Roughly 20,000 British Troops...

[Andy_Copland 0]

Died on the 1st day of the Battle Of The Somme... another 40,000 where injured.

Back then they had the public support even with such huge casualties.

Whats differant today? One squaddie dies and the papers make a song and dance out of it.

Im not for the war, although now we are there we should fix it and stay til its done. But i think its quite comical the way there is a single death (tragedy) and we milk it.

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[Iceburner 0]

I always use the examples of Marines on Tarawa, or Iwo, or the soldiers on D-Day when people tell me how we should leave because of the deaths in Iraq/Afgahnistan. Although i have lost people i know, and have learned from, it's a war, and people die. It sucks, but it's reality. Keeping all personal opinion about the war aside, how long did people really expect to be in Iraq? We (the USA) are still in Japan, still in Germany, still in Italy, etc...all because of WWII and other incidents. We will be in Iraq for a long time. There is no quick and easy solution after a war happens. You stay until the job is done.

[billvon 3,132]

>I always use the examples of Marines on Tarawa, or Iwo, or the
>soldiers on D-Day when people tell me how we should leave because of
>the deaths in Iraq/Afgahnistan.

If we're using those standards - why are people getting bent out of shape just because 3000 americans died on 9/11?

>There is no quick and easy solution after a war happens. You stay until the job is done.

Fortunately we were not so foolish as to stay until "the job was done" in Vietnam.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>I always use the examples of Marines on Tarawa, or Iwo, or the
>soldiers on D-Day when people tell me how we should leave because of
>the deaths in Iraq/Afgahnistan.

If we're using those standards - why are people getting bent out of shape just because 3000 americans died on 9/11?

Your reply doesn't make sense.

The guy you replied to is arguing why "we should stay", not that "we shouldn't get bent out of shape".

. . =(_8^(1)

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

You stay until the job is done.

Now the question is: what is "the job"?
Saddam is history. WMDs are MIA.
Nation building seems a totally different thing than what the original "job" was.
And to compare with WWII: the liberated territories (France, Benelux, Scandinavia, Italy, etc...) were not marred by sectarian hatred and violence, which made for easier and clearer goals.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[billvon 3,132]

>The guy you replied to is arguing why "we should stay", not that "we
>shouldn't get bent out of shape".

Ah, OK, I see that point. I would also tend to agree that 3500 US military deaths is certainly not "too many" if it prevents the deaths of tens of thousands of americans, as it might if those deaths occurred during a defensive war.

However, this is an optional political war, and thus different values apply. What might be acceptable when defending the pacific against japanese attacks against our country might not be acceptable when we are simply trying to install a more friendly regime in a country.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Keeping all personal opinion about the war aside, how long did people really expect to be in Iraq?

Some people expected to be there for a long time, which was one reason why they didn't support it.

The Whitehouse didn't think we'd be there for very long at all.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[piisfish 140]

Quote

Some people expected to be there for a long time, which was one reason why they didn't support it.

The Whitehouse didn't think we'd be there for very long at all.

emphasized for you

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Skyrad 0]

Its funny, i just posted in another thread saying that this generation on both sides of the Atlantic are not made of the same stuff as the WWII generation were. Obviously WWI was even worse.
Its the same pathetic namby pamby attitue that offers 'counciling' to people because a bomb goes off in one of our cities to people that weren't even there! Or gives out help lines to people after a episode of Eastenders in case they have been 'effected' by the story line. In WWII Londoners had hundreds of thousands of tons of HE dropped on them night after night and no one was crying for want of counciling then. Every death is regretable but soldiers die its a occupational hazzard. I feel for the familys left behind but I couldn't agree with you more Andy. Ultimately what is the point of spending billions on the military if the people have no stomach for the fight?
What will loose the war in Iraq is Americas weak will at home because the Americans having invaded the place have not got the stomach to see body bags and limbless soldiers coming home for the next thirty years.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[mnealtx 0]

Well said!

Here's a editorial that I linked to before, speaking of the difference between our fathers (or for some, grandfathers) generation and ours.

The Other D-Day.

It truly shows the difference between the generations...and not necessarily in a good way (IMO).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SpeedRacer 1]

Maybe it's the nature of the war, not the people. We are made of the same stuff as our ancestors, so it's the war that has changed.

If enough people believe that the reason to go to a certain war is bullshit, you're going to get this kind of problem.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Skyrad 0]

1) Yes the nature of war has changed. In the past you HAD to get up close and bayonet, stab, club, crush and punch the enemy repeatedly until he was dead. The civilians of defeated towns were raped and murdered sometimes on a systematic basis having their throats cut or hung in the days before gun powder. These days we can destroy cities without even seeing them. Sure soldier do close and kill but nt that often do they have to fight hand to hand any more. Its against international law to bombard civillian populations (of course it still happens from time to time (Faluja for example))

2) The vast majority of Americans were fully behind the war in Iraq. Can't just walk into a country make it FUBAR and then say 'Opps sorry he lied, we had no idea...Bye!'
2)

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 2,183]

Quote

Ultimately what is the point of spending billions on the military if the people have no stomach for the fight?
.

Profits.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

I think that we are different now.... Softer maybe pushing it a bit far but certainly more priviledged... Most of us (a lot more that in the 30's & 40's for example) want for nothing; still chase stuff, but dont go hungry, get a replacement car often, holiday a couple of times a year... dont have to scrimp and save to buy essentials - How many people, for example need to have their old clothes repaired? or handed down to siblings.... Life is easier for the vast majority....

and that's the over simplified reason that we are going to loose without an attitude adjustment SOON.


.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[SpeedRacer 1]

so what. war sucks balls anyway.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,132]

>this generation on both sides of the Atlantic are not made of the same
>stuff as the WWII generation were.

That may be true.

