$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ver 3,000 Russian soldiers were killed in the Chechen Wars in 1994-1996 and 1999. (the Chechens disputed the Russian government, saying it was as high as 5,000 or 5,500 in both wars). The Russian war in Chechyna is never ending, as we speak.
Approximately 52,000 British & Commonwealth troops were killed during the British invasion and occupation of Iraq during and after World War I. Great Britain didn't leave Iraq until early 1930s.
The only reason you all are too concerned about the recent deaths of US troops is because the media is trying to sensationalizing you, making you more and more worried about what's going on over there. It's unfortunate that such soldiers died in combats, that's the price everyone in the military is expected to pay while serving in the military anywhere.
PeakOil is You
Soldiers less valuable now
by smiley » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 16:21:59
haven't followed the news for a while have you?
Iraq is not a war. We did the war 2 years ago, we won.
Iraq is now a lovely prototypical democratic country and those soldiers are just there to have friendly chats with the locals, to train some Iraqi policemen and to build some bridges and daycare centres.
The worst thing they are supposed to catch there is a mild sunburn or a venereal disease from some backally Baghdad brothel. You're not supposed to be wounded by flying bone fragments of one of your colleagues who got blown up, as some poor fellow experienced a while back.
The media have every right to pay attention to these things. Especially if it turns out that these people don't get every bit of protection they deserve.
I mean what's the use of sending people there in a boat? Come on the last major flood there was in biblical times.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')You could certainly question whether an amphibious vehicle is the most appropriate ... to be driving around in a desert," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a private think tank.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/03/iraq.v ... index.html
-
smiley - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2274
- Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
by eric_b » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 16:48:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', 'c')laims to follow the religion of jesus. He is a child.
Then there's the issue of "sensationalizing" war dead. How many are really dead AS A RESULT OF the war in Iraq? The media reports numbers of those "killed in Iraq." How many died en route to hospitals? How many died later at home? Could it be, as reported here, over 7,000? I don't know, but the "media" certainly isn't on this story:
Then there's the issue of "sensationalizing" war dead. How many are really dead AS A RESULT OF the war in Iraq? The media reports numbers of those "killed in Iraq." How many died en route to hospitals? How many died later at home? Could it be, as reported here, over 7,000? I don't know, but the "media" certainly isn't on this story:
Yeah. The dead are the fortunate ones. Consider the greater numbers of people
permanently scarred - whether physically or mentally.
Consider the cost of this. And the cost to our society as these soldiers bring back a
culture of fear and death. What comes around goes around.
-
eric_b - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: us
by HonestPessimist » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 19:06:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', '
')Can death ever be oversensationalized? How can the press oversensationalize the death of anyone, especially in war? War is death, and the value of pursuing any war has to be measured by its ultimate cost, which is the amount of death it takes to pursue it, to justify it,to attain the victory. How is it we look back at other wars, or battles, like the Battle of the Somme, and think how ridiculous is was to waste all those lives. How is it okay to measure the past by weighing the human cost and yet that same measure not be allowed here?
')Can death ever be oversensationalized? How can the press oversensationalize the death of anyone, especially in war? War is death, and the value of pursuing any war has to be measured by its ultimate cost, which is the amount of death it takes to pursue it, to justify it,to attain the victory. How is it we look back at other wars, or battles, like the Battle of the Somme, and think how ridiculous is was to waste all those lives. How is it okay to measure the past by weighing the human cost and yet that same measure not be allowed here?
Nobody ever said that war is all fun and adventuresome in the real world.
![[smilie=icon_rolleyes.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif "icon_rolleyes"){kind=icon}
War is a FACT of life. There have been peoples in the world's history who lived for war and fighting because it was glorious and honorable, according to the virtues of their society.
Police officers or firefighters face a greater risk of dying on the job EVERY DAY than soldiers fighting in a combat operation or on patrol duties in a short tour. They (police officers or firefighters) do their jobs every day knowing the risks that they might die on the line of duty.
More people are actually dying or dead from diseases or homicide faster every day than the American soldiers in Iraq.
And every day the press is sensationalizing or pointing out these deaths.
Life have risks and there are consequences which includes a potential or possible loss of your life could be something you would never expected. But it could happen to you, me or anyone at any time. If you don't believe life have risks, then I wonders why God ever let you in this world.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', '
')In fact, the evidence is just the opposite - by not showing the photos of death, the war is being desationalized. Americans have no idea what the ramnifications of the war are, for they are not allowed to know. for example, its illegal to publish photos of the coffins coming home and Nightline gets crucified for listing the names of the dead. Our government is keeping the cost of the war from the people by desationalizing the aspect of death and human cost.
I believe the public have NO business in getting to know or must know the deaths of soldiers every time it has been reported. It is a private affair between the US military and the families of the fallen soldiers. If a family feels that the loss of son or daughter in combat or non-combat operation overseas must be publicly acknowledged, therefore it's up to that family to make it so and share it with the media and the public at their own expenses, not at the expense of the military or the government.
As a member of the public, it's not my business to know nor it should be yours or anyone. Have you ever make it your business to know the death of everyone who died of something in the news? Have you pursue it vigorously by reading the various obituaries every day? Do you have a fetish for death or people dying?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', '
')Your fallacy is that no one volunteers to die, death comes to all of us. Your fallacy lies in the fact you want to honor death to perpetuate the myth of the cause, yet never measure the cause against its costs.
You failed to understand my point: when you (or anyone) signs up to join the military, you would be informed by the military that the you have a greater risk of being hurt or killed while serving or performing in a combat or non-combat operation anywhere REGARDLESS of any political circumstance involved. By joining the military, you are expected to be called upon to perform certain or very specific tasks for the government or the military REGARDLESS of your opinions or feelings on such matters. They invest in you, drill and train you, with time and money, to show them what you are really made of.
You do not join the military on the account of some silly pursuance of war on whatever grounds by the government nor you do not join the military for wrong reasons or peer pressures. You are expected to be called upon at anytime and anywhere at any given opportunity or compelling circumstance. You don't join the military for war, you join for either three reasons (or all of them): develop new skills, discipline, or money for college in exchange for your participation and availability. If you don't believe in all of that, then you, sir, have no business being in the military and should be promptly discharged or discouraged from joining.
If you gets hit or killed by a bullet or bomb, it happens. It's no different than people getting hit or killed by drunk drivers, acts of homicide, robbery, disease, or sheer idiocy worthy of a Darwin award every hour, every day.
That's life. You live and survive or die by the virtues of life's various risks.
Don't believe in that? You do not belong on this planet.
During World War II, Allied troops took their amphibious vehicles so far deep in France and Benelux after invading Normandy. Why? Rivers, marshes, creeks and German-made water-trenches were abundant in France and Benelux. The role of these amphibious vehicles were very useful in the European theater for crossing water areas that Allied MBTs cannot cross or in certain cases, acted as "legs" to become a make-shift bridge for mass troop and tank crossing.