US military casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan

[KevinB]

To our cousins across the pond, what are your thoughts on the casualty rate amongst the military in Iraq and Afghansistan.

Why I ask is, we rarely ever hear or see anything in the media about US casualties anymore unless it's a say helicopter coming down. Nowadays if we seen anything reported it's usually in the third or fourth page of the newspaper
The Brit casualities are a minority to what the US is suffering. I think we have something like 120 killed since the end of the Iraq war and the US is creeping up to the 3000 mark.

What is the feeling back in the US regarding this?

PS Any of you guys ever been there?

[Enigma]

Im sure we all feel that its a tragedy, and very sad. Personally, I feel that way, and I also couldnt look anyone in the eye and tell them why these kids have to die, or what thier deaths accomplish for us in this campaign. so, I woul dcall it needless. I dont think 3000 American kids had to die, yet they continue to do so every day. Its heart breaking, frankly.

Never been, but have friends serving, and have lost neighbors to the war.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is a big mess. Iraq is this generations Vietnam. We were big losers there and we will be in Iraq. Furthermore, these guys and gals in the service will not get a hero's welcome when they return to the states because it is an unpopular war just as Vietnam was. I guess it is unpopular because we are getting our arses kicked and making no headway at all.

If it were me, pull out all troops, build a wall around Iraq about 10 feet tall and fill it with water:lol:

Unfortunate we started it and we have to finish it. Another bad mistake by the folks in Washington DC.:damn:

[KevinB]

If it were me, pull out all troops, build a wall around Iraq about 10 feet tall and fill it with water:lol:


I agree AVG, but this is degenerating into an out of control civil war.
What I want to know is, who the hell are arming these people, where do they get all those rpgs, aks and IDF from? Surely after Gulf War 2 was over the enemy surrendered all their weapons?

I've also read somewhere that there are a high number of people deserting.

[bradclark1]

these guys and gals in the service will not get a hero's welcome when they return to the states because it is an unpopular war just as Vietnam was.
Utter B.S.
Where do you get that assumption from? Yes the war is unpopular but the troop's are fully supported by the public and are treated as heroes. I have yet to hear one negative comment in regards to our troops.

[AVGWarhawk]

If it were me, pull out all troops, build a wall around Iraq about 10 feet tall and fill it with water:lol:


I agree AVG, but this is degenerating into an out of control civil war.
What I want to know is, who the hell are arming these people, where do they get all those rpgs, aks and IDF from? Surely after Gulf War 2 was over the enemy surrendered all their weapons?

I've also read somewhere that there are a high number of people deserting.

The Soviets have been selling their hardware to them. It already is an out of control civil war. There will be a cleric running the place pretty soon. There will be no democracy there in my lifetime or yours. Not that democracy is the best way to go but that is what US is shooting for....plus all the fat oil fields!

[Enigma]

We left the Iraqis armed after the 1st Gulf war, hence the slaughter that ensued when we left. Also, noone needs to arm an insurgent militia over there. You can buy weapons in Iraq and its neighboring countries like you can but Pepsi in the U.S.

Also, I have to agree with whoever above said the troops will be well recieved when they come home. While the comparisons to Vietnam are fair, the reaction of the public is quite different. Yes, its an unpopular war, but by and large Americans just want their kids home safe, not fighting a pointless battle with no objective and being killed every day. There will be no spitting on soldiers this time around.

[Enigma]

Oh, and by the way, to the original poster who started the thread, the news of Americans being killed over there has become commonplace enough that it is reported here much in the same way as you describe it being reported in the UK. Its usually something like "The dow is up 12 points, jennifer Aniston breaks off her relationship with Vince Vaughn, and 3 troops died in Basra today. Next, weather and traffic.".
The killing of American soldiers isnt even front page news on websites such as msnbc or CNN anymore. Sad but true.

[AVGWarhawk]

We left the Iraqis armed after the 1st Gulf war, hence the slaughter that ensued when we left. Also, noone needs to arm an insurgent militia over there. You can buy weapons in Iraq and its neighboring countries like you can but Pepsi in the U.S.

Also, I have to agree with whoever above said the troops will be well recieved when they come home. While the comparisons to Vietnam are fair, the reaction of the public is quite different. Yes, its an unpopular war, but by and large Americans just want their kids home safe, not fighting a pointless battle with no objective and being killed every day. There will be no spitting on soldiers this time around.


