American Soldier Death Count In Iraq Almost @ 4,000

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,861
68
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Train

Thats a pretty sick opinion. I know quite a few people that would likely punch your front teeth in for saying thier friends lives were wasted.
If you think the Iraq War is as important as WW2 or Korea, well I'm not sure what to say then, because that's ridiculous.

WTF difference does the "importance" of a war make in a troops life? American communists thought Korea was an unneccessary war, they didnt attack us right? Not our problem right?

Do you know that the majority of Americans were AGAINST FDR's decision to attack Germany?

Nice, the old 'soldiers would hate you for talking badly about the war' argument.
putting words in my mouth? another snake...
Well, I know a lot of Marines that want to punch George Bush in the face for wasting their friends' lives. I guess we're even.
Nice, the "I know somebody who disagrees with you argument'

Oh, and you might want to read a history book. FDR didn't attack Germany, Germany declared war on the US.
Like I already pointed out and you and your blind friends keep missing, declaring war doesnt mean shit, the american people didnt give a shit. They wanted Japan, period. The dems lost 44 house seats and 9 senate seats the following mid term election, the single largest party swing in the history of congressional elections, all because the people were against going to Europe. Maybe you should read a history book. You take the two congressional elections since we've invaded iraq, and the party #'s are damn near even, the reps gained in 04 and dems gained in 06, neither by any significant margin.

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
fyi germany declared war on us

And Bin Laden "declared war" on us in 1991. We didn't go after him until 10 years later, despite him having actually attacked us 4 times prior to 9/11

and your point being that Bin Laden = Iraq?
nice dig but no. I highly doubt you missed the obvious.

He said we attacked germany because they declared war on us, I pointed out that declaring war on us dont mean jack shiite. Bin Laden did it and then attacked American soil 3 times and then a US warship, yet it wasnt until the 5th attack that we did anything about it (go after him in Afghanistan)

I can respect that.. sorry for my knee-jerk reply..

I do however think far more soldiers have been murdered in Iraq than Afg <<which is justified unlike Iraq
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
This thread is fucking hilarious. A couple months back there was a multiple homicide around here--six dead, all family, including a couple toddlers who were shot through the brain point blank. But hey, it wasn't the Holocaust.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,404
136
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Train

Thats a pretty sick opinion. I know quite a few people that would likely punch your front teeth in for saying thier friends lives were wasted.
If you think the Iraq War is as important as WW2 or Korea, well I'm not sure what to say then, because that's ridiculous.

WTF difference does the "importance" of a war make in a troops life? American communists thought Korea was an unneccessary war, they didnt attack us right? Not our problem right?

Do you know that the majority of Americans were AGAINST FDR's decision to attack Germany?

Nice, the old 'soldiers would hate you for talking badly about the war' argument.
putting words in my mouth? another snake...
Well, I know a lot of Marines that want to punch George Bush in the face for wasting their friends' lives. I guess we're even.
Nice, the "I know somebody who disagrees with you argument'

Oh, and you might want to read a history book. FDR didn't attack Germany, Germany declared war on the US.
Like I already pointed out and you and your blind friends keep missing, declaring war doesnt mean shit, the american people didnt give a shit. They wanted Japan, period. The dems lost 44 house seats and 9 senate seats the following mid term election, the single largest party swing in the history of congressional elections, all because the people were against going to Europe. Maybe you should read a history book. You take the two congressional elections since we've invaded iraq, and the party #'s are damn near even, the reps gained in 04 and dems gained in 06, neither by any significant margin.

Exactly, the "I know someone who disagrees with you" argument is stupid. That's why when you said people would want to punch the other poster for saying people's lives were wasted... was stupid.

Declaring war doesn't mean shit only if you're a complete idiot. Another country declared war on us and was allied with a separate power that had just attacked us. Iraq did neither. We chose to declare war (in effect) on Iraq, Germany chose to declare war on us and was firing on our escort ships in the Atlantic. It doesn't matter if the American public didn't approve of where our troops were being deployed, a war is neither necessary or unnecessary from our perspective when someone else declares war on US. It just is. Trying to compare the two is retarded.

As far as the Democrats not gaining by a significant margin, that's also false. In 1942 they gained 45 seats, in 2006 the Democrats gained 31. In the Senate the Republicans picked up 9 seats in 42, in 2006 the Democrats picked up 6. I like how 1942's results are the Largest In History, but the Democrats' pickups in 2006 aren't significant. Sure they aren't.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The difference between this and many is that we elected to start a war where there was no cause. While I am completely sympathetic towards our soldiers, no Iraqi wanted to die in a war in which they were completely innocent. That is also a qualitative difference. In those battles you mention, the US participated against aggressor nations, this time we became the attackers. May they all rest in peace, ours and theirs.

