100 UK deaths in Iraq

[RobB]

Ugh. I hate these "cut and paste" dissections of someone elses posts, it makes a thread unreadable at times. You're only replying to my post anyway, so why not just say what you want to say? If I've forgotten what I've written, the post is just above anyway.

I wasn't stating that the Americans were covering up anything, just that that's the left wing caveat to any information given. Likewise with my right wing example, which you leapt upon. As for the only people using the figures are those anti-bush, anti-war types, I disagree. The US/UK/anyone will use anything to try and force home their point, and prove they were right in the first place. If they're not mentioning the figures at all, it's because they haven't found a way to spin them. That's not anti-bush, it's just how politics works.


I'm also not arguing that suicide bombings are the Americans "fault" (well, no more than you're arguing that they're not), I'm just pointing out an action and consequence. Likewise, a consequence of there not being an invasion in the first place, may well have been a WMD attack. Fact is that a consequence of the actual invasion has been suicide bombings, and largescale civil unrest. This could be seen as legitimate protests against an invading force, instead we call it terrorism and brand it evil. If Germany had actually got to our little island during the 40's, I'd like to think the British public would have had a similar reaction.

I have more sympathy for 100,000 people I don't know dying, than I do of 100 people I don't know who happen to come from my country. It's just the sheer size of it. Selfishly, and understandably, if I had a relative who was one of the dead I may feel differently. Objectivity and subjectivity.

100 out of 9,000 troops have died. So just over a 1% chance of death, in a war zone. Doesn't seem that bad does it?

I recognise that I have not had access to enough information to accurately decide whether the war was justified or not. I have no real opinion on it, I just like questioning things.

[TimC]

dont agree with you at all, those men never asked to goto iraq they believed the goverment that iraq posed a threat to other allied countries and supported their goverment. each one of them is a hero in their own way.
everyone complains that there is no need for the army but when the IRA or some religous nut blows up something in the uk everyone is asking why the army didnt act better to protect them, personally im proud to have a dedicated professional army that we can rely on and anyone who joins is smart enough to see that they are goin into a good thing.
yes when people join they except the risk they could be killed but nearly every job has risks of some sort, i dont think people who join the army are gun loving killing freaks rather people who want the security and training the army provides.
fair enough war kills alot of people it dosnt need to but politics kills a hell of alot more,
i feel sorry for every persons family that has died through war and i dont think my mind will change for any reason.
____________________
CB400sf version s, d&d race can and a few other odds and ends!

[WildGoose]

anyone else noticed the huge hike in advertising for recruitment for the infantry post john reid's announcement about afghanistan this year

would prepare yourself for quite a few more deaths of UK service personnel
____________________
So in other words, he stopped you for being flagrantly in posession of a motorcycle in direct contravention of the Hippies, Darkies and People Whose Face I Don't Like The Look of (Police Powers) Act. 1976

[Visitor Q]

[G]

[Mister James]

[Mister James]

One other thing that caught my attention amongst the stats on British casualties was that the Royal Military Police have suffered the most deaths (11) of any regiment that has been deployed in Iraq.

Usually you wouldn't expect to see that kind of thing - shows the seismic shift in the way operations work in so called 'low grade conflicts'.
____________________
>Soultrader Mister James, I bet you are a copper
>Bazza Wow. Eyes like a shithouse rat, you...

[craigie b]

[killa]

I’m waiting for the day these fuckers over step the mark, and then our boys can be pulled out and we can use proper force.
Burn the fools….
____________________
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
Bike:- Yamaha TRX850 | Killas Biking History | Killas Gaming History | Killas autmotive history

[RobB]

I was glad to see you didn't take my cut+paste comment personally, but was less glad to see the massive cut+paste...

[Kickstart]

Hi

I opposed the idea of the original invasion, but now that it has happened and we have triggered the current situation I think we need to stay there and help to sort the mess out.

It is likely to get more expensive in casualties. That is the cost of being responsible for our actions.

[killa]

Was a bit of a joke Keith, but you and I both know it can happen.
If they mess us about too much, we’d sort it pretty hastily.

We're both as bad as each other.
____________________
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
Bike:- Yamaha TRX850 | Killas Biking History | Killas Gaming History | Killas autmotive history

[Kickstart]

[mchaggis]

The way I see it is fairly simple really, but is bound to ramble.

"Oh no, Saddam has all these weapons, we must destroy him!"
Except they fabricated and exaggerated the quantity and veracity of the evidence to manipulate public opinion to support them. Of course, in the aftermath of 9/11, the public was putty in their hands. So they invade to depose Saddam Hussein and get rid of the weapons - what next? No-one seems to have given that much thought.

"Hooah! We're great, we've beaten the Iraqi army in days, we are teh leet! Let's spread some democracy among this country which has known nothing but rule by dictator and tribal leaders for the past x millenia!"
Of course, we'll ignore the friendly fire incidents, some of that is inevitable, some of it was due to undertrained/ skilled cowboys. There's also the problem that Iraq simply is prepared for democracy. People expect to be ruled by sheikhs in a feudal system, telling them that they can change things by putting a paper in a box is like telling the antelope that they can stop the lions hunting them if they only stop running away and gang up.

"Um, where did all these different religious groups come from? You mean to say there is more than one type of Muslim, and they all hate each other? Oh bugger. Oh well, best get on with spreading that democracy, they will realise the error of their ways and grasp the freedom sooner or later!"
So they carry on spreading their democracy and freedom and the different muslim sects get on with the business of destroying each other. The minority Sunnis, being in power for so long, can't stand the idea of the majority Shia muslims being in power as democracy says they should be, so set about killing the Shia who are trying to run the country, politicians, policemen, army personnel, that sort of thing.

Meanwhile, down in the south, the Shia take full advantage of their newfound freedom and vote for extremist fundamentalist muslims to run them, who then proceed to invoke Sharia law (severe discrimination against women, arbitrary executions, that sort of thing) and rule the south with a rod of iron, in the mould of the hardline Iranians next door. It's democracy we cry, there's nothing we can do about it! So then British wander about, wondering what they've done letting the Shiate fundamentalists into power and knowing that there really is nothing they can do.

The Americans in the North (well, Baghdad etc and so on) go about spreading their 'democracy' and being pretty much incapable of stopping the Sunnis from killing the Shiates and trying to disrupt everything. The Kurds further up get on with running their own country and wish everyone else would just piss off and leave them to it.

Attacks on troops have dwindled, attacks on civilians have mushroomed. In the south, the UK forces can do nothing but watch what forces democracy has brought in, in the North the US troops can do nothing but watch the Sunnis object violently to the US vision of democracy by killing its participants and the Shiates be perplexed by the whole idea. The only people who can control it are the tribal Sheikhs (that's feudalism, not democracy) and the original Baathists who they went to such lengths to get rid of. Irony at its best.

"We're staying until the job is done!"

Which job is that? We've instituted democracy in the south, they went ahead and elected a vicious fundamentalist regime. Get out while the going is not quite as bad as it might become. As for the rest of it, there is a reason that Iraq is an artificial country. Before the British took over early in the last century, it composed of three distinct nations, seperated by their religions: the Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle and Shiates in the South. It's just gravitating back to that natural, disparate state.


Iran is another matter. A regime that nasty should not have nuclear weapons. The same could be said for umpteen other nuclear powers, but they already have them; we can't stop them. Iran has almost certainly been funding and training the 'insurgency' and is therefore responsible for killing US and British troops.



Apologies for the rambling nature of that.
____________________
I must not be a troll...
Mmmm, Guinness
Discovering the delights of Hammerite and a 3/4" brush.

[G]

After the weapons bit, it should be noted that it seemed some changed their tact and suggested that infact the invasion was to prevent the human rights abuses the Iraqi people were beign subjected to.

For instance many were tortured or killed for what they believed in.

Of course now not only does this still happen, but many are tortured and killed much more indiscrminatory with a lot less change of avoiding it. I suspect on a much larger scale, as well.

[0ni]

Most people are forgetting that the 100 figure is British military personnel that have died in Iraq. There have in fact been only 77 combat deaths - the rest down to accidents with firearms, vehicles etc.

I think having only 77 combat deaths is a feat in itself. Wether its down to excellent training, tactics, leadership or technological advantage I can't say - as I wasn't there. However a look at the figures from previous wars shows how far we have come in protecting our troops.

Chances of death in various wars:

WW1:
1:8

WW2:
1:17

Korea:
1:60

Falklands:
1:118

Northern Ireland:
1:500

and finally.. Iraq:
1:1039.

People seem to have forgotten how deadly wars of the past were.
____________________
Its a lovely day, just wait until some bastard spoils it.

[niff5855]

I wonder what The fuckin bleeding hearts would have said if the sadistic fucker had been left alone to develope nukes when the skin was peeling from their childrens faces?
____________________
Live fast - die....erm...well...old !!!

[craigie b]

Just like the way the childrens skin is already peeling off from all the radioactive material we left lying about from our depleted uranium weapons? The Iraqis are already loosing a generation through our weapons, never mind the fact Saddams chemical weapons were sold to him by the US.

[killa]

Eventually a lot of the Iraq wars secrets will be revealed, as did secrets from WW1 and 2, to this day we still find out little clues as to why certain things happened at that time, but one things for sure, we know very little.
The countries leaders, on both sides tell us what they want to, we lap it up, as if to say ‘At least our leaders tell us what’s going on’ When in reality, back handers, deals and just general wrong doings are on going, which TBH I’d rather not know about.
There was something on the TV last night about Bush and Blair making decisions on military actions before the public vote etc etc, sorry but who the fuc* thought it would make a difference anyway? Lol
____________________
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
Bike:- Yamaha TRX850 | Killas Biking History | Killas Gaming History | Killas autmotive history