Iraq Casualties

I think 80 soldiers dieing in a month is irrelevant considering there are probably more killed in training accidents weekly then 80.

However, I do know there are more murders in the major cities of the US, more deaths to car accidents and certainly more deaths in air accidents then have yet occured in any single month in Iraq - and I’m including civilian casualties as well.

All things considered, it’s safer to walk along the streets of Baghdad then it is in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. or Detroit.

I agree with Jennifer, that isn’t bad for a war. But my guess is, it will be about the same this month… :cry:

@Jennifer:

All things considered, it’s safer to walk along the streets of Baghdad then it is in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. or Detroit.

I think I would rather risk strolling through those neighborhoods than in Baghdad. Statistics wise, you’re right. However, being an American walking around alone in Baghdad presents a much larger target on your chest.

yes, statistically safer, though i would feel safer walking in new york.

however, the losses we have suffered so far are paltry at best, even laughable. if people would lose the rosy colored glasses for a second, and get off it that these are “human lives” they would realize, wow…we are good.

All things considered, it’s safer to walk along the streets of Baghdad then it is in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. or Detroit.

Just correct this to: its safer to walk along the streets of Bagdad as an American soldier than as an average person in New York, etc. Then its accurate. If your a civilian, then your chances of dying are greater in Bagdad than New York. I generally agree with you, though, that Iraq is alot safer than we think it is. 1000 casuaties is a very small sum when compared to the other wars we have fought. The civilian casualties are pretty large, though, but not anything extrodinary. Less than the avergae amount of civilians killed under Sadaam each year, I believe.

However, I would say it will be more casualties this month, since we are launching offensives around Iraq this month. We may even take Falluja, which could kill a few dozen soldiers. After that, less casualties.

Except… we would not be loosing the soldiers if not for the war. We still have acciedents etc. These are additional losses. I would expect the men themselves and the families of those lost feel pretty strongly about the numbers.
As wars go it’s light. Since the war has been over for months now the question is more, how are the losses compared to other police actions. Much less than Vietnam I guess. Then again we are not out yet and we won’t be for years.

So are you still at war? 'Cuz i had heard Bush declare that it was over and that he had won.

Also - i guess if you’re at war, then 80 soldiers a month isn’t too bad. How many Iraqi’s are you guys killing a month these days? How many Iraqi’s are being killed by terrorists in Iraq these days?

CC, what you are arguing is semantics. and i would agree with you, the president chose his words poorly (or his speech writers did, whatever). the fact is, it is a war, whether officially or not (i dont recall a formal declaration of war), and i dont recall Bush’s exact words, but the idea of his “mission accomplished” fiasco was that the PRIMARY fighting, that is, what is the classical interpretation of war, with two opposing sides fighting each other, in more or less formal combat, is over. we did capture saddam, we did sack the iraqi cities, we do have effective control. that is the end of major operations. the large scale troop movements and operations ceased, and they moved into a holding and solidifying phase. now that we have the country, hold onto it, and gradually rebuild it, and transfer it back to the people. the current fighting is insurgency, resistance fighters. an example similar to this is the French resistance. im not trying to make any allusions or comparisons other than that it is a resistance group fighting the controlling power (you may draw any comparisons you like, but i intended none other than the one i stated). this is not a war in the traditional sense any more, but it is still part of the larger war. insurgents have a tendency for being able to take on a greater power better than a regular army. vietcong vs. NVa regulars. militia vs. Continental Army regulars, etc. guerilla warfare is a good way at taking on a superior military force. insurgent warfare is a good way at taking on a superior military force. particularly when they collaborate with terrorists, hide amongst the general populace we try to avoid involving, dont mind who they kill in trying to hurt us, hide in holy sites we are supposed to let be, and generally just try to cause trouble. they are smarter than we give them credit for. they know how much controversy is caused by our presence in iraq. they know many people question it, and point to continuing problems as a reason to pull out. this is exactly what they want. its blind mayhem. they have an overlying goal, but id be more surprised if EVERY attack was coordinated and part of a more specific operational plan, it seems more likely that they are simply aiming to kill, destroy, and instill fear and doubt. which they are doing a good job of. all that considered, we still have had one of the best successes in our taking and holding of iraq. we arent doing the best job possible with rebuilding ,but militarily, we dominated. the conservative estimate going in was 5000 deaths. we are at less than 2000 more than a year into the fighting. that is a victory.

as to how many iraqi’s die: by either our hand or terrorists, i dont know the numbers, but i will say that any civilian deaths on our part are unintentional, and come because of the wiliness of the enemy (they hide amongst the civilians, use them for cover, and arent afraid to attack us amongst them, while we are not supposed to respond to spare civilian lives). as for terrorists killing them, thats the point. they want to cause trouble. they dont care who they kill, as long as they get their point across. killing Iraqis sends messages to the US people, who point to the turmoil over there, and to the Iraqi people, who see that as long as america is there, terrorists will continue to kill wantonly. some say that getting out is the way to respond to this, but thats just what they want. instead, take the more difficult path and stick it out.

