Three cheers for the deaths of Americans in Iraq!

[Drjones]

...says the liberal media.

It just occurred to me tonight as I saw the headline of my local liberal rag that I wouldn't use for toilet paper, screeching about the "huge" American death toll in Iraq:

The liberals are doing the same thing with the war that they have done and continue to do with gun control: they are SO determined to turn this war into a "quagmire" that they have now resorted to dancing in the blood of America's fallen.

It's been sickening me; for countless weeks, EVERYDAY, EVERY SINGLE GODDAM#ED DAY, I pick up the stupid liberal rag newspaper and read yet another headline gleefully proclaiming the death of x number of American soldiers in Iraq.

Combine that with the neverending daily parade of cartoons depicting Bush as a complete moron, a child, a puppet, and most recently, a clown, and it's easy to see what they are trying to do. They hate so thoroughly and so desperately that we won, that Bush is right and that we did what we set out to do in Iraq, that they are now content to celebrate the death of each and every last one of our heroes over there in a childish fit of contemptuous rage to try to make the public believe their warped agenda.

Make no mistake; it is not out of respect, reverence, or care that they report the news of American deaths in Iraq; the way they report, coupled with the daily editorials that seethe with contempt and hate for the Bush administration, America and her military, make it clear how thoroughly they savor and relish each and every last American death in Iraq. They trumpet it from each and every page, desperate to turn the public against Bush and their own country.

It is positively sickening. (There's the understatement of the century, if I do say so myself.)

Just like each school and workplace shooting is reported with glee in order to push a gun-banning agenda, thus they are using the blood of American soldiers; joyously smearing it all over themselves, soaking each piece of liberal rag they can find with it, and trying desperately to shower it upon Bush and America.

I'm going to go throw up my dinner...

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Let's see, newspaper prints THE TRUTH, and it must be a "liberal rag." Maybe they're reporting Americans dying every day because that's because that's what's happening. In fact, if you're talking about the Sacramento Bee, I haven't notice that they've particularly played the deaths up. I haven't seen them report anything except for the "official" casualties, not including the soldiers killed in such "non-hostile" events as high-speed chases.

You might be so blinded by the propaganda of the right-wing talk radio around here that you think anyone reporting it must be "celebrating." I suppose you'd be happier if Bush had a modern Goebbels to censor out all of those unpleasant FACTS, but we're not quite there yet, though I'm sure he's working on it as we speak.

Bush should be portrayed as a clown, because he's blundered us into a quagmire we're going to have a hard time getting out of. He's squandered the near universal sympathy and support we had after 9/11 and turned us into a rogue nation. I think anyone who dares to report that is the highest kind of patriot there is.

What's your interpretation of the fact that he's got Colin Powell over at the UN these days doing everything he can to get someone else to take this tar baby off of our hands? He and his brain trust got us into a war predicting that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. Forgot to plan for the expense and losses of trying to mount a multi-year occupation.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

He's squandered the near universal sympathy and support we had after 9/11 and turned us into a rogue nation.

What sympathy and support? Support from whom? Do you mean the crocodile tears that were shed at the 5 minute long memorials that were held in Europe? Feh! More tears were shed in earnest for Lady ing Di than the Euros ever shed for us. Besides, with support like theirs, who on Earth would ever need an enemy?

Bush should be portrayed as a clown, because he's blundered us into a quagmire we're going to have a hard time getting out of.

Let's see...Bush defeats you politically on a daily basis...you say that he is a clown...ouch! I would hate to be defeated at constantly by someone I considered to be a clown.


As to the topic of this thread? You see DrJones, if not for doom and gloom, and America(n) hating, what ever would the leftists have? NADA!!!!

Save yourself the aggravation of reading that trash. Thirty pages of what? The illiterate scratchings of a urinalist that makes things up as he goes along? Are they claiming to be as "fact based" as the New York Times? Hah! Newspapers are as out of synch with reality as the death-cult nuts that they cheer on with their BS about quagmires. Let the filthy rutting pigs learn to snort for their supper in the gutter; don't pay another nickel for their useless urinalist "news".

 

[KC]

It would be interesting to find out what the injury/fatality rate of our troops would be under normal circumstances; ie, not occupying two hostile counties and garrisoning a handful of others.