There is no spitting on soldiers, agreed but they sure are not striking up the bands now are they? One group was boycotting the funerals of the soldiers coming home. This group was a baptist church for crying out loud.

[Enigma]

boycotting funerals?

Perhaps you mean the group that was protesting at funerals? If so, I wouldnt take the views of 30-40 mentaly retarded religious extremists and use that as a barometer of the nation....

[fredbass]

Furthermore, these guys and gals in the service will not get a hero's welcome when they return to the states

Based on what I've heard and seen, that statement is completely opposite of the truth. People have actually learned from Vietnam how to properly treat our troops, which has been very respectful and appreciative.

[AVGWarhawk]

boycotting funerals?

Perhaps you mean the group that was protesting at funerals? If so, I wouldnt take the views of 30-40 mentaly retarded religious extremists and use that as a barometer of the nation....

Correct, protesting. Damn tasteless. Agreed on the extremists!

[AVGWarhawk]

Furthermore, these guys and gals in the service will not get a hero's welcome when they return to the states
Based on what I've heard and seen, that statement is completely opposite of the truth. People have actually learned from Vietnam how to properly treat our troops, which has been very respectful and appreciative.

It is not quite as bad as Vietnam, different time and mindset. Everyone thought the Vietnam Vets were all baby killers. Anyway, it is not as bad but there is not enough in my view. Any that are returning home should be top news, not what the NFL is doing. There is no fanfare at all. As far as treatment for our troops. The US Gov't still does not pay them enough. The military families at Fort Meade MD are below the standard for lower income families. They are in their own group of lower income families. It is triffling.

[Enigma]

Well, guys coming home now are just rotating out. They will probably go back. (My friend is in Iraq now, his 3rd combat tour in as many years.)

Im sure when (if?) we ever get to actually leave Iraq as a military, and not a unit, for a homecoming that isnt temporary, but a long term solution, you will see the fanfare you desire. Trust me on that.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, guys coming home now are just rotating out. They will probably go back. (My friend is in Iraq now, his 3rd combat tour in as many years.)

Im sure when (if?) we ever get to actually leave Iraq as a military, and not a unit, for a homecoming that isnt temporary, but a long term solution, you will see the fanfare you desire. Trust me on that.

There needs to be fanfare....win,:up: lose :down:or draw.;)

[CCIP]

I personally never blame the soldiers for the war (it's a stupid thing, really), but I can't quite feel sorry for them here, either. As sad as it is, all of them are volunteers and all of them should have known what they were getting into. I'd save the sympathies for the tens of thousands of civilians that died in the war. Likewise, I'd save the loathing for the leadership that determines the course of action.

That said, I think the least the soldiers deserve is respect for doing their duty. And besides a few exceptions, I know most of them do it honorably.

As for those protesters - honestly, if I was passing by and saw something like that at a funeral, I'd probably tempted to throw in a few punches. Is that unreasonable? :dead:

[AVGWarhawk]

We never blame the soldiers although sometimes they take the brunt of what the commander and chief have directed them to do. They do however deserve a better life during their tour and after their tour.

Punching the protesters is great in my book:up: Shameless idiots.

[Enigma]

"The soldiers knew what they were getting into" thing bothers me. Its true, in that volunteering for the military is volunteering for war and defense of this nation. However, everyoe that signed that dotted line did so with the beleif that they would not be put in harms way for a cause such as Iraq, where there is no clear goal, no clear objective, poor leadership at the highest levels, etc, etc.

[Polak]

PS Any of you guys ever been there?
I while ago I was seriously considering about going there, especially with the new NATO condingent Poland is sending over. In the end I decieded not to go because I am applying for officer school in June.

Now when I think about it I also never hear anything about death casualties in A-stan and Iraq in a lesser degree, and I have access to Polish, Swedish, British and American News. It's very sad how the media treat both conflicts and the casualties acompaning them. I find the mass media in todays society to be a very negative force. For me it feels as if they have a private agenda, and they are almost allways blowing up stupid, non important news,thus leaving the more important news in behind.