I just looked it up in the dictionary, and war is defined as “Armed fighting between two nations” so technically we are not at war, though the Marines in Iraq might disagree. CC, soldiers are conditioned to be ready for death, death in combat is expected. getting your head blown off by some rookie that forgot his safety would be humiliating.

I actualy did some checking on this a couple weeks ago. I used my home state as a comparison. The number of murders in Arizona is greater, by a couple hundred, than the number of US soldier deaths in Iraq. I think all that means is that the deaths in Iraq get a lot more media attention.

Oh, I also heard, I think it was last week, that for the first time since 1999 an entire day went by in Chicago without a reported murder. :o
Duck Jennifer!

Baghdad 2004, for the average, unarmed American civilian, is way safer then Baghdad has ever been since World War II for Americans. It’s safer then New York!

I gaurentee you that more innocent civilians are killed in murders, rapes, muggings, and other violent crimes per month in New York then have been lost in Iraq since 1950.

Let’s face it. Yes, there are a few murders. Yes, there are some imported terrorists. Yes, there will be free elections in January 2005. Yes, our military is assisting the Iraqi’s in restoring peace to their lands and their government. Yes, there are contractors and soldiers who are dieing. Yes, it cost a little money. Yes, Kerry voted against all the safety equipment our soldiers needed and the Pres. didnt have the time to outfit them right. Yes, it means that our soldiers are at more of a risk. Yes, more men died in a single battle in Vietnam then the entire war against Terrorism + the casualties that started the war on terrorism.

If Clinton was doing this, you’d be lauding him with praise. But he isnt. He wouldnt. He should have after the two embassy bombings Osama did, or the USS Coal attack Osama did.

Get over it. This is war. Actually, this is War on Television, this isn’t even war…it’s a police action with force, if anything. On one hand you beg us to help with a dictator over here, then on the other you bitch when we take a corrupt one out over there.

And you wonder why I say “screw the world. Let Americans save Americans.” Sheesh!

:roll:
Numbers. How many Americans are in Iraq? How many are in New York? Talk apples to apples numbers. Base it on percentages. Ugh.

talk situation lizard… war zone vs. metropolitan city in peace

ugh! :roll:

I think 80 soldiers dieing in a month is irrelevant considering there are probably more killed in training accidents weekly then 80.

However, I do know there are more murders in the major cities of the US, more deaths to car accidents and certainly more deaths in air accidents then have yet occured in any single month in Iraq - and I’m including civilian casualties as well.

I think the better question is would you want your son or daughter to be among the dead? This is the best and supreme criteria to determine if a war is just or not. I’ve yet to hear any of the republican congressmen who support this war so vehemently volunteer their kids to die there. This says it all to me.

If Alexei was in the army, as a volunteer, defending freedom and following orders, I would prefer for him to die in war then in a training accident.

Does that help?

AgentSmith, i think that is absurd. no parent, except the uberpatriotic, wants their child to die at war. this is no judge of whether the war is just. you can be ardently for the war, and still not want your child to be killed over there. that is just stupid. i expected better from you

I think there is a difference between the word “want” and “willing”.

AgentSmith’s point might better have been made by
“would you be willing to have your child die in the absurdity in Iraq?”

i think that this is something that Americans should really think of - are they so in favor of this war that they would be willing to sacrifice their child for its principles?
If they actually believed in Bush’s BS, then possibly. These people will vote for Bush.

AgentSmith, i think that is absurd. no parent, except the uberpatriotic, wants their child to die at war. this is no judge of whether the war is just.

NO my point was would you want your child to die in this war. If I had children and knew they had to die in war I could live with WWII, but not Vietnam or Iraq.

you can be ardently for the war, and still not want your child to be killed over there. that is just stupid.

Or maybe the point is that war is stupid. You cannot call yourself just and expect someone else to make a sacrifice you would not. Therefore I would argue war itself is stupid, but especially this one, and most certainly the concept of preemptive war this admin touts as reasonable.

If Alexei was in the army, as a volunteer, defending freedom and following orders, I would prefer for him to die in war then in a training accident.

Being Russian/Ukrainian, I’m not sure, how would you have felt if your son had to die in WWI, or better yet in our Vietnam, or your Afghanistan. While death is always uneniable many even the pacifists can argue for the justice of the civil war or WWII, but what about Vietnam and Iraq? Like I said I could accpet losing my son/daughter in WWII, but not Iraq. Therefore not only can I not expect anybody else to make this sacrifice, but I feel I must prevent it from even happening at all.