As of Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at least 4001 members of the US military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003,

Now some perspective

There has been NO five year period since 1980 where military deaths have been lower than 4,000. All 5 year periods before the Iraq war had more deaths than the 5 years of the Iraq war.

What the Leftwing doesn't talk about

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:As of Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at least 4001 members of the US military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003,

Oh well, it's ONLY 4,000. I mean, they're ONLY soldiers, right?

Never mind that they have STILL not found any WMDs.

Never mind that Hussein was never an imminent threat.

Never mind that Dubya pulled out weapons inspectors who were busy doing their jobs.

Never mind that the administration diverted resources from fighting Osama bin Laden and al Queda in Afganistan.

It's ONLY 4,000, right?

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:As of Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at least 4001 members of the US military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003,

Oh well, it's ONLY 4,000. I mean, they're ONLY soldiers, right?

Never mind that they have STILL not found any WMDs.

Never mind that Hussein was never an imminent threat.

Never mind that Dubya pulled out weapons inspectors who were busy doing their jobs.

Never mind that the administration diverted resources from fighting Osama bin Laden and al Queda in Afganistan.

It's ONLY 4,000, right?

Totally missed the point, which is; staying at home or in combat the mortality rate is about the same for US Troops.

The US lost 6,603 troops on D-Day if we had to fight a war like that today the liberals would turn tail and run after the first day. After all:

There were no WMDs

It took resources away from fighting Japan

Hitler was not an imminent threat

There Germans were good Socialists trying to unite Europe and the world.



Dubya put us in there we committed to the Iraqi people that we wrecked the government and country so we will stay till both are put back together. Leaving now shows once again the US backs out of promises what will be left in Iraq is a large anti-American group with strong ties to Iran.

You need to check your figures again. The last four years on the chart show a total of 7,099 casualties vs. 3,444 for the preceeding four years, making the military significantly more dangerous right now. Also, these figures don't include the number of soldiers who have been severly wounded in Iraq (which I'm pretty sure exceeds the normal injury rate by even more than the mortality rate does).

I don't care what anyones position on the war is - to imply that it is no more dangerous for a soldier to be in Iraq than at a base in a non-combat zone is disingenuous at best.


The other question I have is why were the accidental deaths so high during the '80s? I understand that war is dangerous & so training for war must involve some danger also, but 1,500 accidental deaths a year seems a little hard to believe.

jh Wrote:You need to check your figures again. The last four years on the chart show a total of 7,099 casualties vs. 3,444 for the preceeding four years, making the military significantly more dangerous right now. Also, these figures don't include the number of soldiers who have been severly wounded in Iraq (which I'm pretty sure exceeds the normal injury rate by even more than the mortality rate does).

I don't care what anyones position on the war is - to imply that it is no more dangerous for a soldier to be in Iraq than at a base in a non-combat zone is disingenuous at best.


The other question I have is why were the accidental deaths so high during the '80s? I understand that war is dangerous & so training for war must involve some danger also, but 1,500 accidental deaths a year seems a little hard to believe.

Wanna start talking about how many accidental deaths happened in Iraq? That are part of those 4000?

jh Wrote:You need to check your figures again. The last four years on the chart show a total of 7,099 casualties vs. 3,444 for the preceeding four years, making the military significantly more dangerous right now. Also, these figures don't include the number of soldiers who have been severly wounded in Iraq (which I'm pretty sure exceeds the normal injury rate by even more than the mortality rate does).

I don't care what anyones position on the war is - to imply that it is no more dangerous for a soldier to be in Iraq than at a base in a non-combat zone is disingenuous at best.


The other question I have is why were the accidental deaths so high during the '80s? I understand that war is dangerous & so training for war must involve some danger also, but 1,500 accidental deaths a year seems a little hard to believe.

Those figures are for the whole military not just Iraq, so I guess you could infer the other 3,099 are for Afghanistan. Getting out of Iraq is one thing, the the Liberals will turn attention to Afghanistan an the lives being lost there and say we should leave because we'll never find bin Laden.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:As of Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at least 4001 members of the US military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003,

Oh well, it's ONLY 4,000. I mean, they're ONLY soldiers, right?

Never mind that they have STILL not found any WMDs.

Never mind that Hussein was never an imminent threat.

Never mind that Dubya pulled out weapons inspectors who were busy doing their jobs.

Never mind that the administration diverted resources from fighting Osama bin Laden and al Queda in Afganistan.

It's ONLY 4,000, right?

Totally missed the point, which is; staying at home or in combat the mortality rate is about the same for US Troops.

