Who thinks that 3000 is too many casualties for a 4 year conflict?

janice h

Even one death is one too many but put into context the war in Iraq is going well. Parents, wives, children, brothers and sisters of our brave young men killed in battle may not agree though some would say it is going well and that their fallen hero believed in what he or she was doing. The people in the US expect instant results and do not seem to have the capacity to wait for good things. They want everything right now. The democrats and others say we didn't win in the first days and we cannot win now. This is wrong. Wars are nasty things but once engaged upon must be fought to their conclusion. You cannot quit half way through. I do not know if we made the right decision to invade Iraq but now that we have we must repeat must fight until that country is secure it is our sacred duty.

camptart

every life is precious that is the problem.... also you have to believe in the cause.. people spouting off these numbers are using it as ammo to walk away from a very difficult situation.... other than that your right... in comparsion terms our causalties are very minor.... havent seen recent stats on the wounded though.... and how that compares.
BTW I honor our military. no matter the politics.. those boys ROCK!

Thor Girl

23,000 men fell in one day at Antietam..... Let the media show the faces of the greatful here in Iraq... I see them all the time. Being at home gives people the ability to say foolish things. It is their right. Just give us our rights too.... all I ask is some fair consideration for what we are doing all this negativity from our fellow Americans hurts........

Tough Love

I will assume that the asker is so flip about his question because he/she's probably under the misconception that 'service' in his world consists of AOL or yahoo. So I'll explain.

The Problem? That ONE life is too many casualties for what's going on in Iraq. And its not war my friend.

In war, the job of marines and soldiers is to:
-Close with the enemy
-Engage same
-Take and hold terrain
-Destroy enemies, their assets, and equipment

Not to police, build infrastructure where little existed, make nice being goodwill ambassadors with guns, make sure Iraqi's get the right to vote, etc. The War was over about 3 years ago from this soldier's boots. It is now Nation Building that is costing lives.

Bryan

While I agree that by war standards 3000 is very low, especially when there are 17,000+ murders in the United States every year, but I think you are acting a little flippant about it. This is because even one death is one too many. There are people who oppose the war and they will seize on any advantage to make their case. This is fine, political discourse is perfectly acceptable in this country. What you have to understand is that the average person is more than capable of putting this into perspective. The antiwar movement in this country does not have traction. What they have is vocal minority. While many people have issues with the strategy of the war, these same people also support the troops and state that we cannot abandon Iraq. If you really want to know just how insignificant the antiwar movement really is, just examine numbers of protests and actions during the Vietnam War versus today. What you will find is that they are almost non existent today. The media gives them lots of coverage and by doing so creates the false impression that they have greater numbers and support than they actually do.

sayasyoulike

3000 happened in one day within an hour...remember 9/11?

ukdan

Soldiers die in training accidents; doesn't mean the armed forces should be disbanded.
Iraq is a different type of conflict. The US casualties are much lower than that of the insurgents. (Or at least, so we are told.)
The soldiers need support from their country. Like it or not, they are there and have a job to do. Too many people are putting them down. They deserve respect for laying down their lives to defend freedom.

eldertrouble

Lets see...3000, over 50000 for Vietnam, approximately 40000 for Korea, and many more for World Wars 1 and 2... I would say that for a conflict that is only 4 years old the averages are very good. In Korea and Vietnam 3000 casualties would be more of a monthly or weekly total. To say that the individual soldiers and their family's are just statistics would be very wrong, and I WILL NOT DEBATE that. Since many have been effected (Myself included) But I will say that it could have been much worse!!!
Lets get the job done RIGHT! and get out of there, but the active statement is lets get it done RIGHT the first time.

devilduck74

Agreed.

Everyone has made valid arguements. And countered well.
I too cant see why the fuss is about.

Here is an interesting article: According to this. in 2004. Compared to the last 4 Presidents. It shows President Reagan lossing more troops. What war did we fight then? Humm. nothing major.
http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/20/21940/0381

Alot of troops die from accidents, and illiness, etc etc.

