"I'd hazard a guess the Iraqi's have lost more then 5000 innocent civilians in the same time frame." It's closer to 15,000-20,000.
Sadly, there are to many Thuds running the war in Iraq. The bill Kerry voted down was for 70+ billion loaded with pork, only 300 million was for military spending and only a portion of that for armor.
Over 3/4 of the deaths and injuries we have sustained over there have been from Improvised explosive devices (I.E.D.s). Roadside bombs waiting for convoys of lightly armored or non armored vehicles. We can spend a billion a piece for stealth bombers and joint strike fighters but the guys on the ground get left behind.
I'm not sure that a many of those guardsmen and reservists signed up planning to go to war anywhere. I'd gladly give up a few fighters and hang so much armor on those vehicles they could hardly move.
This war has litlle to do with terrorism or creating a democracy. It is all about making sure we get a steady flow of oil. If it had been explained that way from the beginning I think alot of people would be for it, I know I would be. Someone just explained it the other day. China and India have billions of people in rapidly developing countries and to continue that they need oil! It won't be very many years and the competition will be very stiff for oil supplies. It comes down to "follow the money"
Leno " with that reply Rumsfeld hopped into his armored car and left"

 

LOL.. Im not running the war .. Just stating my opinions :-) As I said before... no matter what your nationality is .. if you get hit by a fast moving chunk of steel you are gonna get hurt. BAD. Whether that chuck of steel came from an IED or a main tank round.. makes no difference when it hits you. I agree with you that innocent Iraqi deaths are probably in the 15k+ range. the 5000 figure I used was nothing more then a way to illustrate the relative differences in the number of DEATHS compared to US troop death. I want to make it 100% that I would prefer that no one, on either side, suffers in this conflict. War by its nature leaves nothing but ruin in its wake,,, on both sides. As for you comment that you dont think that any of the reservests or guardsmen intended on fight a war........ umm wtf?? Thats like saying you got your drivers licence but never expected to get a speeding ticket ! I mean come on.. any one that joins an armed force without even considering the remote possibilty of having to commit to the use of force is naive !. Which goes back to my original arguement that alot of the troops were duped by the militaries 'marketing' that they were 'invincible" The american public hasnt gotten a very rude awakening in the last few month in terms of the military capabilities that the governement has 'sold' to them. Now whether you blame the government for the 'spin' or you blame the general public for being naive enough to be duped is up for debate. Ever notice how its always the military men that are the last to push for the use of force??? Its because they know the consequences and are quite familiar with them,,, unlike the governments and general public who are quick to call for a 'military ' solution . One thing I think we agree on is.. this is all about oil, always has been.....Oil will continue to be a problem for years to come..... beyond that the next "problem" will be water.......... clean drinkable water.

 

latest story
Now it looks like theres gonna be some action...that soldier did everyone a favor.....by questioning authority.
Just goes to show the military is just like the rest of america....the middle managers and supervisors, dont pass on the concerns of the grunts for fear of being the one who presents a disenting view. The republicans have everyone so scared, to voice the truth...because they will label the messenger as being unpatriotic or unamerican.
I appaude the courage of that soldier. Anyone who stands up against our leaders, and holds them accountable, is a hero in my book.

 

We all can be naive, especially when we're in our youth starting out and looking for money for college or whatever. The gov't is deceptive with these ads still, showing National guardsmen cruising around in helicopters fighting forest fires, not getting blasted in Iraq. What would you say is the percentage of regular military enlistees that think the're signing up for a war, I mean before this started? Do you know why this is always compared to Vietnam? That would be the last war where we were losing casualties like this. A war that ended long before most of these guys were born.
Small bits of metal can be stopped with proper armor, these guys aren't getting killed and wounded every day by high tech missiles, but by bombs with small shrapnel.
A local woman was on the news the other day who just lost her son in Iraq. She said he inlisted recently to get revenge, I wonder if he found it.

 

The number of KIA's suffered by the coalition forces is extremely low in Iraq if you were to compare it to past wars. More soldiers are surviving their injuries because of the battlefield medical treatment they recieve. One thing I've never seen published is the number of causualties. If it were ever published,along with a summary of the types of injuries I'd bet that we'd all be surprised. The body armor and protection from vehicles such as the humvee has greatly increased the chances of surviving an attack. When it comes to the IEDs though I think you may be a bit confused. These IEDs ,from what Ive gathered, are not small bombs. Sure there have been instances of dead Iraqi soldiers being booby trapped but the resulting deaths from these have been relatively small, at least from what Ive read. The truly deadly IEDs are the road side bombs. These are not small bombs. Many are composed of artillary rounds or anti tank mines. About the only thing thats going to survive one of these larger IEDs is an Abrams tank. A bradley AFV will likely offer some protection to its crew but if its close enough even a bradley will be disabled ( tracks ). Put all the armor plate on a Humvee you want, if an arty shell goes off 20ft from it, the humvee is toast and so is its crew. Have you seen footage of destroyed humvees? Generally theres nothing left but a smoking heap of twisted metal. I'd argue that the humvee gets alot of bad press that they dont deserve. They were never designed to be used in the way they are being used. IMHO its more a command/doctran failure that the humvees are being used in the manner that they are , rather then the humvee itself thats leading to all the casualties. I think by time this whole thing is done in 5 years or so theres going to be alot of lessons learned. In the mean time. the death and destruction if going to continue regardless of equipement issues. It is after all a war.

 

Some good points on armor and vehicle use. Keep in mind, however, that any armor is better than none when that chunk of metal is comming at you. More is better. Armor, no matter how thick, is not bullet proof. Armor, thick or thin, will stop or defelct an object in direct relation to the shape, mass, angle of attack and velocity of the projectile. Thicker will, of course, do more to protect than thin.

Most of the people I have talked with, one was a returning vet, are of the opinion that lives would be saved if all the light vehicles had a bit more armor. If a Hummer is right next to an exploding bomb that Hummer and the people in it will be destroyed. A vehicle 30 or 40 yards back could benifit from even light armor.

My oldest son was in the M1A1's and is of the opinion that the Hummers and trucks should all have what he called "shrapnel protection" armor. Not ment to stop a tank round but able to deflect a lot of stuff.

We need to be sure our troops have all the beans, bullets and other stuff they need to do the job we are asking them to do.

A few letters and phone calls to our representitives in Washington DC would seem to be in order.

 

The sad thing is that it took the soldier to ask a question before they start to ACT like they're doing something. They'll act for a while until it's just not news anymore.

I had watched a show about this a couple months ago. It wasn't an issue until now. Now they're going to do something to save face.

 

<<<The number of KIA's suffered by the coalition forces is extremely low in Iraq if you were to compare it to past wars. More soldiers are surviving their injuries because of the battlefield medical treatment they recieve. One thing I've never seen published is the number of causualties. If it were ever published,along with a summary of the types of injuries I'd bet that we'd all be surprised.>>>

Yeah,Instead of dying, there will be thousands of guys coming home blind and limbless, not pretty

 

wounded
Heres a site with the number of wounded soldiers. Its approaching 10,000, and thats only military....no civilians (for either side), and no contract employees.