1
   

2000 DEAD

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 07:53 am
2,000 American Military Deaths in Iraq: Context and History
By James J. Na

Predictably, the mainstream media is talking up the "milestone" of the 2,000th American military death in Iraq to portray the struggle as a useless, costly quagmire.

According to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, the total number of American military deaths in Iraq, including non-battle deaths, now stands at 2002 in approximately 32 months of combat from March 2003 to October 2005.

It is often said that these deaths are not simply statistics. They are real faces and lives, each with its own story and family. Yet we do rely on statistics sometimes, because they offer a sense of scale. For example, according to the National Health Center for Statistics, in the year 2003:

A total of over 2.4 million Americans died.
Over 684,000 died from heart disease.
Over 104,000 were killed in accidents (over 44,000 in car accidents and nearly 17,000 fell to death).
Over 30,000 committed suicide.
Over 17,000 were killed in homicides.

In comparison, the annual average death rate for American military personnel in Iraq is about 751.

Of course, there is a clear moral difference between "ordinary" deaths at home and military deaths in war. So let's draw a comparison to the statistics on American military fatalities in other modern wars. According to the United States Civil War Center, the fatalities rates, including those killed-in-action and non-battle deaths, were:

For World War I, over 6,100 per month.
For World War II, over 9,200 per month.
In Korea, over 900 killed-in-action each month (non-battle death information is not available).
For Vietnam, over 600 per month.
For Gulf War I, almost 300 in one month.

The first Gulf War was noted for its remarkably low casualty rate. Some even observed that the death rate for the deployed American military personnel was lower than that during peacetime, making it "safer to be at war than at home."

In comparison, an average of 63 died each month in the current war.

Even in the deadliest month of the conflict (November 2004), the American military death toll was 137, making it substantially smaller than the anomalously low Gulf War I rate. When the overall population growth is factored in -- for example, during World War I, the total US population was only a little over 100 million while today it exceeds over 260 million -- the death rate for the current war shrinks still in comparison to the others.

In fact, during World War II, more American soldiers died in one week on average than in all of 32 months of operations in Iraq. Despite the tragically higher fatalities rate of World War II, the media of its day kept respectful distance, and allowed the families of the fallen to grieve privately in dignity.

There was no complaint that American soldiers were dying "needlessly in a war of aggression" against a Nazi Germany that did not bomb Pearl Harbor. There was no talk of a "quagmire" as thousands of American died on the beaches of Normandy in one day and as thousands more died in the jungles of the Pacific, facing suicide attacks from a fanatical foe. No one was accused of hyped intelligence when the actual German atomic weapons program turned out to be substantially less advanced than estimated.

Instead, the families of the Greatest Generation, already having survived a crippling Depression, quietly endured the deaths and supported the military endeavors to defend American interests and to extend the boundaries of freedom.

Today's mainstream media, on the other hand, sensationalize -- almost herald -- the war deaths in a highly partisan political effort to paint the Iraq war as a failure, emphasizing its flaws with minimal -- if any -- references to its successes or even its context, such as toppling a murderous dictatorship, defeating a sponsor of terrorism and bringing self-determination to a region crippled with corrupt monarchies and repressive socialism.

Clearly, the comparisons to the past military deaths do not imply that the American casualty in the current war is insubstantial or less tragic. On the contrary, every one of the military sacrifices in Iraq was a noble, meaningful one, suffered by an all-volunteer force that needed no draft, no compulsion to fight for our nation.

Ernest Hemingway is said to have observed at the beginning of World War II: "I have seen much war in my life and I detest it profoundly. But there are worse things than war, and they all come with defeat."

Indeed, what is more important to recognize, and what these historical figures demonstrate, is that it is fully within our national historical legacy to carry on the struggle to protect our interests and to extend the boundaries of freedom, all in quiet dignity without losing our faith and determination to be victorious in the end.

source
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 08:08 am
One unnecessary death is one too many. Infinity times 2002, or infinity times 6,100, it still equals infinity.