Stone K

If you took in to account how vicious the media portrays the enemy I would say it is a miraculous number.

Coming from a military family I know the loss of soldiers is a very painful thing, but as cold hearted as it sounds no one I know thinks the losses are unacceptable.

My dad air lifted hundreds of dead and wounded soldiers out of combat in Vietnam, and himself lost his entire crew on what would be his last Flight, he knows how brutal war is, and it infuriates him how the media trivializes the losses down to numbers and then acts like it is the biggest number ever.

Milestones are great... but only for distance, not for trivializing the loss of brave men and women.

Mike

the prob is that we are over there pissing away our people for a country that has no intention of taking care of its-self. one person or 3000, it does not matter. its all a wast!

sorry about putting it in a nut shell but, it fits....

netnazivictim

Good job, the liberals will be vapor locking over this. You are 100% right.

buttercup

That is a relative low number of casualities compared
to other wars (who, by the way, were armies, not their
citizens of terror):
Vietnam War casualities 58,000
Korean War casualities 36,000
World War II: 405,000
World War I: 116,000
No one likes war or casualties, but Pres. Bush is not the
only President who has initiated a war (for a purpose).

convoiceofreason

America has become so concerned about world opinion that we want to fight nice wars. That is not what our military is trained for.
We should have invaded Iraq, used as many people as needed to seal the borders and then disarmed the people. To hell with being nice about it. 3000 is a very low number for a four year conflict, more than that died each year in Vietnam. But if this had been done correctly, the number would be a lot lower.I was only aa corporal in the Marines during Vietnam, but I could have done a better job in Iraq than these boot generals of today..

kissmy

look at the casualties for the first 4 years of vietnam,then compare. i'm not talking about the "advisors"

bostonianinmo

One is too many, since we never should have been there in the first place.

SH was ZERO risk to the US. There was justification for the First Gulf War. I was there. But there was NO justification for going back.

SH was a scumbag but he was an Iraqi problem. We are not in the business of nation building. If we were, why the hell haven't we invaded China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.?

Addendum: Sorry, Pal, but SH was no threat to the US. If you haven't served in the military and been involved in intel you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

We had justification going into Afghanistan and had the backing of the world. Had we thrown the resources there that were WASTED in Iraq, UBL and his minions would be history today and the troops would be back at home with their families.

Invading Iraq has only inflamed the Islamists and given them excuses to launch further attacks against us and our interests. We are considerably LESS secure due to Iraq.

This is from the "horse's mouth". If you haven't "been there, done that", please shut up and listen. I didn't serve for over 21 years to have my brothers and sisters in arms slaughtered over a bunch of LIES. Bush, Cheney and Rummy can all go to HELL for all I care. They've destroyed our country and it will take DECADES for us to regain our standing in the world as a bastion of freedom and justice for all.

Zee HatMan

Applying the numbers of KIA and WIA to a wars validity is a false argument. No war was ever won until the enemy said 'Uncle'.

War is a means to defeat evil. If you start worring about numbers you have lost sight of the problem.

Todays problem remains. Defeat Evil. Defeat Radical Islam.

One is one too many...

MrKnowItAll

I agree. People have become too accustomed to their padded cells that block out reality...

d_leoncavallo

Personally I think that one casualty is already too much when a war cannot be justified like it was the fact in Iraq and even a little in Afghanistan.

The thing is that you cannot win a war by counting your casualties, if you take the example of Vietnam, the US had less the North Vietnamese, but they still lost the war, so basically every one who fought and died in VietNam just like in Iraq are fighting for nothing because ultimately they will be on the losing side.

Magick

Your comparison is incorrect. The other wars were very different than Iraq; and please never compare WWII to Iraq. In WWII, we were attacked and had to defend ourselves and our allies. We invaded Iraq on a lie; so we are in fact the aggressors of the war.

WWII made us the hero's of the world; but Iraq has made us look like idiots, aggressors and liars.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: