Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Comments:
Modern medicine is a wonderful thing. It lets people like you trivialize impact of a war because a soldier ended up as an amputee instead of in a casket.
2003
US Deaths in Iraq: 486
US Wounded in Iraq: 2408
2004
US Deaths in Iraq: 848
US Wounded in Iraq: 8000
2005
US Deaths in Iraq: 846
US Wounded in Iraq: 5946
2006
US Deaths in Iraq: 821
US Wounded in Iraq: 6382
There were 102,000 soldiers in Iraq in January of 2007 (30,000 support soldiers in neighboring countries). Many of those troops will never leave the wire, but for sake of argument lets say they all do. That means they have a 6-8% chance of coming home with a purple heart. In actuality the casualty rates for infantry is much higher.
Additionally, some 60,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of the war we started but you've already made it clear that doesn't matter at all to you.
It's really sad that you're supposed to be the guys that "support the troops" and yet you are alluding to how trivial the death rate is. You don't seem to care at all who suffers in the pursuit of your own comfort.
Casualties in Iraq
Iraqi Deaths
2003
US Deaths in Iraq: 486
US Wounded in Iraq: 2408
2004
US Deaths in Iraq: 848
US Wounded in Iraq: 8000
2005
US Deaths in Iraq: 846
US Wounded in Iraq: 5946
2006
US Deaths in Iraq: 821
US Wounded in Iraq: 6382
There were 102,000 soldiers in Iraq in January of 2007 (30,000 support soldiers in neighboring countries). Many of those troops will never leave the wire, but for sake of argument lets say they all do. That means they have a 6-8% chance of coming home with a purple heart. In actuality the casualty rates for infantry is much higher.
Additionally, some 60,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of the war we started but you've already made it clear that doesn't matter at all to you.
It's really sad that you're supposed to be the guys that "support the troops" and yet you are alluding to how trivial the death rate is. You don't seem to care at all who suffers in the pursuit of your own comfort.
Casualties in Iraq
Iraqi Deaths
# posted by 
: 7:40 PM
: 7:40 PM
I posted the rate without comment. You read what you wanted to read into the post.
(Qu’on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j’y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.)
Seems to me you're hoping for, what?, a higher death rate?
I'm praying we stay in Iraq, so things get better for them.
(Qu’on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j’y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.)
Seems to me you're hoping for, what?, a higher death rate?
I'm praying we stay in Iraq, so things get better for them.
You want to stay in Iraq because you hope things will get better? What is going to be different about 2007 as opposed to 2006, 2005, 2004, or 2003?
"Stupid is doing the same thing over again expecting different results"
All these milestones you quote so frequently in defense of the war: the capture of Saddam, the death of Zarqawi, the Elections, and the like do nothing to curb the violence. You celebrate vibrantly for a day on your blog and that same day they go back to killing US Soldiers in Iraq. At what point will you realize that what we are doing is not working.
US Soldier Deaths in Iraq
"Stupid is doing the same thing over again expecting different results"
All these milestones you quote so frequently in defense of the war: the capture of Saddam, the death of Zarqawi, the Elections, and the like do nothing to curb the violence. You celebrate vibrantly for a day on your blog and that same day they go back to killing US Soldiers in Iraq. At what point will you realize that what we are doing is not working.
US Soldier Deaths in Iraq
# posted by : 8:28 PM
: 8:28 PM
I wish you had included a graph showing cumulative soldier deaths since the beginning of the Republic. I wonder what 1914 - 1918, 1941 - 1945, 1950 - 1953, or 1965 - 1973 would look like, on a cumulative basis.
How many died on the Lusitania? How many dies at Pearl Harbor? Over what initial losses have we fought our wars?
I don't know if you're all the same "Anonymous", but if you are, you have a slick feel to you. First you accuse me of not caring for freedom-loving Iraqis, then you hate on me for, what?, being ready to support the troops in their mission?
As for the insanity criticism, well, Churchill once described war as a series of calamities ending in victory.
But you're not up for that, right? You want the defeat, the humiliation. Right?
Or do you just hate seeing that Jimmy Carter was the one-year military blood champion?
Speaking of which, is that you, Jimmy?
How many died on the Lusitania? How many dies at Pearl Harbor? Over what initial losses have we fought our wars?
