Some people think that our troops are over there dying for now apparent reason. I mean, the statistics lately have been really high.

Keep this in mind, people die in wars. I know this is hard for some to comprehend but it's true. When you insert a pointy object into another human beings skull, heart, stomach, lung or any other vital organ there is a good chance they will bite the big one. Another fact that is important to remember is that our casualties are extremely low. Yes that's right I said it, casualties are extremely low. If you are reading this and don't understand then you need to read a medical journal and some military history. And no we are not dying for no reason. Our safety and freedom and the safety and freedom of Iraq is worth it. One more thing, every member of the military in Iraq volunteered for that duty when they signed on the dotted line.

OUTSTANDING!^

It's what the military does, fight and die. We know it going in, yet we ALL volunteered anyway. Most of us joined to protect the USA. A few joined to suck off the government titt. The rest joined for nothing else to do.

This battle is global, not just Iraq. This is a Crusade, same as it was 600 years ago and before. The only thing that has changed, is travel and communication has improved over the last few centuries.

Islam wants you dead. I'm Army to see that doesn't happen.

And how did the last twelve crusades work out? Lonely, isolated castles in the desert that were eventually abandoned and no net change to the region. Deja vu all over again!

quote:

Originally posted by bobmarleylives:
And how did the last twelve crusades work out? Lonely, isolated castles in the desert that were eventually abandoned and no net change to the region. Deja vu all over again!

Thank you!!! Ignorance breeds ignorance and hatred breeds hatred. Things in Iraq are only getting worse and although the media does dwell on the violence, the American people have spoken by the latest elections....

quote:

Originally posted by bobmarleylives:
And how did the last twelve crusades work out? Lonely, isolated castles in the desert that were eventually abandoned and no net change to the region. Deja vu all over again!

Well, lessee....islam was forcibly removed from France and England, and most of western Europe...which was the goal of the Crusades. Pushed back into the middle east, with "castles in the desert" to keep watch over them, islam stayed there until now, hence this New Crusade.

Be aware, the leading muslim clerics have called it a Crusade, not the west. They want a Holy Crusade once again....so be it, the results will be the same as it was before.

islam wants you dead, I don't think so.

quote:

Originally posted by bobmarleylives:
And how did the last twelve crusades work out? Lonely, isolated castles in the desert that were eventually abandoned and no net change to the region. Deja vu all over again!

which crusade are you talking about? the islamic one or the one that kicked their butts out of central europe in the 9th century???
be careful marley...

quote:
Originally posted by STARSnBARS:
Well, lessee....islam was forcibly removed from France and England, and most of western Europe...which was the goal of the Crusades.

The goal of the crusades was to recapture the Holy Land.

quote:
Originally posted by 120f12:
which crusade are you talking about? the islamic one or the one that kicked their butts out of central europe in the 9th century???
be careful marley...

The first crusade was in the 11th century. Can you clarify what you are talking about?

I think we are there for a good reason, OUR SURVIVEL!

For those who disagree, do you think that if we leave Iraq will the Islamic zealots will leave us "alone"? If so than listen closly to want is spewing out of Iran.

They've been preaching about destorying and conquering the West for decades because our culture, our way of life, our way of thinking, T.V., music, sports, eating, learning and freedom. They think it is all evil and must be destoryed plus the Koran saids that(and the president of Iran truely believe)a world of peace and a perfect world is a world of Islam.
Look at France and Spain, they are already on their knees. Next will be Great Britain.

If we lose this "crusade" then you have three choices:
Convert to Islam
become a slave(yes a slave)
or die!

I don't know about you but I will rather fight and die.

Iran is the new Nazi Germany people. Everyone is sitting back while Iran builds it's nukes and not getting punished compared to Germany, building their military, invading Poland and it goes on and on. Just like you bobmarleylives, who does not see Islam as a threat, many people during pre-WWII didn't see Hitler and Germany and Imperial Japan(who though through their religion they are destined to control the world)as a threat to the world.

You who disagree better wake the "F" up and fast!

FEAR . . . quite a motivational force, isn't it. It was the fear of weapons of mass destruction that took us to Iraq. Now, depending on which side of the aisle you’re on, its either the fear of terrorism spreading throughout the areas of the world we care about, or the fear of having battled (with its accompanying death & destruction) to a draw that keeps us there.

Have we stopped the spread of terrorism? Probably not; but we certainly have slowed it to some degree. The contention is in the answer to this question: How much have we have slowed down the spread of terrorism? Judged strictly by the loss of life inside the US borders we’ve been successful. There hasn't been any confirmed deaths due to terrorism attacks since 9/11. Measured by the loss of American lives, we’ve haven’t done well at all; 2,800 troop deaths is a lot of American lives. Falling back on the axiom that the troops are volunteers to possible death is ridiculous. This is akin to trivializing people who die in motor vehicles accidents. After all, didn’t they voluntarily accept their very real risk of death when they sat down in the vehicle? The only difference is that the risk in driving is more acceptable to ignore since so many more people participate in driving than military service.

Is our homeland safer now because we are in Iraq/Afghanistan? Yes it is; but to declare that as the number one reason we’re safer also leads to the conclusion that our troops are being used as bait to keep terrorists too busy to attack in the US again. I hope that the policies put into effect to look for terrorism on the home front have done more to assure our safety than our Iraq/Afghanistan presence.