[AVGWarhawk]

Come on man, everyone wants to know about Britney Spears divorce and Tom Cruises new baby. American does not care about the war in Iraq. It's over there in another world on another planet. This is American....we are shallow, self serving idiots. The news covers what they want to help on political agendas.

[KevinB]

I'm not sure about "The soldiers knew what they were getting into" thing either. Some while back I saw a documentary on British TV which show some military guys trying to recruit at supermarkets. This was down in the deep south somewhere, I can't remember and, (this is not a racist comment) but nearly all the people they tried to recruit were black. I guess this is because of the high unemployement down there.
They were promising a career and college fees being paid.
I find this quite mind boggling to know that these poor guys don't know what the reality is when being posted to the battle front and coming back missing limbs and traumatised.

[Enigma]

10 dead today. :nope:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16075920/

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not sure about "The soldiers knew what they were getting into" thing either. Some while back I saw a documentary on British TV which show some military guys trying to recruit at supermarkets. This was down in the deep south somewhere, I can't remember and, (this is not a racist comment) but nearly all the people they tried to recruit were black. I guess this is because of the high unemployement down there.
They were promising a career and college fees being paid.
I find this quite mind boggling to know that these poor guys don't know what the reality is when being posted to the battle front and coming back missing limbs and traumatised.

Recruiters have a quota to hit. They look for easy marks and those that will be easily persuaded. Not because they are dumb but because they tell them about a wonderful life in the military. When you are handed a gun and asked to sit in the mud, being taught combat, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT some day you will are might be in a war.

[fredbass]

I'm not sure about "The soldiers knew what they were getting into" thing either. Some while back I saw a documentary on British TV which show some military guys trying to recruit at supermarkets. This was down in the deep south somewhere, I can't remember and, (this is not a racist comment) but nearly all the people they tried to recruit were black. I guess this is because of the high unemployement down there.
They were promising a career and college fees being paid.
I find this quite mind boggling to know that these poor guys don't know what the reality is when being posted to the battle front and coming back missing limbs and traumatised.

There's nothing in your post which shows any kind of misleading information on the part of recruiters because people certainly can have a career, paid college fees and have a chance to travel around the world.

And anyone who thinks they can join a military service and never be put in harms way is quite naive.

And there's nothing wrong with recruiting in black or poor neighborhoods since it's quite logical that you'd find more recruits that way.

[SUBMAN1]

these guys and gals in the service will not get a hero's welcome when they return to the states because it is an unpopular war just as Vietnam was. Utter B.S.
Where do you get that assumption from? Yes the war is unpopular but the troop's are fully supported by the public and are treated as heroes. I have yet to hear one negative comment in regards to our troops.
Ditto - utter BS. They seem to get standing applause everytime they even appear anywhere.

Also, Washington DC has a higher murder rate per 100,000 people at about 8.5 per 100K vs 160K US troops in Iraq at a per capita rate of 6.1 per 100K. They are safer over there.

The US should pull out of Washington DC based on those #'s.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

these guys and gals in the service will not get a hero's welcome when they return to the states because it is an unpopular war just as Vietnam was. Utter B.S.
Where do you get that assumption from? Yes the war is unpopular but the troop's are fully supported by the public and are treated as heroes. I have yet to hear one negative comment in regards to our troops.
Ditto - utter BS. They seem to get standing applause everytime they even appear anywhere.

Also, Washington DC has a higher murder rate per 100,000 people at about 8.5 per 100K vs 160K US troops in Iraq at a per capita rate of 6.1 per 100K. They are safer over there.

The US should pull out of Washington DC based on those #'s.

-S

yeah, no kidding:doh:. I think Baltimore is worse than that!

[Polak]

Headlines from todays news in Sweden:

First let's start with some Anti-American News(A must have in Sweden):
American soldiers stand for trail for murder in Iraq
USA may leave Iraq in 2008
Nothing about the soldiers that lost their lives today, only news that show how evil USA is... :nope:

One news report that shows the stupidity of Americans(A must have in Sweden):
Fart led to emergency landing of airplane

And some news that Swedish newspapers believe to be more important than for example Coalition casualties in Iraq(In Sweden the Coalition forces are viewed as something very bad):
Britney Spears may loose her children
USA: Boy arrested by police for oppening christmas gift in advance


In Polish News they reported the death of the 10 soldiers. But then again, Poland is not anti-American as Sweden is.