In any event, it's likely a helluva a lot safer being in uniform occupying foreign terrority and being well armed and armored with expert medical assistance right close by, than being an 18-24 year-old male (especially of some skin colors) and living in some cheery place like Los Angeles, Compton, or what have you.

 

[S_O_Laban]

Say Jones, why don't you tell us how you really feel?

Seriously though, I hear what your saying. If one reads enough garbabge from any source, sooner or later you have to unload that stuff out of your system. As far as rants go I give yours a 9 out of 10 Keep the faith, brother.

 

[Gary H]

It is clear that most of the media has concentrated on American deaths and events that provide a negative spin. There is no balance in the reporting. Yes, young men are dying, but much is going on in Iraq that is positive. The blind eye to anything that might support Bush in the media is what elicits these sorts of emotional outbursts. I continue to believe that in order to fight this war, we need to be in Iraq and effect change in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be a good place to start. This approach is better than fighting this war reactively on our soil..which will and is going on. Europe hasn't been with us since the fear of the USSR evaporated. They could not even manage their collective back yard in the Balkins. They do best going in after the fight. The sooner we are out of Germany..the better. There will be other major strikes with major American and possibly European casualties. We will see how these future events shape our thoughts of moderation. I would just like the media to stop referring to these guys as radicals, or terrorists. They are religious fanatics of one particular religion... Maybe ABC, CNN and the like could at least call them Wahabi Terrorist, or Muslim terrorists. The Middle East is a QUAGMIRE...wish we could just ignore the area and they would go away.

 

[Khornet]

It's always striking

How noticing left-wing bias proves you're brainwashed by talk radio (whether you listen or not is immaterial), while getting your info from CommonDreams, CounterPunch, and MoveOn, where the president is routinely compared to a baboon and a Nazi, means you have a balanced, nuanced worldview. Note how Goebbels is invoked above, and ask yourself why the names of any of history's numerous communist mass murderers are never invoked to show how bad Bush is.

Or why the invasion of Iraq is never compared in our "truth-loving" press to Soviet invasions of small, defenseless nations, or China's invasion of Tibet,etc.

 

[Sean Smith]

I suppose you'd be happier if Bush had a modern Goebbels to censor out all of those unpleasant FACTS, but we're not quite there yet, though I'm sure he's working on it as we speak.

Nothing like whipping out the ol' Nazi slurs as a substitute for using your brain.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

He's squandered the near universal sympathy and support we had after 9/11

I don't think support was universal even after 9/11. Many moslem nations celebrated. Some danced in the street. Many felt America "got what it deserved". Many people felt the World Trade Center was a legitimate target. We had support from England, but many of our "supporters" only paid lip service.

 

[greyhound]

Y'all should have heard the tone used on NPR this morning when they had to report that no Americans were killed in Iraq yesterday. (And yes, that was their lead story: "No Americans were killed in Iraq yesterday". You could almost hear the "unfortunately" part.)

 

[fish2xs]

What seems to get lost...

What seems to get lost in the 'news' about our troops being shot at in Iraq,
is that this is a result of TAKING THE WAR TO THE TERRORISTS. These brave men
and women are doing their job. There's a roadside billboard near me for Navy
recruitment that reads "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Threaten It".
That about sums it all up.

The death of any American overseas is tragic. The death of an American who is
protecting our sorry asses is even more so. However, it is better than having
innocent men, women and children slaughtered by radical Islamists on US soil.
Our armed forces signed up for their duty. God bless all of them. However their
job description puts them in harms way. I wonder what the people who are
focusing on the dangers our troops are in would say if there was another attack
within our borders... probably something like "Why didn't the military prevent
this?"

Personally, I think we could have avoided alot of the mess we are currently in
if we would have just nuked Iraq in the first place. But we have what we have.

If you or your family is over there, you have my families thanks and prayers
for your safe return.

 

[Augustwest]

No argument from me about how biased the media is, but:

They hate so thoroughly and so desperately that we won...

It will cost who knows how many more American and Iraqi lives, and many billions of U.S. tax dollars before Iraq is straightened out, if it's ever straightened out.

Don't think we should be claiming victory yet.

And in the interest of full disclosure, I was against this action from the get go, so I'll admit to a certain bias where it's concerned.

