made by Bush.

America would crash without war even though they're no good at it, just take a look at how many times they've accidentally attacked themselves or other friendly's during the "Invasion of Iraq" They've lost just under 100 men to friendly fire. Thats like 4.7% of the total coalition casualties

P.S Im going to be 'politicaly correct' in how i phrase this: IN MY OPINION America likely captured Osama Bin Laden a long time ago, but if they were to announce this they would have no reason to still be there! That is of course if Bin Laden did ever actually exist, just a speculation not a conspiracy.

Cheers,

SuniX

Just wanted to say this guys post is so wrong. As of Jan 15 2009 only 24 of the 3,059 US soldiers lost were due to fratricide or friendly fire in Iraq since the beginning and end of the Iraq war starting in 03. Mainly due to night operations cause not much of the enemy were equiped to fight in the dark. Sad as it is... it happens.

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:31 am

And can i just counter that he said "..attacked themselves or other friendly's during the "Invasion of Iraq" They've lost just under 100 men to friendly fire. Thats like 4.7% of the total coalition casualties "

He wasnt talking of just US troops. I guess this means that US troops are far more dangerous to their allies than they are to themselves. Small consolation.

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:35 am

SoDaSeeD wrote:

And can i just counter that he said "..attacked themselves or other friendly's during the "Invasion of Iraq" They've lost just under 100 men to friendly fire. Thats like 4.7% of the total coalition casualties "

He wasnt talking of just US troops. I guess this means that US troops are far more dangerous to their allies than they are to themselves. Small consolation.

Or vice versa..

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:37 am

Vice versa what??

The vast majority of troops in Iraq were/are American. Of the total casualties of 4682, 4366 were US troops, 316 were non US troops and of them 179 were British. Given that figure of around one hundred (and i admit that is mere speculation it could be higher, much higher) around 76 were non US. So nearly half of British casualties could have been caused by American troops so i ask again vise versa what?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:06 am

SoDaSeeD wrote:

Vice versa what??

Could have been friendly fire from someone else other then just the US. Even if these numbers are right for total coalition losses it is still a better number then many other wars fought by many other forces. Like I said .. it happens. Most of the Iraq war was fought at night and depended heavly on radio communications. If a commander put his troops in the wrong place they would'nt know it till it was too late so the only blame is really on bad communication. Also of the 37 reported friendly fire casulties.. 24 were Americans and 8 were Kurdish Iraq soldiers..In fact only 3 reported british dead due to friendly fire and it was from other british tanks and one at a british checkpoint.

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:23 am

Yeah, but considering the proportion of US troops to all others, statistically it was more than likely US fire.

Anyway, i only wanted to counter your post in saying that the other members post was so wrong. It wasnt, well not in the way you said it was at any rate. The figures for friendly fire deaths have never officially been released. It is speculation how many deaths there were. The only certainty is there were some, most caused statistically by US troops if only because they far outnumbered all other coalition troops.

Ok?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:58 am

I would have to agree with the banned guy that the past has shaped the future, and not so much for the better. I do hope they legalize marijuana too , cause the Afghanistan people could use the cash and I could use some quality pot right about now Laughing

. But seriously I do think that guy was on something. This debate reminds me of a Kid Rock song...'' People poke fun and that's alright, but when I start poking back they get all uptight ''

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:33 am

PT140Pro wrote:

But seriously I do think that guy was on something

What exactly would that be?

The only thing worth mentioning was the influence of the Ottoman Empire. Of interest was the observation of Churchill's role in the campaign in their region of influence and the expression of a not very high opinion of the said personage.

But it's influence on Afghanistan, in the present day, is very far fetched to imagine. Believe me I tried. I just couldn't figure out how it would/could have made a significant difference.

Edit: I was tempted to argue against the opinion on Churchill but I figured there were better people around to do that Laughing

. As politicians go, I rather like the portly character myself.

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:53 am

WhiteViper wrote:

PT140Pro wrote:

But seriously I do think that guy was on something

What exactly would that be?

The only thing worth mentioning was the influence of the Ottoman Empire. Of interest was the observation of Churchill's role in the campaign in their region of influence and the expression of a not very high opinion of the said personage.

But it's influence on Afghanistan, in the present day, is very far fetched to imagine. Believe me I tried. I just couldn't figure out how it would/could have made a significant difference.

Edit: I was tempted to argue against the opinion on Churchill but I figured there were better people around to do that Laughing

. As politicians go, I rather like the portly character myself.

Really overall his statements sound solid. About the Otomans, Churchill and the pot legalization for farming.

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:05 pm

SuniX wrote:

P.S Im going to be 'politicaly correct' in how i phrase this: IN MY OPINION America likely captured Osama Bin Laden a long time ago, but if they were to announce this they would have no reason to still be there! That is of course if Bin Laden did ever actually exist, just a speculation not a conspiracy.

I have some suspicions that Bin Laden is dead and has been for a few years now.