[SUBMAN1]

Headlines from todays news in Sweden:

First let's start with some Anti-American News(A must have in Sweden):
American soldiers stand for trail for murder in Iraq
USA may leave Iraq in 2008
Nothing about the soldiers that lost their lives today, only news that show how evil USA is... :nope:

One news report that shows the stupidity of Americans(A must have in Sweden):
Fart led to emergency landing of airplane

And some news that Swedish newspapers believe be more important than for example Coalition casualties in Iraq(In Sweden the Coalition forces are viewed as something very bad):
Britney Spears may loose her children
USA: Boy arrested by police for oppening christmas gift in advance


In Polish News they reported the death of the 10 soldiers. But then again, Poland is not anti-American as Sweden is.
We all knew in the US that the anti-americanism would start and then grow after the collapse of the USSR. It was a given. I still don't like it much though. Their are just some people in the world who lack the intelligence to see things for what they are through logic, instead of seeing things through the eyes of jelousy. The mentallity is no different than hating Bill Gates for nothing more than him being the richest man in the world. It's plain stupidity on an almost uneducated level, but this is the world we were dealt when we were born, and this is the world we must live with since it is never going to change. Welcome to the world.

-S

[Tchocky]

Headlines from todays news in Sweden:

First let's start with some Anti-American News(A must have in Sweden):
American soldiers stand for trail for murder in Iraq
USA may leave Iraq in 2008
Nothing about the soldiers that lost their lives today, only news that show how evil USA is... :nope:

US soldiers dying in a war - common. US soldiers being put on trial for murder - less so.

How is a headline about the US possibly leaving Iraq in 2008 anti-American or showing how "evil" the US is? Show some examples from the article, back up your claim please.

[Tchocky]

Also, Washington DC has a higher murder rate per 100,000 people at about 8.5 per 100K vs 160K US troops in Iraq at a per capita rate of 6.1 per 100K. They are safer over there.

The US should pull out of Washington DC based on those #'s.

-S

Do Iraqi citizens come into this at all? I'm sure the murder rate of foreigners in Wasington D.C. is lower than the death rate among US troops in Iraq.

Dont make comparisions that dont stand up.

[Polak]

US soldiers dying in a war - common. US soldiers being put on trial for murder - less so.

How is a headline about the US possibly leaving Iraq in 2008 anti-American or showing how "evil" the US is? Show some examples from the article, back up your claim please.


But does that mean that the news of 10 american soldiers getting killed is less important? I don't see how you can leave it out and not write anything about it.
And the news of US leaving Iraq in 2008 is maybe not directly anti-American, but the media in Sweden are trying to depicture the US and the coalition in very bad light. What I mostly hear in the news are the failors of the US and the Coalition, I rarely get to read positive news about what the Coalition is doing in Iraq.

[AVGWarhawk]

Also, Washington DC has a higher murder rate per 100,000 people at about 8.5 per 100K vs 160K US troops in Iraq at a per capita rate of 6.1 per 100K. They are safer over there.

The US should pull out of Washington DC based on those #'s.

-S

Do Iraqi citizens come into this at all? I'm sure the murder rate of foreigners in Wasington D.C. is lower than the death rate among US troops in Iraq.

Dont make comparisions that dont stand up.

What do foreigners in Washington DC have to do with this conversation? American or not, there are more people killed in Washington DC than in Iraq. That is the only point being made.

[Tchocky]

Also, Washington DC has a higher murder rate per 100,000 people at about 8.5 per 100K vs 160K US troops in Iraq at a per capita rate of 6.1 per 100K. They are safer over there.

The US should pull out of Washington DC based on those #'s.

-S
Do Iraqi citizens come into this at all? I'm sure the murder rate of foreigners in Wasington D.C. is lower than the death rate among US troops in Iraq.

Dont make comparisions that dont stand up.
What do foreigners in Washington DC have to do with this conversation? American or not, there are more people killed in Washington DC than in Iraq. That is the only point being made.

He's making a false comparision between residents of a city, those who live there all the time, and an occupying army.

The murder rate of residents of DC may well be lower than that of US troops in Iraq, but the two situations are poles apart.