The US lost 6,603 troops on D-Day if we had to fight a war like that today the liberals would turn tail and run after the first day. After all:

There were no WMDs

It took resources away from fighting Japan

Hitler was not an imminent threat

There Germans were good Socialists trying to unite Europe and the world.



Dubya put us in there we committed to the Iraqi people that we wrecked the government and country so we will stay till both are put back together. Leaving now shows once again the US backs out of promises what will be left in Iraq is a large anti-American group with strong ties to Iran.

I call BS. Hitler declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. Hitler was, in fact, an imminent threat.

Dubya invaded a country that wasn't an imminent threat. They had not invaded any neighboring countries that we considered allies. They did not invade us. We owned two-thirds of their airspace and had weapons inspectors inside their country.

This is a war which has no justification whatsoever. To compare it to WWII is a complete travesty.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I call BS. Hitler declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. Hitler was, in fact, an imminent threat.

Dubya invaded a country that wasn't an imminent threat. They had not invaded any neighboring countries that we considered allies. They did not invade us. We owned two-thirds of their airspace and had weapons inspectors inside their country.

This is a war which has no justification whatsoever. To compare it to WWII is a complete travesty.

too bad the facts aren't on your side of revisionist history. Saddam only declared war on the US over and over for the better part of a decade..."nothing to see here, move along"

Saddam was in very clear and undeniable violation of the treaty that brought a cease-fire to the 1992 invasion where they DID Invade another country. All this argument about WMD and everything else was simply an attempt to force Russia and France, who were selling him all of his stuff in violation of the UN, to allow us to do what we were already authorized to do.

Look people, either treaties mean something or they don't. Now, I'm not particularly happy with exactly how the war has been waged... but I blame "society" as much as anyone else.

It is absolutely more dangerous to be fighting a war than to be training at home, but even training at home is obviously dangerous in the military... Why?? Because they kill or be killed for a living. They work with explosives and highly specialized equipment designed to destroy things.

When you adjust for the obviously inherent dangers of the profession, the "net" casualty figure is not as big a headline. That doesn't dismiss any individual loss... but for the people who toss around 4,000 as a huge number, and scoff when people point out the comparisons... If it were 2,000... or 1,000... or even 1... would it really make any difference to your argument?? Is 4,000 too many but 1,000 okay?? If you're not okay with 4,000, then you probably aren't okay with half that number either... and that is perfectly reasonable... though (IMO) it argues for either no military whatsoever, or a much more efficient one... REGARDLESS of how it is utilized.

Now, to THAT point...
Prior to TV/Vietnam... War was about our brave soldiers against the brutal enemy. Now, It's about our out of control soldiers victimizing civilians. Do you doubt that the US Army killed innocents in WWII?? Yet how many pictures of dead babies or mothers, or children running naked through the streets did you see?? Not one. Not because it didn't happen, but because that's not how we saw, or wanted to see ourselves... Our bombs were significantly less accurate, guaranteeing collateral damage, but we also couldn't go inspect the damage 15 minutes later like we can now. Besides, the enemy had bases, wore uniforms and drove marked vehicles... They didn't hold strategy meetings in their living room, wear civilian clothes, put bombs in their 72 Corolla or hide their weapons in their elementary schools. WE aren't the ones killing their children... THEY are...

War is ugly... and people die... I believe that if we allowed the military to do what it is designed to do... and that is to repel invaders, or to take land... that we would use them significantly less often... that they would be significantly more effective... and that TOTAL casualties on both sides would be ultimately far fewer. It's when we start risking the lives of our own soldiers by making them wait 15 minutes and knock on a door where a known enemy just hid to protect the lives of the people HE INTENTIONALLY endangered by running there, rather than simply drop a bomb from half a mile away ensuring that he didn't sneak out some back door that we make a mistake... and the enemy KNOWS this. They are not police who are supposed to protect AND serve. They are the military, who is supposed to defend this country and its allies. I believe that the attempt to fight PC wars has caused us to use it when it wasn't warranted. Personally, I believe it was warranted in this situation, but I respect the opinion of those who disagree. It doesn't really matter. The question isn't what SHOULD we have done... The question is... what SHOULD we do NEXT time.

As a marine once told me... If you don't want it dead... don't call me.

RebelKev Wrote:Wanna start talking about how many accidental deaths happened in Iraq? That are part of those 4000?

