Iraq War hardly costing any casualties

[Pekka]

"If it's body counts the media want, why not compare the few American troop deaths with the many terrorist deaths? Or would that be too revealing?"

Wow, is this like a real paper?

OK since they want to play a game, saying casualties are so low, did they forget the Iraqis, taking the biggest hit in casualties? I guess so.... but they don't matter, they're brown.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by snoopy369
More people are dying and being injured. We're at war, that's what happens.

I agree. the problem is the idiot in the OP claims other wise.

[Drake Tungsten]

The casualty rate in Iraq is insignificant. The fact that it's as big an issue as it is just shows how much perspective we've lost as a society.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The casualty rate in Iraq is insignificant. The fact that it's as big an issue as it is just shows how much perspective we've lost as a society.

True, but it could be a long war. The rate of casualties iirc wasn't that high in Vietnam either but by the end there was enough names to fill quite an imposing black stone wall.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The casualty rate in Iraq is insignificant.

Not to members of the active Army and Marines. It's made their job very dangerous in comparison to civilian life.

It doesn't, of course, present any danger of bleeding the US white, but it can present problems for an all-volunteer force in a country which doesn't actually believe in the usefulness of the Iraq war any more.

[Drake Tungsten]

True, but it could be a long war. The rate of casualties iirc wasn't that high in Vietnam either but by the end there was enough names to fill quite an imposing black stone wall.

Assuming the current yearly US casualty rate in Iraq holds, we'd have to stay in Iraq for 71 more years to reach the ~58,000 dead we suffered in Vietnam.

Not to members of the active Army and Marines. It's made their job very dangerous in comparison to civilian life.

It's true that members of the Army and the Marines have the most reason to be concerned by the increase in casualties. In actuality, though, they are far from the most anguished about it. It's been really weird following the disconnect between the press and the military on the significance of the casualties in Iraq...

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I find the more interesting comparison to be the war-mongering Clinton indulged in.

Clinton and W. share a love for sending U.S. soldiers on Crusading adventures.

I remember when the Republican party used to complain about such adventures, and when W. campaigned against nation building...

[KrazyHorse]

It's true that members of the Army and the Marines have the most reason to be concerned by the increase in casualties. In actuality, though, they are far from the most anguished about it. It's been really weird following the disconnect between the press and the military on the significance of the casualties in Iraq...

The ones who you should be worried about are those who are thinking of joining the Army and Marines...

[Drake Tungsten]

The press is going to have much more of an effect on their perception than the military, I fear.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Assuming the current yearly US casualty rate in Iraq holds...

Bad assumption in the long run, I'd say.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

True, but it could be a long war. The rate of casualties iirc wasn't that high in Vietnam either but by the end there was enough names to fill quite an imposing black stone wall.

Assuming the current yearly US casualty rate in Iraq holds, we'd have to stay in Iraq for 71 more years to reach the ~58,000 dead we suffered in Vietnam.

Not to members of the active Army and Marines. It's made their job very dangerous in comparison to civilian life.

It's true that members of the Army and the Marines have the most reason to be concerned by the increase in casualties. In actuality, though, they are far from the most anguished about it. It's been really weird following the disconnect between the press and the military on the significance of the casualties in Iraq...

It won't have to last 71 years to provide a good fraction of the casualties suffered in Vietnam. It would only have to last about as long as the vietnam war did for that.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

30 years to result in same casualties as revolutionary war

25 years to result in same casualties as War of 1812

16 years to result in same casualties as Mexican War of 1846

765 years to result in same casualties as Civil war

142 years to result in same casualties as WW1

560 years to result in the same dead as WW2.

55 years to result in Korean War casualties

[Wezil]

Where did Wiglaf go?

[Arrian]

Hit 'n run troll.

The casualties clearly are much lower than many other wars the US has fought... and given how unnecessary and stupid this war is, that's something to thankful for. A comparison between the casualties suffered in the invasion and occupation of Iraq and those suffered in WWII (or WWI, or the Civil War... etc) is disingenuous. Different eras of combat (all things being equal, casualties would be lower now than in the 1940s), and VASTLY different scope-of-conflict. WWII was, well, a world war, and a war we all agree had to be fought. Iraq is a war of choice... something that was deemed "doable" by our government. It was a long way from necessary. So the casualties are, rightly IMO, viewed differently than casualties in WWII. Or even Korea.

Having said all of that, my distain for the war and those who supported it does not revolve solely around US casualties.

-Arrian

p.s. Do we have casualty figures for the US occupations of West Germany and Japan post-WWII? Since proponents of "spreading democracy in Iraq" love to draw parallels between Iraq and those two successful examples, perhaps an examination of the casualty rates would be instructive...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Geronimo


It won't have to last 71 years to provide a good fraction of the casualties suffered in Vietnam. It would only have to last about as long as the vietnam war did for that.

How does one figure that? Casualty rates had dropped to almost nil as the US entered the Vietnamization phase. Isn't that the phase we are talking about now namely the hand over of security to Iraq?