More people are killed in Iraq than Washington DC.

[AVGWarhawk]

What was stated is per-capita of people in each location. A statistical type thing. At any rate, we digress.

The US started this mess and the US needs to clean it up. Unfortunately it will cost lives of soldiers and civilians alike. Furthermore, it was not the Bush administration this should be pinned as the WMD where pointed out in the Clinton administration. Terrorist acts happend long before Bush showed up. Here we digress again.

Anyway, the soldiers deserve a warm welcome when they return home. The news media needs to do less with movie stars and more with world issues. Tom Cruise couch jumping, Angelina and Brads last orgasim together, Britney Speers divorcing a loser is not what I call world news. Unfortuntely this is what fat America focuses on. Lets go watch another round of Deal or no Deal" mentallity has made this country weak.

[Tchocky]

US soldiers dying in a war - common. US soldiers being put on trial for murder - less so.

How is a headline about the US possibly leaving Iraq in 2008 anti-American or showing how "evil" the US is? Show some examples from the article, back up your claim please.

But does that mean that the news of 10 american soldiers getting killed is less important? I don't see how you can leave it out and not write anything about it.
And the news of US leaving Iraq in 2008 is maybe not directly anti-American, but the media in Sweden are trying to depicture the US and the coalition in very bad light. What I mostly hear in the news are the failors of the US and the Coalition, I rarely get to read positive news about what the Coalition is doing in Iraq.

If that's what you meant, I can't see it in your first post.

And of course it's less important: news is just that - News. Sixteen THOUSAND children die every day from hunger, but that isnt the top story, because we're used to it, just like we're used to soldiers dying in wars. I agree, the most insidious form of censorship is what gets left out, but that only applies to news.

And, given the recent statements by Kofi Annan and Robert Gates, maybe there's a reason other than media bias why you're not reading much good news about the coalition in Iraq.

Tom/Britney/etc stories are news too, just entertainment news, a division that needs to be made, but often is ignored.

[SUBMAN1]

Also, Washington DC has a higher murder rate per 100,000 people at about 8.5 per 100K vs 160K US troops in Iraq at a per capita rate of 6.1 per 100K. They are safer over there.

The US should pull out of Washington DC based on those #'s.

-S

Do Iraqi citizens come into this at all? I'm sure the murder rate of foreigners in Wasington D.C. is lower than the death rate among US troops in Iraq.

Dont make comparisions that dont stand up.

Oh yes it does. I am talking about Americans and only Americans. See the big picture yet? Or do I need to spell it out for you?

-S

[Tchocky]

No, it's a false comparison. You are not comparing like with like. It does not make sense.

DC is an American city, Iraq is a war zone.

^Is that the big picture?^ If it's not, help?

[Yahoshua]

D.C. is as much a warzone as Iraq has become: The war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, the war of the law-abiding vs the homicidal criminals roaming the streets (thanks to our revolving-door prisons).

Yeah, Id think the comparison is pretty fair, otherwise I wouldn't need to have a CWP for self-defense.

[waste gate]

D.C. is as much a warzone as Iraq has become: The war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, the war of the law-abiding vs the homicidal criminals roaming the streets (thanks to our revolving-door prisons).

Yeah, Id think the comparison is pretty fair, otherwise I wouldn't need to have a CWP for self-defense.

That you need a permit to defend yourself is disturbing in itself.

[Tchocky]

D.C. is as much a warzone as Iraq has become: The war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, the war of the law-abiding vs the homicidal criminals roaming the streets (thanks to our revolving-door prisons).

Yeah, Id think the comparison is pretty fair, otherwise I wouldn't need to have a CWP for self-defense.

From 2003-2005, 650 people have been killed in Washington DC.

Between March 2003 and October 2006, 30,292 civilians have been killed in Baghdad.

If you want to treat them as similiar situations, fine. Just don't make stupid statements such as

D.C. is as much a warzone as Iraq has become

[waste gate]

D.C. is as much a warzone as Iraq has become: The war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, the war of the law-abiding vs the homicidal criminals roaming the streets (thanks to our revolving-door prisons).

Yeah, Id think the comparison is pretty fair, otherwise I wouldn't need to have a CWP for self-defense.
In the last three years, 650 people have been killed in Washington DC.