Sure, if you have more specific numbers than the linked chart. Unless Afganistan has had more fatalities than I remember, judging from the chart I'd estimate no more than 800 or so accidental deaths are included in the 4,000. I'd also assume that the accidental death rate in combat zones is higher than in other areas due to the increased pressure the troops are under. Unless they're typically training accidents and/or regular traffic type accidents (are off duty traffic-type accidents include in the fatality figures?).

I'm not arguing for or against our involvment in Iraq here (for the record I've been against it from the start). But I know that you two are not suggesting that the next time I'm in the San Antonio airport with troops waiting for deployment that I tell them how lucky they are to be going to Iraq because it's safer there than in the rest of the military. And that's what this type of argument would seem to suggest.

jh Wrote:I'm not arguing for or against our involvment in Iraq here (for the record I've been against it from the start). But I know that you two are not suggesting that the next time I'm in the San Antonio airport with troops waiting for deployment that I tell them how lucky they are to be going to Iraq because it's safer there than in the rest of the military. And that's what this type of argument would seem to suggest.

I don't think anyone has argued that point.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:All 5 year periods before the Iraq war had more deaths than the 5 years of the Iraq war.

Totally missed the point, which is; staying at home or in combat the mortality rate is about the same for US Troops.

You haven't made the point, RebelKev, and I know that Herd Fan wouldn't put it like that, but isn't that what the above quotes are saying?

GGniner Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I call BS. Hitler declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. Hitler was, in fact, an imminent threat.

Dubya invaded a country that wasn't an imminent threat. They had not invaded any neighboring countries that we considered allies. They did not invade us. We owned two-thirds of their airspace and had weapons inspectors inside their country.

This is a war which has no justification whatsoever. To compare it to WWII is a complete travesty.

too bad the facts aren't on your side of revisionist history. Saddam only declared war on the US over and over for the better part of a decade..."nothing to see here, move along"

Really? Prove it.

RebelKev Wrote:

jh Wrote:I'm not arguing for or against our involvment in Iraq here (for the record I've been against it from the start). But I know that you two are not suggesting that the next time I'm in the San Antonio airport with troops waiting for deployment that I tell them how lucky they are to be going to Iraq because it's safer there than in the rest of the military. And that's what this type of argument would seem to suggest.

I don't think anyone has argued that point.

Agreed... unfortunately, the extreme points are where arguments like this invariably go...

4,000 is 4,000 too many... but deaths happen. You can't blame all 4,000 on "Bush" or "Iraq" or "WMD" or whatever... some of them, unfortunately, would have happened anyway. Some were caused by poor decisions, and yet others were saved as a result of increased caution/attention due to the circumstances.

It's not the discussion of the number that needs a response, it is the allocation of blame as a result of that discussion. It is equally disingenuous to say that nobody, or perhaps even "far" fewer would have died were it not for Bush and Iraq, or that people in the military are "safe" from harm in times of peace.

jh Wrote:

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:All 5 year periods before the Iraq war had more deaths than the 5 years of the Iraq war.

Totally missed the point, which is; staying at home or in combat the mortality rate is about the same for US Troops.

You haven't made the point, RebelKev, and I know that Herd Fan wouldn't put it like that, but isn't that what the above quotes are saying?

Not really. If the numbers parallel one another, how can we say it's more dangerous in Iraq? War is more dangerous, obviously, but we have a ton of measures on the ground to protect our troops and I work on projects for more and more of those measures daily.

So, it's not that it's less dangerous, or even equally as dangerous, it's that we're doing more to protect our troops these days as opposed to Joe Shmoe on the block in Middletown, America. I've seen what a 105MM IED can do to a Stryker, which is deadline the hell out of it. I've also seen what that same IED did to the troops inside, aside from a sprained and bruised arm, nothing. It's funny to me when I see Libs bitching about Bush not doing this, Bush not doing that, our troops not going to combat with uparmored HMMWV's (Funny to me also since, as medical and then signal, I'd never been in an uparmored HMMWV in my military career), etc., and all I can do is laugh. There are things I know and work on that I can't reveal. It's not like we're not doing anything.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:There has been NO five year period since 1980 where military deaths have been lower than 4,000. All 5 year periods before the Iraq war had more deaths than the 5 years of the Iraq war.

I don't see how using casualty numbers to play politics is any better when used by the right wing than it would with the left wing.

If roughly 10% of US troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan at any given time (it may be higher, I don't know off hand), then you are talking about a casualty rate of about 20 times the baseline (lower if there are fewer overall troops than I think there are). Even though it is still an extraordinarily low casualty rate for a "war", it is still risky business and the numbers are what they are.