Same reasons for this war and Vietnam in the end.


As much as WMD was the motive, Iraq was an aggressor nation to its neighbors.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Based on the OP's title of almost 4,000 dead, I still say (and have from the very beginning) that it wasn't worth one US life for this faux war and the fucked up mess that it's left us in Iraq and the ME.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,404
136
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: eskimospy
...

You do realize there were a lot less TOTAL seats back then right? You do realize that the US wasnt even 50 states at the time, right? lol

lol indeed.

Number of seats in the House of Representatives in 1942: 435
Number of seats in the House of Representatives in 2006: 435

Or were you referring to seats maybe in the place where the audience sits? That I don't know about. Apparently I need to read a history book. There were 4% fewer senators then though, so you're right... that adds an extra .04 of a senator to the win totals back then.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Corbett
As the media and some here on P&N await anxiously for the US Soldier death count to exceed 4,000
If absolute death counts are your only concern, I guess the nation should have laughed-off 9/11's 2,700 deaths and declared a war on drunk driving instead.

Who said absolute death counts are my only concern?

The people who died in 9/11 were not soldiers, but nice way of trying to put words in my mouth.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Train

Thats a pretty sick opinion. I know quite a few people that would likely punch your front teeth in for saying thier friends lives were wasted.
If you think the Iraq War is as important as WW2 or Korea, well I'm not sure what to say then, because that's ridiculous.

WTF difference does the "importance" of a war make in a troops life? American communists thought Korea was an unneccessary war, they didnt attack us right? Not our problem right?

Do you know that the majority of Americans were AGAINST FDR's decision to attack Germany?

Nice, the old 'soldiers would hate you for talking badly about the war' argument.
putting words in my mouth? another snake...
Well, I know a lot of Marines that want to punch George Bush in the face for wasting their friends' lives. I guess we're even.
Nice, the "I know somebody who disagrees with you argument'

Oh, and you might want to read a history book. FDR didn't attack Germany, Germany declared war on the US.
Like I already pointed out and you and your blind friends keep missing, declaring war doesnt mean shit, the american people didnt give a shit. They wanted Japan, period. The dems lost 44 house seats and 9 senate seats the following mid term election, the single largest party swing in the history of congressional elections, all because the people were against going to Europe. Maybe you should read a history book. You take the two congressional elections since we've invaded iraq, and the party #'s are damn near even, the reps gained in 04 and dems gained in 06, neither by any significant margin.

You are living in some kind of dream world. You are telling us it doesn't mean shit when other country declare war on you and attack your soil and your allies? It makes the whole freaking difference. That's why we have this whole debate about Bush doctrine and preemptive strike. And you become the bad guy and the aggressor when you attack other people without provocation. Maybe you and few of your warmongering friend don't give a damn about reasons for attacking other countries. But I truly believe only very little share your point of view.

And back to the OT, number of death don't mean anything. The reason and the justification for the war is what matters. No one says we shouldn't fight in WW2 even tho millions died because the reason was justified. The war in Iraq is a BS war. Neo-con's who started it still couldn't get their reasons straight and any death in a BS war like this is one too many.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
Sure but due to advances in medicine many more soldiers are surviving injuries that would have caused their death in earlier conflicts.

I don't see the point of this thread other than trying to justify continuing this ridiculous war.

I guess it's case of "Johnny getting his gun" and loving it in the OP's case.

3,990 needless deaths for a war which should of never of happened at all.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
fyi germany declared war on us

And Bin Laden "declared war" on us in 1991. We didn't go after him until 10 years later, despite him having actually attacked us 4 times prior to 9/11

Bin Laden was not in Iraq or the leader of Iraq.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: sandorski
...
Gee, I don't know. How about rampaging through Europe? Or bombing Civilians indiscriminately? Maybe because Hitler was a Maniacal Loon? Take your pick, there's even more good reasons.
Take my pick? Gee Saddam and son's were twice the maniac Hitler was... I guess there's your justification right there.
If we dont need public opinion (in a frikkin democracy) Than I guess any reason is good by your logic.

Wonderful...the "Hitler" shoe has dropped. Saddam was a bad man but shifting power over to Iran in the region was not worth paying in American lives. Yet the stupidity of some folks who can't think 5 minutes into the future and do not have a lucid grasp on history and the long term effects and consequences of their actions is astonishing IMHO.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The difference between this and many is that we elected to start a war where there was no cause. While I am completely sympathetic towards our soldiers, no Iraqi wanted to die in a war in which they were completely innocent. That is also a qualitative difference. In those battles you mention, the US participated against aggressor nations, this time we became the attackers. May they all rest in peace, ours and theirs.

