• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

7 U.S. troops die in Iraq attacks

nullzero

Senior member
"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military Sunday reported seven more U.S. soldiers were killed in roadside bomb attacks a day earlier, bringing the number of American soldiers killed since Friday to 15.

The lastest casualties were identified as efforts to drain a canal in the hunt for four missing U.S. soldiers failed to yield any clues.

Six U.S. troops were killed by a roadside bomb in western Baghdad that also killed an Iraqi interpreter.

Another U.S. soldier was killed and two more wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle near Diwaniya shortly after midnight on Saturday.

Last month, the U.S. military began a push against Shiite militias in the southern city of Diwaniya.

The latest casualties bring the monthly death toll for U.S. military personnel to 71 and the death toll since the war began to 3,422. "

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/20/iraq.main/index.html

We are set to have a U.S. military deaths reach 4,000 by December/January estimating with a 3.00 avg per day. For those that say this war is nothing compared to Vietnam death toll, consider that we were in Vietnam for about 10 years and the death toll was around 50k. If we are in Iraq for about 5 and a half more years, the death toll will be around 10,000 if the avg death per day stays around 3.00 and does not spiral upward or drop down. Considing this medical advances and quick medical assistance in combat have saved many soliders that would have otherwise died would surely put this number up at least 33% to 100% from where it stands now. So the death toll could easily be higher say 15k for a 10 year period. Also consider that we have about 1/3 of the amount of boots on the ground then we did in Vietnam so when you compare ratio to troops their to those killed or wounded Iraq, its not grossly out of the league of Vietnam.
 
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Bring back the draft and watch how fast this war ends.

This current adminstration and this country is going to avoid a draft as long as possible. They will raise the pay of soliders to get more people in the military looking for the money and rewards (since all the government has to do is tell the FED to print more money to pay the military). Since the war is ran without a draft we could easily be in Iraq for +5 years.
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
We didn't start World War II. It also wasn't pointless.

/your point

And the 407,000+ lost from the US alone during WW II aren't pointless either. Your point?

If you see fit to compare Iraq to previous conflicts on one aspect, it is only fair to look at other aspects as well.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Aisengard
We didn't start World War II. It also wasn't pointless.

/your point

And the 407,000+ lost from the US alone during WW II aren't pointless either. Your point?

If you see fit to compare Iraq to previous conflicts on one aspect, it is only fair to look at other aspects as well.

WW2 was organized massive conventional warfare between nations. Vietnam was guerrilla warfare so you are comparing apples to oranges with WW2 to Iraq. *actually its more like comparing apples to cabage*
 
Originally posted by: nullzero
WW2 was organized massive conventional warfare between nations. Vietnam was guerrilla warfare so you are comparing apples to oranges with WW2 to Iraq. *actually its more like comparing apples to cabage*

Except that I never made any comparisons.

I was simply pointing out that you have to take the good and the bad when attempting to make a comparison between conflicts. Citing one statistic while ignoring another is dishonest.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: nullzero
WW2 was organized massive conventional warfare between nations. Vietnam was guerrilla warfare so you are comparing apples to oranges with WW2 to Iraq. *actually its more like comparing apples to cabage*
Citing one statistic while ignoring another is dishonest.

Uhh, which is exactly what you were doing. Your point ended long ago, why are you still talking?

 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Uhh, which is exactly what you were doing. Your point ended long ago, why are you still talking?

And your point was?

Wow, you're setting new records here. It's sad that you don't care about our people dying in Iraq every day to the point you'll make their sacrifices meaningless to prove some stupid point of yours (what IS your point?)
 
We destroyed all their WMDs, mission accomplished? :laugh:
 
why is President Bush and his sidekick Cheney not being punished for their illegal war which is on par with terrorism?

There is no solid reason why we went into Iraq. The WMD claim is bogus because every nation in the M.E has WMD.
 
When will the pointless war and loss of life in Iraq stop? When bush leaves office...

BTW, calling this a "war" is a stretch.... It's a cake walk, remember what rummie said? bushes hero? hahaha

BTW: The only reason bush is in office today is because of this so called 'war' I wonder if he thinks it was worth it? 3500 lives for another 4 years? What a guilt trip eh?
 
Originally posted by: ericlp
When will the pointless war and loss of life in Iraq stop? When bush leaves office...

BTW, calling this a "war" is a stretch.... It's a cake walk, remember what rummie said? bushes hero? hahaha

BTW: The only reason bush is in office today is because of this so called 'war' I wonder if he thinks it was worth it? 3500 lives for another 4 years? What a guilt trip eh?

Why do you think it will stop? This has it's own momentum now.

 
On the plus side, if you want to call it that, June and July are traditionally ?slow? months for American deaths. Go and look icasualties.org for the month to month total and you will see a drop every summer.

I would like to see the ?mean? number of deaths per day as opposed to the ?average.? Based on the coverage and the way in which the deaths occur in groups it makes you wonder if we are suffering our casualties from a smaller number, but deadlier attacks.
If this is the case then I would like to know if there is any significance to this etc.

Now that I have injected my 2 cents you anti-war types can go back to be outraged.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
On the plus side, if you want to call it that, June and July are traditionally ?slow? months for American deaths. Go and look icasualties.org for the month to month total and you will see a drop every summer.

I would like to see the ?mean? number of deaths per day as opposed to the ?average.? Based on the coverage and the way in which the deaths occur in groups it makes you wonder if we are suffering our casualties from a smaller number, but deadlier attacks.
If this is the case then I would like to know if there is any significance to this etc.

Now that I have injected my 2 cents you anti-war types can go back to be outraged.

Those sorts of statistics aren't availible to the general public.

 
Originally posted by: Aimster
why is President Bush and his sidekick Cheney not being punished for their illegal war which is on par with terrorism?
Possibly because the conflict was authorized by Congress.
And was continually funded by Congress for the past 4 years.

And Congress is more concerned with playing CYA than forcing a pullout by killing the funding.

 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Aimster
why is President Bush and his sidekick Cheney not being punished for their illegal war which is on par with terrorism?
Possibly because the conflict was authorized by Congress.
And was continually funded by Congress for the past 4 years.

And Congress is more concerned with playing CYA than forcing a pullout by killing the funding.

That, and Americans generally don't see it as terrorism. It won't sell and never will. Right now the majority are not happy with being stuck in Iraq, but that's about it.
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
What did Congress see when they authorized the vote?
Was the "bad intel" a result of the Bush administration?
Actually, no, a lot of it wasn't. Nearly a dozen nations around the globe produced intel indicating a high probability that Saddam had WMD. Taking that into consideration, along side Saddam's constant abuse of IAEA inspectors and a dozen other violations of the UN mandates, Congress had a pretty decent reason to vote for the war.

Of course, in hindsight, we can criticize their decision all day long. At the time, however, the invasion appeared very justifiable.

All decisions are easier made in hindsight. So, what was your point again?
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
What did Congress see when they authorized the vote?
Was the "bad intel" a result of the Bush administration?

Yeah, GWB managed to get France and Germany in on the scheme as well. Oh wait...

The fact is that numerous intelligence agencies and foreign governments had come to the same conclusions at that time. You can continue to make excuses and blame GWB for everything from your toilet flushing slow to a blown light bulb, but reality will persist.
 
Back
Top