 

[OF]

Here are some numbers I worked out (total enrolled vs.):

US Casualty Rates:

KIA/WIA
WWI: 1 in 15
WWII: 1 in 15
Korea: 1 in 42
Vietnam: 1 in 41
Gulf War: 1 in 3618

KIA -combat
WWI: 1 in 89
WWII: 1 in 56
Korea: 1 in 172
Vietnam: 1 in 185
Gulf War: 1 in 18,581

KIA -all
WWI: 1 in 41
WWII: 1 in 40
Korea: 1 in 169
Vietnam: 1 in 150
Gulf War: 1 in 9386

I'm pretty sure those are right - got the raw data from here. Someone can do the numbers for the current Iraq War, but I'm pretty sure they are almost identical the Gulf War numbers.

Remember that close to 50% of our current casualties in this conflict have been due to accidents (as was the case in the Gulf War).

Military men and women fight and die. The fact that we are now winning wars with so few of them paying that price is a good thing. Lets keep some perspective.

- Gabe

 

[DonP]

According to some folks not enough American's have died yet

After the war was launched I went over to the DU to see if there was any kind of troop support there.

I should have known better. There were actually people there posting that they "wished more troops had been killed so America will realize what an A-- hole Bush is. Maybe if the cost in human life was higher then people would wake up." I was stunned, but I guess they shouldn't have been. The level of Bush hating is so intense and over the top that it is pathological.

My kid is still over there, saddled up and covering ground in Iraq every day. The stories I get directly from him bear no resemblance to the reports we hear on the news.

Are the guys hot and uncomfortable? Sure.

Do they want to come home? Of course.

Do they know why they are there? Damn right they do.

Do the Iraqi people hate us for being there? The vast majority are happy with us there (including the family that invited my son and two friends to their son's wedding last week). People with their own ax to grind would rather not have us around so they could put their own laws into effect.

For that matter, has anybody else noticed how the tone has changed in news reports after the reporters left the units? We went from very honest first person observation of our troops in the field to stories that are now being re-written by people that aren't seeing much. It just seems that the spin machine is back in full operation but then again it's human nature to see and hear what reinforces our own views of life.

Don P.

 

[OF]

Good points, Don.

- Gabe

 

[Partisan Ranger]

(I don't know how the hell to quote, so I'll paste....)

"He's squandered the near universal sympathy and support we had after 9/11 and turned us into a rogue nation."

------------------------

I don't mean to pick fights or flame, really. But I have to take issue with this statement. I hardly think that just because many people 'lost sympathy' for us that we've done anything wrong.

As we all too well remember, on 9/11, about 2,900 Americans and foreign nationals were cremated or crushed against their will pretty much on live TV. This horrific act was so deeply cruel, viscious, and heartless and caused so much pain and bloodshed, that almost immediately most people with any higher brain function at all felt overwhelming sympathy for the United States and the victims of course.

That was two years ago. People move on. Life moves on (for some. Me, I'll never forget). The USA had to act to defend itself and its citizenry, so we lost victim status.

Unless we stood still and wept forever and looked for hugs and did nothing to destroy terrorists, it seems logical to me that that overwhelming sympathy would naturally dissipate. It's human nature. The traumatic event dissolves into the past, and people go back to quibbling and fighting for the remote.

 

[Partisan Ranger]

And let me add that while each American loss is tragic (not just saying that, it IS!), I really dispute that our losses are 'huge.' By my rough reckoning, we've lost about 100 or so to combat since the end of hostilities. The rest were accidents in theater. And I think we need to keep in mind that trying to form a legitimate semi-functional democracy in the murderous neighborhood of the Middle East is a pretty BIG FREAKING DEAL. It's a rough and tough task, but the end result could mean a safer and more peaceful world. It isn't going to just come about by us clicking our heels together. People are gonna die (and those people did sign up for the military, God bless all of them).

 

[KC]

"And I think we need to keep in mind that trying to form a legitimate semi-functional democracy in the murderous neighborhood of the Middle East is a pretty BIG FREAKING DEAL."

Here is another thought: How many groups in the Middle East, and elsewhere, could handle the thought, nevermind the political fallout, if the US *succeeds* in building a functional state in Iraq? Our troops are attracting all the maggots who have a strong vested interested in making damm sure that we fail, and do so in as spectacular a fashion as possible.

 

[Baba Louie]

DrJ,

Subscribe and read the Wall Street Journal. Facts with financial info and pretty well thought out editorials. Not much in the way of comics or sports tho , and thats a good thing.

Remember that several of our troops were killed by both German and Japanese troops after VE and VJ day(s).