And your statistics bear out another thing I've been saying, which is that the "war on terror" is a ridiculous farce.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 08:45 am
THE MAJOR story in the national press yesterday was the death of Sgt. George Alexander Jr., 34, of Killeen, Texas, though his name was not always mentioned in the reports. Sgt. Alexander was America's 2,000th military death in Iraq.

Much is remarkable about the men and women who have died in our ongoing effort to liberate Iraq. Most remarkable is that every one of them enlisted voluntarily. According to The New York Times, a fifth of the dead had enlisted two, three or four times.

Interviews with Iraq veterans who have re-enlisted show how deeply many of them believe in the cause. They would rather risk their lives to see this war through than leave before the Iraqis are ready to protect and govern themselves.

The other big news yesterday, which received far less attention, was the certification of the Iraqi constitution. Iraqis voted 78 percent to 21 percent in favor of the constitution. Soon, Iraqis will vote for their new government.

To pretend that there is no connection between Iraq's progress toward democratic governance and the 2,000 brave American service members who died there is to deny the obvious. Those 2,000 Americans were not lost in vain. They died to make America safer by making Iraq freer. The best way to honor their memory is, as President Bush said, to complete the mission for which they gave their lives.

source
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 08:51 am
A "free" Iraq will mean civil war. Do not confuse "democratic" with "free."
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 09:25 am
DrewDad wrote:
One unnecessary death is one too many. Infinity times 2002, or infinity times 6,100, it still equals infinity.

And your statistics bear out another thing I've been saying, which is that the "war on terror" is a ridiculous farce.

This is exactly why Bush was forced to invade - the massive deaths should Iraq have still had and one day used WMD could have been as high as half a million per each WMD used. Why do you care about one death toll but attach no significance whatever to the other, much larger one? Is it because it was only a possible loss of life? A realistically possible loss of life on that massive scale is still serious to someone who cares about life and casualties.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 03:29 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
One unnecessary death is one too many. Infinity times 2002, or infinity times 6,100, it still equals infinity.

And your statistics bear out another thing I've been saying, which is that the "war on terror" is a ridiculous farce.

This is exactly why Bush was forced to invade - the massive deaths should Iraq have still had and one day used WMD could have been as high as half a million per each WMD used. Why do you care about one death toll but attach no significance whatever to the other, much larger one? Is it because it was only a possible loss of life? A realistically possible loss of life on that massive scale is still serious to someone who cares about life and casualties.

Brandon, I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is a false dilemma. There were more choices available than "invade or be bombed," rr even "invade or risk being bombed."

There are other choices that would have led to assuring that Hussein's regime was incapable of creating and/or delivering WMD.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 04:07 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
One unnecessary death is one too many. Infinity times 2002, or infinity times 6,100, it still equals infinity.

And your statistics bear out another thing I've been saying, which is that the "war on terror" is a ridiculous farce.

This is exactly why Bush was forced to invade - the massive deaths should Iraq have still had and one day used WMD could have been as high as half a million per each WMD used. Why do you care about one death toll but attach no significance whatever to the other, much larger one? Is it because it was only a possible loss of life? A realistically possible loss of life on that massive scale is still serious to someone who cares about life and casualties.

Brandon, I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is a false dilemma. There were more choices available than "invade or be bombed," rr even "invade or risk being bombed."

There are other choices that would have led to assuring that Hussein's regime was incapable of creating and/or delivering WMD.

Certainly not delivering, since all that would be required for that would be a stamp.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 05:17 pm
Brandon alleges that we needed to engage our massive war machinery and procure the countless deaths of soldiers and civilians for fear that Saddam would mail an envelope of death designed to kill off all Americans the moment it was opened. I wonder if the war in Iraq has made it possible for us to live in a world of safer mail.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 09:45 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
This is exactly why Bush was forced to invade - the massive deaths should Iraq have still had and one day used WMD could have been as high as half a million per each WMD used.