Who decides which fear is keeping us in Iraq/Afghanistan? You do . . . through your elected officials. Your vote and what you do with it is the only fear that politicians understand; use it accordingly.

One thing is certain. The final form of government Iraq ends up with will be the one that the people of Iraq are willing to tolerate; regardless of the efforts of the world to guide them to a particular ideal or what the world may think of that final form of government. Will it be a government that is worth the price of the lives lost and yet to be lost? No one knows. All anyone can do is speculate and conjecture.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: roppd,

roppd,
Although I agree with the majority of your post I must take issue with your comment about the number of lives lost in Iraq;

"Measured by the loss of American lives, we’ve haven’t done well at all; 2,800 troop deaths is a lot of American lives."

I disagree. Although the lost of American service men and women in war is tragic it is to be expected. By far 2,800 is an acceptable number. I know what some think, "No loss of life is acceptable." This is not so when it comes to military conflicts. If it was then we should not have a military at all. People will die when they go off to war. It is utterly amazing to me that within almost 4 years of conflict we have been able to keep deaths in the war on terror below 4,000. Further more I am completely bewildered but ecstatic we have not suffered any further casualties within the U.S. since September 11, 2001. I accept the fact that as a Marine I may be required to make the ultimate sacrifice, but I would never have imagined that within 4 years of war well over 95% of my fellow Marines would have escaped death and in most circumstances injury. Death is unfortunate but must be realized in order to continue to protect our way of life.

One last comment, when it comes to terror strikes within the U.S. it is not a question of if but rather a question of when. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying we should accept a certain amount of terror strikes I'm just saying that it is highly probable that the bad guys will slip one in. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Well, like most people that post on this website, I have been there 2 times, OIF I and than OIF III. Sure the numbers have gotten higher as the war goes on, but the things I have seen that we have done for that country would be well worth my life. If we pull out now, the country will go to hell, and all those who did lose their lives in Iraq, would turn out to be pointless, we are fighting for that country. I would gladly go back. Semper FI!

Soldiers died in combat no doubt. There is a weapon technology in combination with combat techniques that enable soldiers to engage the enemy and kill without our soldiers expose their self to the enemy. This system can be adapts to different combat situations. The department of defense for some reason is not using this technique. Also there is tactics to secure the cities of Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that if you are not a contractor most likely your idea will end up in a trash can, while our troops died in combat. It sound to good to be true but I can prove that is true. johnny569@earthlink.net

quote:

Originally posted by NavyCutie:
Some people think that our troops are over there dying for now apparent reason. I mean, the statistics lately have been really high.

You ask an interesting question that has no easy answer. The standard patriotic answer is of course not, we are protecting America, but are, and at what cost, who is really benefiting, who in the Government calls the shots, who doesn't, or is it big business. Ask yourself this, how many millionaires have been created from the war. Then ask yourself how many of those millionaires helped to promote the war, or at least help to promote the politicians the wanted the war. The answers to all of these questions are just not as simple as the bare bones patriotic response. By the way, why do they call you navycutie, sorry I just have to ask, its the jarhead in me.

The Battle of Tours (October 10, 732), often called Battle of Poitiers and also called in Arabic بلاط الشهداء (Balâṭ al-Shuhadâ’) The Court of Martyrs[6] was fought near the city of Tours, close to the border between the Frankish realm and the independent region of Aquitaine. The battle pitted Frankish and Burgundian [7][8] forces under Austrasian Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel against an army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by ‘Abd-al-Raḥmān al-Ghāfiqī, Governor-general of al-Andalus. The Franks were victorious, ‘Abd-al-Raḥmān was killed, and Martel subsequently extended his authority in the south. Ninth-century chroniclers, who interpreted the outcome of the battle as divine judgment in his favour, gave Charles the nickname Martellus ("The Hammer"), possibly recalling Judas Maccabeus ("The Hammerer") of Maccabean revolt.[9][10] Details of the battle, including its exact location and the exact number of combatants, cannot be determined from accounts that have survived.[11]

As later chroniclers increasingly came to praise Charles Martel as the champion of Christianity, pre-20th century historians began to characterize this battle as being the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam. "Most of the 18th and 19th century historians, like Gibbon, saw Poitiers (Tours), as a landmark battle that marked the high tide of the Muslim advance into Europe." [12] Leopold Von Ranke felt that "Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world." [13]

While modern historians are divided as to whether or not the victory was responsible — as Gibbon and his generation of historians claimed — for saving Christianity and halting the conquest of Europe by Islam, the battle helped lay the foundations for the Carolingian Empire, and Frankish domination of Europe for the next century. "The establishment of Frankish power in western Europe shaped that continent's destiny and the Battle of Tours confirmed that power." [14

NOW HAVING SAID THAT I WILL ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF THE POST...
NO, SOLDIERS ARE NOT DYING FOR NO REASON..HOW UTTERLY DEVOID OF INTELLECT THAT STATEMENT IS.
THE PROPAGANDISTS HAVING AN EFFECT ON YOUR BRAIN? THINK FOR YOURSELF...READ AND BE EDUCATED NOT INDOCTRINATED. WE ARE AT WAR WITH A PEOPLE WHO DO NOT THINK THAT WE SHOULD INHABIT THIS EARTH. IS THAT REASON ENOUGH? ITS CALLED SURVIVAL.