I believe that GWB was a bit premature in declaring hostilities over in that he should have qualified it as saying "this particular PHASE of the hostilities was over. More to follow"

As for Powell...

over at the UN these days doing everything he can to get someone else to take this tar baby off of our hands?

(eloquently phrased if I do say so myself Malone)... does anyone remember the kids story about the little red hen and the bread baking syndrome?

Exit strategy? Whats that?

Lets get rid of all the gomers we can, and then re-deploy the troops to the next hot spot... even if we have to justify it any way we feel we must.

Can anyone say Iran or N. Korea?

Adios

 

[mercedesrules]

KIA/WIA
WWI: 1 in 15
WWII: 1 in 15
Korea: 1 in 42
Vietnam: 1 in 41
Gulf War: 1 in 3618

Just curious...how many U.S. soldiers have been wounded in the war and since, and where did you get the numbers?

MR

 

[Monkeyleg]

As of August 22nd, there were 384 people killed in the city of Chicago this year. Seems like Baghdad is a much safer place.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

I believe that GWB was a bit premature in declaring hostilities over in that he should have qualified it as saying "this particular PHASE of the hostilities was over. More to follow"

Please post a link to GWB saying that hostilities in Iraq are/were over. I have never heard anyone in the Bush administration say anything like that. They haven't even said anything like that for Trashcanistan, and that operation is more than one year older than the Iraq campaign.

I have heard the press declare hostilities to be over, but they are (almost to the last man/woman) imbeciles, and as such I would expect them to say such things.

 

[Waitone]

DrJones, you need to exercise control over what enters your mind. I was having the exact same grief when I called a halt to it. I cancelled my local rag, a pathetically predictable shill. I listen to NPR only for entertainment and not for news.

I get my news from internet sources. Washington Post, W. Times, NYT for comedy, LA Times. My favorite is to hop the wire and call up British and European papers. I get a kick out of arabic english news sites. Quite often the best news comes from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Aussie papers.

Doing so you get a good feel for how far out of touch US media is in reporting affairs of the world.

Give up looking for unbiased news sources. They don't exist. The best you can do is identify the particular bias, read the offering, then find a publication with a different bias.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

where did you get the numbers?

Try clicking the link that GRD provided along with the numbers where it says

got the raw data from here.

This is the page that link displays:


Statistical Summary
America's Major Wars


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. The Military Participation Ratio
Conflict Population Enrolled Ratio
(millions) (thousands)
Revolutionary War 3.5 200.0 5.7%
War of 1812 7.6 286.0 3.8%
Mexican War 21.1 78.7 0.4%
Civil War: Union 26.2 2,803.3 10.7%
: Confederate 8.1 1,064.2 13.1%
: Combined 34.3 3,867.5 11.1%
Spanish-American War 74.6 306.8 0.4%
World War I 102.8 4,743.8 4.6%
World War II 133.5 16,353.7 12.2%
Korean War 151.7 5,764.1 3.8%
Vietnam War 204.9 8,744.0 4.3%
Gulf War 260.0 2,750.0 1.1%

The military participation ratio is the percentage of people under arms. While the ratio for the Second World War seems surprisingly high compared with those for the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, this is due to the fact that the War for Independence took place before the Industrial Revolution, and the Civil War occurred before its fullest impact, while the nation's womanpower was not tapped in either earlier conflict as well, for either military or economic mobilization. The figure "Enrolled" represents the number of personnel maintained in the service. It is somewhat unreliable, since it includes multiple enlistments in the case of wars prior to 1900, and is a gross figure, including all personnel ever in the service during the conflict. In addition, figures for post-1945 wars are polluted to some extent by the fact that a significant portion of the forces under arms during these conflicts were not actually directly engaged in the war, but were securing the nation's other global commitments.