Between March 2003 and October 2006, 30,292 civilians have been killed in Iraq.

If you want to treat them as similiar situations, fine. Just don't make stupid statements such as

D.C. is as much a warzone as Iraq has become


That should tell us something about the Iraqi people. Their gov't has been in place for about six months. Anarchy is what I'd call the current situation. It should also give everyone a reason to suspect Islam as a peacefull religion.

[Polak]

And, given the recent statements by Kofi Annan and Robert Gates, maybe there's a reason other than media bias why you're not reading much good news about the coalition in Iraq.

And what statements are those?

If you are implying that the coalition in Iraq is a occupation force and that they are not doing any positive things for Iraq and the people of Iraq, then it is really time for you to stop reading leftwing propaganda that is so popular in today’s left infected Europe.
Friends of mine served and risked their lives in Iraq in the Multinational Division Central-South, the Division is engaged in a extensive rebuilding program of a Democratic Iraq.

Direct quote from their webpage about their mission description:
The mission of the Multinational Division Central South is to advice and train the Iraqi Army. A well trained and capable IA will guarantee a safe and secure Iraqi society. MND CS units support IA in operations within given area of responsibility in order to create conditions for successful democratic transformation in Iraq.
MND CS coordinates Civil Military Cooperation (CIMIC) projects and humanitarian assistance actions in order to improve the living conditions of the Iraqi people. In addition, MND CS acts in coordination with Iraqi civil and military authorities in order to correspond to the real needs of the local population and institutions.
MND CS is headed by the Polish and has 12 national contingents under its command, including the following countries: Republic of Armenia, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Mongolia, Republic of Poland, Republic of Romania, Republic of Salvador, Slovak Republic, Ukraine and the United States of America.

You never read in the news about any achievements of this division, but they still raise hospitals, schools and provide humanitarian aid daily. Are these news not worth mentioning? It is not only this Division that is rebuilding a better Iraq, but the whole Coalition. In Poland I at least read some positive things from Iraq since my country has been comprehensively participating in the conflict from the beginning. But in Sweden where the media are strongly biased to the left I don’t read anything about this, why is that?
Entertainment news should give away space for news like this. The mass media owe it to my friends, to the soldiers that are in Iraq now, and to the soldiers that have left this world. More and more people are calling Iraq a lost war and they are comparing it to a second Vietnam. I personally think that it is the lack of positive news reported that bring the public to think in these ways.

[Yahoshua]

The causualty rate doesn't change the fact that D.C. has just as bad a reputation as Baghdad.

And how exactly in your mind is what I said a stupid statement?

We fight crime here, they fight terror there.
Lots of dead ppl here, lots of dead ppl there.
Criminals do the work here, terrorists do the work there.

Not much difference between the two.

[Tchocky]

And, given the recent statements by Kofi Annan and Robert Gates, maybe there's a reason other than media bias why you're not reading much good news about the coalition in Iraq.

And what statements are those?

Robert Gates - US is not winning the war in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6209356.stm

Kofi Annan - Iraq "worse than civil war"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6204980.stm

Both in the last week

If you are implying that the coalition in Iraq is a occupation force and that they are not doing any positive things for Iraq and the people of Iraq, then it is really time for you to stop reading leftwing propaganda that is so popular in today’s left infected Europe.

I'd be grateful if you could point me towards where I made any such implication. The balance of events in Iraq is overwhelmingly negative. That does not mean that coalition forces are not doing some good. Please explain to me how this is "left-wing"

You never read in the news about any achievements of this division, but they still raise hospitals, schools and provide humanitarian aid daily. Are these news not worth mentioning? It is not only this Division that is rebuilding a better Iraq, but the whole Coalition. In Poland I at least read some positive things from Iraq since my country has been comprehensively participating in the conflict from the beginning.
But in Sweden where the media are strongly biased to the left I don’t read anything about this, why is that?

The same reason that I don't read about my friends on peacekeeping duty in Liberia when I'm not in my home country, it's local news. In Poland you will read about Polish soldiers in Iraq.


The causualty rate doesn't change the fact that D.C. has just as bad a reputation as Baghdad.
Are we talking about reputations all of a sudden? I believe your previous statement was this:

D.C. is as much a warzone as Iraq has become
And how exactly in your mind is what I said a stupid statement?
Because 30,000 is a larger number than 650. Saying that they are comparable is a stupid statement.