I don't know if you're all the same "Anonymous", but if you are, you have a slick feel to you. First you accuse me of not caring for freedom-loving Iraqis, then you hate on me for, what?, being ready to support the troops in their mission?
As for the insanity criticism, well, Churchill once described war as a series of calamities ending in victory.
But you're not up for that, right? You want the defeat, the humiliation. Right?
Or do you just hate seeing that Jimmy Carter was the one-year military blood champion?
Speaking of which, is that you, Jimmy?
This isn't about me attacking your support for the troops or the "freedom-loving Iraqis" you sympathize so deeply for. Both you and I want the same thing in Iraq - a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Where you and I appear to differ however is in our faith in the current strategy. As we enter the 5th year of the war we don't seem to have changed our plan of attack at all. I can't help but feel bad for the 1000 soldiers that will die this year and 10,000 that will be wounded. If history repeats itself, and why shouldn't it, they will be followed by several thousand more casualties in 2008.
800 dead soldiers a year may be only a small fraction of the last century's conflicts but it is still 800 soldiers that are dying every year without any end in sight.
Where you and I appear to differ however is in our faith in the current strategy. As we enter the 5th year of the war we don't seem to have changed our plan of attack at all. I can't help but feel bad for the 1000 soldiers that will die this year and 10,000 that will be wounded. If history repeats itself, and why shouldn't it, they will be followed by several thousand more casualties in 2008.
800 dead soldiers a year may be only a small fraction of the last century's conflicts but it is still 800 soldiers that are dying every year without any end in sight.
# posted by : 9:58 PM
: 9:58 PM
I actually want as bloody a resolution as possible, with the following proviso: no more Americans dead, al Qaeda dead and buried in pig skins, a la "Blackjack" Pershing.
I agree with you that many aspects of the war have been mismanaged. In particular, the Iraqi Government was divided along sectarian lines. We should have been banging the secular government drum from the begining, but lesson learned.
Let's face it: Sunnis hate Shi'ites, and vice versa. In the case of Iraq, the Sunni minority was the ruling class for the longest time. After Saddam was toppled, the Shi'ites went for payback, which IMHO is understandable. The end result, however, was the lawlessness we now se being stamped out in this current surge. What matters now is not how many troops there are, but how they're being used. And right now there seems to be a concerted effort to take out the militias and death squads.
BTW, have you noticed that whent he news from Iraq is bad, we get all the violent footage we can handle; whereas when things are going well, we get Anna Nicole Smith? My point being that our mainstream media have decided that the news from Iraq will always be bad (until a Democrat President is elected, anyway).
As to the rest, well, first, go read Henry V, Act IV, Scene I. The bit beginning "So, if a son that is by his father sent about...."
Next, if we will not do this, then you'd better prepare yourself for more atrocities like 9/11. Militant Islam is on the march, and it will only be put down with force. I'd prefer al Qaeda's fighters dead on Iraq's flypaper, rather than in planes hitting American skyscrapers.
Post a Comment
I agree with you that many aspects of the war have been mismanaged. In particular, the Iraqi Government was divided along sectarian lines. We should have been banging the secular government drum from the begining, but lesson learned.
Let's face it: Sunnis hate Shi'ites, and vice versa. In the case of Iraq, the Sunni minority was the ruling class for the longest time. After Saddam was toppled, the Shi'ites went for payback, which IMHO is understandable. The end result, however, was the lawlessness we now se being stamped out in this current surge. What matters now is not how many troops there are, but how they're being used. And right now there seems to be a concerted effort to take out the militias and death squads.
BTW, have you noticed that whent he news from Iraq is bad, we get all the violent footage we can handle; whereas when things are going well, we get Anna Nicole Smith? My point being that our mainstream media have decided that the news from Iraq will always be bad (until a Democrat President is elected, anyway).
As to the rest, well, first, go read Henry V, Act IV, Scene I. The bit beginning "So, if a son that is by his father sent about...."
Next, if we will not do this, then you'd better prepare yourself for more atrocities like 9/11. Militant Islam is on the march, and it will only be put down with force. I'd prefer al Qaeda's fighters dead on Iraq's flypaper, rather than in planes hitting American skyscrapers.