But Saddam did not have WMD's. And the inspectors were in the process of showing he did not have WMD's when Bush ordered them out and invaded. No amount of repetition on your part will ever change that fact.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 10:33 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
One unnecessary death is one too many. Infinity times 2002, or infinity times 6,100, it still equals infinity.

And your statistics bear out another thing I've been saying, which is that the "war on terror" is a ridiculous farce.

This is exactly why Bush was forced to invade - the massive deaths should Iraq have still had and one day used WMD could have been as high as half a million per each WMD used. Why do you care about one death toll but attach no significance whatever to the other, much larger one? Is it because it was only a possible loss of life? A realistically possible loss of life on that massive scale is still serious to someone who cares about life and casualties.

Brandon, I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is a false dilemma. There were more choices available than "invade or be bombed," rr even "invade or risk being bombed."

There are other choices that would have led to assuring that Hussein's regime was incapable of creating and/or delivering WMD.

Certainly not delivering, since all that would be required for that would be a stamp.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Saddam was working on biological weapons? That is one WMD that I have not heard ascribed to Hussein. You keep stretching to make your theory fly, but a brick is a brick even if you glue wings to it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 02:08 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
This is exactly why Bush was forced to invade - the massive deaths should Iraq have still had and one day used WMD could have been as high as half a million per each WMD used.


But Saddam did not have WMD's. And the inspectors were in the process of showing he did not have WMD's when Bush ordered them out and invaded. No amount of repetition on your part will ever change that fact.


And Saddam had a very long history of being un-cooperative and thwarting the efforts of the weapons inspectors. No amount of repetition will change that either.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 02:31 pm
McGentrix wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
This is exactly why Bush was forced to invade - the massive deaths should Iraq have still had and one day used WMD could have been as high as half a million per each WMD used.


But Saddam did not have WMD's. And the inspectors were in the process of showing he did not have WMD's when Bush ordered them out and invaded. No amount of repetition on your part will ever change that fact.


And Saddam had a very long history of being un-cooperative and thwarting the efforts of the weapons inspectors. No amount of repetition will change that either.



And nothing will change the fact that the United Nations was in charge of the inspections and the United Nations was still using reasonable political efforts to gain Saddam's cooperation.

And nothing will change the fact that the United States violated international law when President Bush unilaterally determined to defy the United Nations and took the matter into his own hands and commenced an unlawful war of aggression against Iraq. In case you missed that irrefutable fact, Joe from Chicago contributed excellent posts on this issue in other threads.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 11:09 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
This is exactly why Bush was forced to invade - the massive deaths should Iraq have still had and one day used WMD could have been as high as half a million per each WMD used.


But Saddam did not have WMD's. And the inspectors were in the process of showing he did not have WMD's when Bush ordered them out and invaded. No amount of repetition on your part will ever change that fact.


And Saddam had a very long history of being un-cooperative and thwarting the efforts of the weapons inspectors. No amount of repetition will change that either.




And nothing will change the fact that the United Nations was in charge of the inspections and the United Nations was still using reasonable political efforts to gain Saddam's cooperation.

And nothing will change the fact that the United States violated international law when President Bush unilaterally determined to defy the United Nations and took the matter into his own hands and commenced an unlawful war of aggression against Iraq. In case you missed that irrefutable fact, Joe from Chicago contributed excellent posts on this issue in other threads.


That must be why there are so many tribunals charging the US with crimes against international law, right?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 01:00 am
FACT: The inspectors were on the ground, unhindered, inspecting away.

FACT: The inspectors even had the right to inspect private houses and farms, with no prior notice. If that had happened in the United States, it would be unconstitutional!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 07:27 am
FACT: The inspectors had been inspecting for 12 years and were thwarted at every turn.

FACT: Iraq is not the United States.