II. Casualties
<------------Casualties------------>
[-----Deaths---] <-----Percentages-----> Duration
Conflict Enrolled Combat Other Wounded Total Ratio KIA Dead Casualty Months KIA/Month
Revolutionary War 200.0 4,435 * 6,188 10,623 2.4 2.2% 2.2% 5.3% 80 55
War of 1812 286.0 2,260 * 4,505 6,765 3.0 0.8% 0.8% 2.4% 30 75
Mexican War 78.7 1,733 11,550 4,152 17,435 1.3 2.2% 16.9% 22.2% 20 87
Civil War: Union 2,803.3 110,070 249,458 275,175 634,703 1.8 3.9% 12.8% 22.6% 48 2,293
Confederate 1,064.2 74,524 124,000 137,000 + 335,524 1.7 7.0% 18.7% 31.5% 48 1,553
Combined 3,867.5 184,594 373,458 412,175 + 970,227 1.7 4.8% 14.4% 25.1% 48 3,846
Spanish-American War 306.8 385 2,061 1,662 4,108 1.7 0.1% 0.8% 1.3% 4 96 &
World War I 4,743.8 53,513 63,195 204,002 320,710 2.7 1.1% 2.5% 6.8% 19 2,816
World War II 16,353.7 292,131 115,185 670,846 1,078,162 2.6 1.8% 2.5% 6.6% 44 6,639
Korean War 5,764.1 33,651 * 103,284 136,935 4.1 0.6% 0.6% 2.4% 37 909
Vietnam War 8,744.0 47,369 10,799 153,303 211,471 3.6 0.5% 0.7% 2.4% 90 526
Gulf War 2,750.0 148 145 467 ^ 760 2.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 148

Combat deaths refers to troops killed in action or dead of wounds. Other includes deaths from disease, privation, and accidents, and includes losses among prisoners of war. Wounded excludes those who died of their wounds, who are included under Combat Deaths. Ratio is the proportion of wounded in action to combat deaths. Note that the wounded figures do not include cases of disease. Under Percentages, KIA refers to the percent of those enrolled killed in action, Dead to the percent dead from all causes, and Casualty to the percent killed or injured. KIA/Month, killed in action per month, gives a fair indication of the intensity of combat


Notes:
* Non-battle deaths not known for these wars.
+ Confederate non-battle deaths and wounded estimated.
& Actually only six weeks of sustained combat.
^ There was only one month of combat.



III. Financial Cost
Conflict Cost in $ Billions Per Capita
Current 1990s (in $1990)
The Revolution (1775-1783) .10 1.2 $ 342.86
War of 1812 (1812-1815) .09 0.7 92.11
Mexican War (1846-1848) .07 1.1 52.13
Civil War (1861-1865): Union 3.20 27.3 1,041.98
: Confederate 2.00 17.1 2,111.11
: Combined 5.20 44.4 1,294.46
Spanish American War (1898) .40 6.3 84.45
World War I (1917-1918) 26.00 196.5 1,911.47
World War II (1941-1945) 288.00 2,091.3 15,655.17
Korea (1950-1953) 54.00 263.9 1,739.62
Vietnam (1964-1972) 111.00 346.7 1,692.04
Gulf War (1990-1991) 61.00 61.1 235.00

The table compares the cost of America's principal wars since 1775 on the basis of then current and 1990s dollars. Current dollars are the actual numbers spent at the time. Thus, a 1775-1783 dollar had the equivalent purchasing power of $10.75 in 1990s terms. Actually this conversion is only a very rough guide, but at least gives some idea of the relative costs of the ten wars on an adjusted basis. However, it is not possible to take into account drastic changes in social structure (most Americans were farmers in 1775, and didn't use much money), and the increasing affluence of American society over the two centuries covered by the table.

Note that the figures are for direct costs only, omitting pension costs, which tended to triple the ultimate outlays. The table also omits the cost of damage to the national infrastructure during those wars waged on American soil. Confederate figures are estimated.

For the Gulf War it is worth noting that various members of the allied coalition reimbursed the U.S. for 88-percent ($54 billion) of the amount shown, so the actual cost to the taxpayer was only about $7 billion, roughly the same as for the Spanish-American War, and on a per capita basis only $26.92, arguably the least expensive war in the nation's history.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compiled by Al Nofi.

Sources: Table 2-23: "Principal Wars in which the US Participated: US Military Personnel Serving and Casualties" prepared by Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports. US Department of Defense Records.

Other Related Links:

USCWC Links--Casualties
America's Wars and Casualties
America's Wars Fact Sheet
Americans Killed in Action
Back to Index of Civil War Information on the Internet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Baba Louie:
I believe that GWB was a bit premature in declaring hostilities over in that he should have qualified it as saying "this particular PHASE of the hostilities was over. More to follow"

President Bush never declaired hostilities to be over, that is a lefty misquote. Was President Bush declared was that "MAJOR hostilities are over".

That is an accurate statement.