Same reasons for this war and Vietnam in the end.


As much as WMD was the motive, Iraq was an aggressor nation to its neighbors.

Iraq was no real threat. We decimated it's army the first time around, and it never recovered.

America needed the war with Iraq like a boar hog needs tits.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The difference between this and many is that we elected to start a war where there was no cause. While I am completely sympathetic towards our soldiers, no Iraqi wanted to die in a war in which they were completely innocent. That is also a qualitative difference. In those battles you mention, the US participated against aggressor nations, this time we became the attackers. May they all rest in peace, ours and theirs.

Same reasons for this war and Vietnam in the end.


As much as WMD was the motive, Iraq was an aggressor nation to its neighbors.

Iraq was no real threat. We decimated it's army the first time around, and it never recovered.

America needed the war with Iraq like a boar hog needs tits.

/QFT....just like the the "Domino Theory" was proven to be a complete and utter farce in the wake of the aftermath of the Vietnam war and the "Bay of Tonkin" incident being blown way out of proportion to force us into a pointless and useless war.
 

thegimp03

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2004
7,426
2
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
9/11 deaths: 2,740

We've managed to kill more Americans than the hijackers did.

If we had not attacked Iraq, does anybody really think terrorists would have killed almost 4,000 Americans by now? I certainly don't. If you just want to go by the numbers, we'd have been better off staying home.

We've managed to kill more Americans than the hijackers did...?

What a nice way of putting it. I'd like to know what other lies you tell yourself.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: Corbett
As the media and some here on P&N await anxiously for the US Soldier death count to exceed 4,000; I thought it was interesting to view the death counts of other wars to put them in persepctive. Yeah yeah, I know what many of you will say. "1 death is too many" And you are right! But that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq war has produced fewer American Soldiers' deaths than many of the wars before it.

Iraq War (5 years)-- 3,990
Batan Death March (one week)-- 10,000
Battle of Guadalcanal (186 days)-- 7,099
Battle of Guam (20 Days)-- 3,000
Operation Market Garden (9 days)-- 3,664
Battle of the Bulge (41 days)-- 19,276
Battle of Iwo Jima (39 days)-- 6,821
Battle of Pusan Perimeter (61 days-Korea)-- 6,706


http://gatewaypundit.blogspot....iraq-versus-major.html

What happened to the "Operation Iraqi Liberation"? When did we declare War with Iraq?
Oh! You mean the Iraq Occupation!:D Silly me!
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: thegimp03
Originally posted by: BoberFett
9/11 deaths: 2,740

We've managed to kill more Americans than the hijackers did.

If we had not attacked Iraq, does anybody really think terrorists would have killed almost 4,000 Americans by now? I certainly don't. If you just want to go by the numbers, we'd have been better off staying home.

We've managed to kill more Americans than the hijackers did...?

What a nice way of putting it. I'd like to know what other lies you tell yourself.

Had the US not invaded Iraq, nearly 4,000 Americans would not have died there. Where's the lie in that?

Just because you rationalize our presence in Iraq doesn't change facts.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The difference between this and many is that we elected to start a war where there was no cause. While I am completely sympathetic towards our soldiers, no Iraqi wanted to die in a war in which they were completely innocent. That is also a qualitative difference. In those battles you mention, the US participated against aggressor nations, this time we became the attackers. May they all rest in peace, ours and theirs.

Same reasons for this war and Vietnam in the end.


As much as WMD was the motive, Iraq was an aggressor nation to its neighbors.

Iraq was no real threat. We decimated it's army the first time around, and it never recovered.

America needed the war with Iraq like a boar hog needs tits.



Come on.. we obviously did this to PROTECT Iran ;)
 

Firebot

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2005
1,476
2
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
As the media and some here on P&N await anxiously for the US Soldier death count to exceed 4,000; I thought it was interesting to view the death counts of other wars to put them in persepctive. Yeah yeah, I know what many of you will say. "1 death is too many" And you are right! But that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq war has produced fewer American Soldiers' deaths than many of the wars before it.

Iraq War (5 years)-- 3,990
Batan Death March (one week)-- 10,000
Battle of Guadalcanal (186 days)-- 7,099
Battle of Guam (20 Days)-- 3,000
Operation Market Garden (9 days)-- 3,664
Battle of the Bulge (41 days)-- 19,276
Battle of Iwo Jima (39 days)-- 6,821
Battle of Pusan Perimeter (61 days-Korea)-- 6,706


http://gatewaypundit.blogspot....iraq-versus-major.html

The Iraq war was over in 2003 within a few months. You are mistaken in your numbers, as this is an occupation and you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Compare the numbers from the Iraq occupation, to other occupations, and all of a sudden you see why your numbers are a farce.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Iraq is not a "war", it's an occupation. To call it a war just gives it legitimacy that it doesn't deserve.