I would like to see a proportion of how many of the deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan are accidental (i.e. do not involve enemy contact - I don't think you could exclude friendly fire and say that the same thing could've happened at Fort Hood).

Hambone10 Wrote:Saddam was in very clear and undeniable violation of the treaty that brought a cease-fire to the 1992 invasion where they DID Invade another country. All this argument about WMD and everything else was simply an attempt to force Russia and France, who were selling him all of his stuff in violation of the UN, to allow us to do what we were already authorized to do.

What struck me in 2003 when Tony Blair was talking to Parliament was that he made a more comprehensive case based on WMD, Sadaam's treatment of his own population, treaty violations, etc. I don't know if it is the fact that he had to face Parliament or just the bloat of US Presidential advisers, but George Bush seemed to feel compelled to cite a single reason in making a case for war. To me that was a big error, especially with the subsequent failure to find a jackpot of WMDs that could be paraded before the world. I would quibble with your statement that he used it to coerce Russia, France, et al ... I believe it had more to do with domestic politics.

I45owl Wrote:What struck me in 2003 when Tony Blair was talking to Parliament was that he made a more comprehensive case based on WMD, Sadaam's treatment of his own population, treaty violations, etc. I don't know if it is the fact that he had to face Parliament or just the bloat of US Presidential advisers, but George Bush seemed to feel compelled to cite a single reason in making a case for war. To me that was a big error, especially with the subsequent failure to find a jackpot of WMDs that could be paraded before the world. I would quibble with your statement that he used it to coerce Russia, France, et al ... I believe it had more to do with domestic politics.

...if only our President was as eloquent in his speaking abilities as Blair.

Fair enough on both points... Obviously after dozens if not hundreds of UN resolutions, we weren't going to get their support... which was more of an argument made by some domestic detractors... Sort of the "do we really want to do this if France and Russia (and others) aren't on board??"

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I call BS. Hitler declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. Hitler was, in fact, an imminent threat.

Dubya invaded a country that wasn't an imminent threat. They had not invaded any neighboring countries that we considered allies. They did not invade us. We owned two-thirds of their airspace and had weapons inspectors inside their country.

This is a war which has no justification whatsoever. To compare it to WWII is a complete travesty.

too bad the facts aren't on your side of revisionist history. Saddam only declared war on the US over and over for the better part of a decade..."nothing to see here, move along"

Really? Prove it.

first of all, if you think we went to war "illegally" and "unconstitutionally", please have your Commie buddies in the ACLU file suit on the merits....very interesting how they haven't.

as has been stated a number of times on this forum, Saddam attempted to assassinate a United States President(Act of War), Shot at our Planes in the No Fly Zone he agreed to(an Act of War), and in various ways continued to violated the Cease Fire Agreement he signed with the US which allowed him to stay in power, each time to resume the first war which we eventually ended up doing 5 years ago, to his shock. Saddam decalared war on the US indirectly a number of times......and his support and State Sponsorship of Terrorism is another side of this, which was illuminated post 9/11.

Conversely, when Thomas Jefferson took us to war with the Barbary Pirates and their City State Sponsors, he interpreted their taking down the US flag as a "declaration of war" and proceeded to take care of business from there...

GGniner Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I call BS. Hitler declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. Hitler was, in fact, an imminent threat.

Dubya invaded a country that wasn't an imminent threat. They had not invaded any neighboring countries that we considered allies. They did not invade us. We owned two-thirds of their airspace and had weapons inspectors inside their country.

This is a war which has no justification whatsoever. To compare it to WWII is a complete travesty.

too bad the facts aren't on your side of revisionist history. Saddam only declared war on the US over and over for the better part of a decade..."nothing to see here, move along"

Really? Prove it.

first of all, if you think we went to war "illegally" and "unconstitutionally", please have your Commie buddies in the ACLU file suit on the merits....very interesting how they haven't.

as has been stated a number of times on this forum, Saddam attempted to assassinate a United States President(Act of War), Shot at our Planes in the No Fly Zone he agreed to(an Act of War), and in various ways continued to violated the Cease Fire Agreement he signed with the US which allowed him to stay in power, each time to resume the first war which we eventually ended up doing 5 years ago, to his shock. Saddam decalared war on the US indirectly a number of times......and his support and State Sponsorship of Terrorism is another side of this, which was illuminated post 9/11.

Conversely, when Thomas Jefferson took us to war with the Barbary Pirates and their City State Sponsors, he interpreted their taking down the US flag as a "declaration of war" and proceeded to take care of business from there...

In other words, you have no proof other than "you said so."