FACT: WMD's are still unaccounted for in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:11 am
Saddam Hussein is one bad dude but we can live with it. He was a stabilizing force as his government was secular. Now with his government gone, theocratic governments will follow and will be worse. There is a nascent Kurdistan movement in the works as the Kurds with oil could destabilize the Middle East. Sunni and Shiite governments will be theocratic as Saudis will bring their brand of religious fanatics like the Taliban and the Shiites with Iranian crazies. The future doesn't look too bright. The saying "let sleeping dogs lie" holds true.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:14 am
Quote:
FACT: The inspectors had been inspecting for 12 years and were thwarted at every turn.

FACT: Iraq is not the United States.

FACT: WMD's are still unaccounted for in Iraq.


Your first and third facts are, in fact, not factual.

The second one is, though. 1/3 ain't terrible...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 02:33 pm
talk72000 wrote:
Saddam Hussein is one bad dude but we can live with it. He was a stabilizing force as his government was secular. Now with his government gone, theocratic governments will follow and will be worse. There is a nascent Kurdistan movement in the works as the Kurds with oil could destabilize the Middle East. Sunni and Shiite governments will be theocratic as Saudis will bring their brand of religious fanatics like the Taliban and the Shiites with Iranian crazies. The future doesn't look too bright. The saying "let sleeping dogs lie" holds true.


Saddam? A "stabilizing force"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

You crack me up.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 02:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
FACT: The inspectors had been inspecting for 12 years and were thwarted at every turn.

FACT: Iraq is not the United States.

FACT: WMD's are still unaccounted for in Iraq.


Your first and third facts are, in fact, not factual.

The second one is, though. 1/3 ain't terrible...

Cycloptichorn


Oh please. You can be opinionated, but you can't change facts. You may not wish they were facts, but they are. Need I link the various reports that are repeated here?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 03:22 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
This is exactly why Bush was forced to invade - the massive deaths should Iraq have still had and one day used WMD could have been as high as half a million per each WMD used.


But Saddam did not have WMD's. And the inspectors were in the process of showing he did not have WMD's when Bush ordered them out and invaded. No amount of repetition on your part will ever change that fact.


And Saddam had a very long history of being un-cooperative and thwarting the efforts of the weapons inspectors. No amount of repetition will change that either.




And nothing will change the fact that the United Nations was in charge of the inspections and the United Nations was still using reasonable political efforts to gain Saddam's cooperation.

And nothing will change the fact that the United States violated international law when President Bush unilaterally determined to defy the United Nations and took the matter into his own hands and commenced an unlawful war of aggression against Iraq. In case you missed that irrefutable fact, Joe from Chicago contributed excellent posts on this issue in other threads.


That must be why there are so many tribunals charging the US with crimes against international law, right?


Do I discern the mocking laughter of an unrepentant bully who thinks he is above the law and too powerful to be held accountable?

Might doesn't make right. The United States, having violated international law, is LIABLE for the wrong it has inflicted.

Perhaps Cindy Sheehan should bring suit against President Bush as a war criminal and against the United States for the wrongful death of her son due to an unlawful war of aggression. Perhaps all the Iraqi citizens should bring suit against President Bush as a war criminal for the damages caused to their lives and their country due to an unlawful war of aggression (a crime against peace) and seek damages for the wrongful deaths of 30,000 to 100,000 (or more) dead Iraqi civilians. Perhaps the victims of torture at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo Bay or elsewhere can bring suit against President Bush and the United States and seek damages for their crimes against humanity. Perhaps you laugh and maybe the unrepentant bully in you believes that our country's and our leaders' violations of international law will go unnoticed and unpunished. Not true.

Our liability as a nation that violated international law is perpetual. There is no statute of limitations. So laugh smuggly because you think the United States is too powerful to be answerable to the international community for violations of international law, but bullies eventually fall into disgrace and the world will deal with your smug laughter in due course.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 2000 DEAD
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/30/2024 at 12:42:45