All of the cases that the OP listed in comparison were actual wars where we were fighting an actual, organized army. When you consdier that we are just occupying a country, 4000 deaths seems like quite a toll.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Train said:
"Justifiable war" is an oxymoron

Anyone who believes in "preemptive war" has zero credibility and zero right to refer to themselves as rational. I'm all for addressing the reality on the ground in Iraq but that reality cannot be filtered through the twin lenses of American hubris and self-righteousness. It needs to be filtered through the lenses of humility and contrition. We broke it and we can't fix it alone. At least not continuing to intervene militarily other than as part of an international peacekeeping and anti-terrorism force.

Only in conjunction with the broader international community, which includes Iran playing a meaningful role.. Do we even stand a chance of contributing something meaningful to Iraq's reconstruction?.

We lost our moral legitimacy, which is key, when we went it alone.

We bombed it to rubble and then didn't have a plan to put people to work rebuilding it (not that we should have bombed it to dust in the first place). We certainly haven't done a good job preventing ethnic cleansing or assisting refugees and their destination nations. In fact there is ample evidence that we've done nothing to help them in pursuit of political gain. The reality is our ME and worldwide foreign policy needs a complete and fundamental overhaul and reorientation.

Superpower my ass. We don't seem so powerful now, do we. Bleeding lives and money in pursuit of a dying resource into perpetuity if we stay on this path. The power to destroy isn't half as meaningful as the power to peacefully build bridges and adapt quickly to changing circumstances.

Some never seem capable of learning the very simple lesson that most people will never accept an occupying force on their soil any more than Americans would on theirs.

For their decisions to have been bad we must first lose....

Amateur gamblers sitting at the table and down a thousand dollars instinctively feel that the money is not lost until they walk away from the table. Casinos around the world make a fortune on this mentality. An experienced professional gambler knows otherwise. When you are down a grand you are down a grand. It is already lost money and the only decision to be made is how much more are you are willing to risk.

Inexperienced investors will not feel like they have lost money on a stock that has lost value until they sell it. Experienced investors know that the money is lost and the real question to ask is ?If I didn?t already own the stock would I buy it??

It is this emotion that the pro Iraq war establishment banks on to hide their incompetence and protect their reputations. They do not want us to feel that anything has been lost until we decide to walk away from the table. In this way their decisions were not bad because we have not yet lost and they are set up to label the persons who have the courage to get us out of this occupation as the losers deserving of our scorn.

Unfortunately we are not talking about poker chips and stock investments here. Our loss is measured in human lives, a disintegrating Constitution and a unstable economy. We endure this endless loss just to protect the legacy of a corrupt administration and its merry band of enablers.

What we need now is new leadership that can make courageous decisions. What we don?t need are the cowards we have now who are too terrified to admit their mistakes and walk away from the table while we still have an Army & state treasure intact.





 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Corbett
As the media and some here on P&N await anxiously for the US Soldier death count to exceed 4,000; I thought it was interesting to view the death counts of other wars to put them in persepctive. Yeah yeah, I know what many of you will say. "1 death is too many" And you are right! But that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq war has produced fewer American Soldiers' deaths than many of the wars before it.

Iraq War (5 years)-- 3,990
Batan Death March (one week)-- 10,000
Battle of Guadalcanal (186 days)-- 7,099
Battle of Guam (20 Days)-- 3,000
Operation Market Garden (9 days)-- 3,664
Battle of the Bulge (41 days)-- 19,276
Battle of Iwo Jima (39 days)-- 6,821
Battle of Pusan Perimeter (61 days-Korea)-- 6,706


http://gatewaypundit.blogspot....iraq-versus-major.html

:cookie: :disgust:

People that make these kinds of comparison posts should be immediately dragged to their nearest recruiters office and forced to enlist.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,679
11,022
136
When you consider that nearly 4000 of our troops have been killed, not by a standing military force, but by "rebels, insurgents, and riff-raff," that tends to put the numbers in a different perspective. Yes, when we invaded in 2003, the Iraqi army folded its tents and disappeared, thus the ridiculously low body count early on, but now, instead of taking our troops on in large battles, they take them out one or 2 or 15 at a time with IED's and other forms of unconventional warfare.
If we only had to fight the Iraqi military, this clusterfuck would have been over 4 years and 9 months ago...now, our troops are having to fight the citizenry, many of whom who see us as invaders not liberators.