Today, we may be less willing to stomach the killing of tens of thousands of civilians for no good reason. Perhaps we are starting to see the lives of our troops as every bit as valuable as the lives of the people who died on 9/11, instead of as replaceable military assets. Maybe we're starting to think that war is the worst thing in the world, to be avoided at all costs unless there is really no other choice. Maybe we're starting to see that the losers in wars are the ones that fight them for spurious reasons - and the winners are the ones that have the wisdom to not fight them.

If that's the case, I am very glad we're not made of the same stuff. The new stuff is better.

>because the Americans having invaded the place have not got the
> stomach to see body bags and limbless soldiers coming home for the
> next thirty years.

I would much rather live with people like this than people who look at body bags and limbless soldiers with a sense of pride and accomplishment.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Today, we may be less willing to stomach the killing of tens of thousands of civilians for no good reason. Perhaps we are starting to see the lives of our troops as every bit as valuable as the lives of the people who died on 9/11, instead of as replaceable military assets. Maybe we're starting to think that war is the worst thing in the world, to be avoided at all costs unless there is really no other choice. Maybe we're starting to see that the losers in wars are the ones that fight them for spurious reasons - and the winners are the ones that have the wisdom to not fight them.

If that's the case, I am very glad we're not made of the same stuff. The new stuff is better.

Okay, everybody.

Let's all have a great big GROUP HUG!!!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Died on the 1st day of the Battle Of The Somme... another 40,000 where injured. Back then they had the public support even with such huge casualties. Whats differant today? One squaddie dies and the papers make a song and dance out of it.

Because we've become pussies in our modern comfortable lives, and no longer have the guts or gumption to do what is necessary to win. Instead, we sit in front of our TV's, night after night, and whine about trivial bullshit. We will never win another war, as long as we maintain this attitude. We are fodder for conquest by others who still have the guts and gumption that we have lost. And the sheep will willingly invite them in, and collaborate with them.

Imagine how WWII would have gone if we had fought it the way we're fighting in Iraq...

[billvon 3,132]

>Because we've become pussies in our modern comfortable lives, and
>no longer have the guts or gumption to do what is necessary to win.

Or because we've matured as a people, and our egos no longer require a series of military victories and parades to make us feel good about ourselves.

When a 19 year old kid sneaks into a bar and gets drunk, and someone picks a fight with him, often he will reply with his fists. Back down? Never! Losers back down; winners fight. Backing down would make him feel like a coward.

Often when such people grow up they realize that backing down is the smarter thing to do, even if the idiots in the bar think that makes him look like a cowardly loser. Sometimes beating the crap out of the drunk guy who calls you names and pushes you really isn't a victory, and ignoring him (or just plain leaving) really isn't defeat.

>We will never win another war, as long as we maintain this attitude.

If we never win another war because we never FIGHT another war, then we will have won as a people.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Died on the 1st day of the Battle Of The Somme... another 40,000 where injured.

Back then they had the public support even with such huge casualties.

Whats differant today? One squaddie dies and the papers make a song and dance out of it.

Early 20th century thinking was pretty stupid. In WWI, the generals were criminally idiotic in sending wave after wave of soldiers into machine guns. WW2 was only slightly better, esp for the poor Russians.

These days, far more money is investing in training each soldier, and you can't draft the next wave of 18 year olds to replace them, so they should be considered more valueable.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

it's a war, and people die.

Ohhhh...thanks for clearing that up. Silly me for getting bent over a few soldiers getting killed! Hell, now that I am clear, thanks to you, I no longer give a damn about soldiers being blown to hell for a war that makes no sense. After all, it's a war! and people die. We should just get use to it. Soldiers are but tools anyways and if you lose a screwdriver, you merely replace it. Soldiers are just as replaceable.

Quote

We (the USA) are still in Japan, still in Germany, still in Italy, etc...all because of WWII and other incidents.

Comparing WWII to this qaugmire without reason is like saying a VW Beetle is the same as a Funnycar.

Quote

There is no quick and easy solution after a war happens.

Wars just happen? And all of this time I was assuming that someone had to throw the first stone!

Quote

You stay until the job is done.

And when more than 10,000 American soldiers are dead, we can't complain because it's a war and people die.
Thank you for making me see the light and to realize that those soldiers are nothing more than a tool and that I should no longer care because, well... it's a war and people die.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[NCclimber 0]

Comparing the Iraq War to WWI (or WWII) is right up there with Bush - Hitler comparisons. Both are lousy comparisons with seem to overlook the huge, glaring differences.

WWI was a "backs against the wall" situation. The Battle of Somme (much like the Battle of Normandy) was a pivotal event, in a truly international war.

The present day sentiment about the war in Iraq made be effected by our being a kinder, gentler society, as well as our 24/7 in-your-face- coverage, but the overwhelming difference in then and now has to do with the implications of fighting versus not fighting.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Imagine how WWII would have gone if we had fought it the way we're fighting in Iraq...

Well, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we would have blamed it on, oh, Brazil, maybe.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Because we've become pussies in our modern comfortable lives, and no longer have the guts or gumption to do what is necessary to win.

Win what?

Comparing Iraq to WW II is utterly stupid.

In WWII a foreign nation attacked you and drew you into a war you had mostly avoided up to that point.

In Iraq your President decided that it might be fun to start a little war and invaded another country. England decided to follow. I am surprised Bush has the ability to look any wounded soldier straight in the eyes. I am even more surprised soldiers don't take a swing at him when they are close enough to do so.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

However, this is an optional political war, and thus different values apply. What might be acceptable when defending the pacific against japanese attacks against our country might not be acceptable when we are simply trying to install a more friendly regime in a country.

Agree 100%, every life lost on this miserable war is a tragic waste.

. . =(_8^(1)