We fight crime here, they fight terror there.
Lots of dead ppl here, lots of dead ppl there.
Criminals do the work here, terrorists do the work there.

Not much difference between the two.
Over 29,000 of a difference.

Sorry about the cut-paste-cut-paste style, couldnt find a way to string them together.

[waste gate]

185,000 Kurds killed while Sadam was in power. Not to mention Shia and Iranians during their war. You do the math. How many less have been killed since the US went into Iraq?

[CCIP]

I think both figures are highly debatable.

[Tchocky]

I think both figures are highly debatable.
Which two figures CCIP?

My figures for Baghdad are from here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456995/html/nn2page1.stm

Figures for D.C. from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dchomicidechart.svg

185,000 figures closely with what I've heard, but I'm not going to go searching now. Also, if it was in reply to my post, I don't see how it relates. But I was off-topic, so.....yeah :)

[flyingdane]

Do not know you even ask ...DEATH.. TO.. IRAC.. DEATH to THINE ENEMY sayithh the lord, JC.:up:

[Iceman]

To our cousins across the pond, what are your thoughts on the casualty rate amongst the military in Iraq and Afghansistan.

Why I ask is, we rarely ever hear or see anything in the media about US casualties anymore unless it's a say helicopter coming down. Nowadays if we seen anything reported it's usually in the third or fourth page of the newspaper
The Brit casualities are a minority to what the US is suffering. I think we have something like 120 killed since the end of the Iraq war and the US is creeping up to the 3000 mark.

What is the feeling back in the US regarding this?

PS Any of you guys ever been there?

Back to the "Original" topic...We or I think of my brothers in arms every single day as do many many Many people I meet and see in a day here in my little part of the world....Many are hurt and divided over the reasons but All... All I know always support the guy on the ground...or air.I see something in the news here Every Single day about the casulities military And civilian....guess you just have to be paying attention.Over here---> in Mesa Arizona it is not 4th page news....Mesa AZ is "Home" of the Apache Helicopter...Home of the best damn soldiers in the entire world....how can you forget that ???

http://www.fallenheroesmemorial.com/

This is a post from one of my online buddies from gaming days a few months back...

"For those of you who don't know, I am in the military and serving in Afghanistan at this time. This past Friday, you probably read or heard about in the news about the VBIED that exploded outsied the American Embassy in Kabul. I was literally standing roughly 200 meters away at the time. I am fine and safe, but that was a rather hectic time. Good to see that all is well back home though. http://www.deepsix-online.com/phpbb/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif"


My Brother Santee...
http://assassinsalliance.com/images/stories/santee.png

[Enigma]

The causualty rate doesn't change the fact that D.C. has just as bad a reputation as Baghdad

I'll comment on this when I stop holding my belly and laughing....:damn:

[Tchocky]

The causualty rate doesn't change the fact that D.C. has just as bad a reputation as Baghdad
I'll comment on this when I stop holding my belly and laughing....:damn:

Argh, it's off-topic. I regret shooting off on that tangent. thanks Iceman :)

Why I ask is, we rarely ever hear or see anything in the media about US casualties anymore unless it's a say helicopter coming down. Nowadays if we seen anything reported it's usually in the third or fourth page of the newspaper

I went throught his in an earlier post - it's not news anymore (see my hunger deaths example). US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been dying in horrendous numbers since 2003. When a particularly bloody event takes place, like your example of a helicopter shootdown, this is news, and gets reported with a higher profile.

The current focus of debate over the casualty levels (especially since October) seems dubious to me. It's almost as if people are surprised that war brings death and destruction.

[Enigma]

It's almost as if people are surprised that war brings death and destruction.

Nope. Its that people are hurt and disgusted that 3000 american soldiers are dead for a war the people at large dont support, have no good reason why we are there, or trust the men who sent them there with the highest office in the land.

[SUBMAN1]

It's almost as if people are surprised that war brings death and destruction.
Nope. Its that people are hurt and disgusted that 3000 american soldiers are dead for a war the people at large dont support, have no good reason why we are there, or trust the men who sent them there with the highest office in the land.
THey are doing a job that needed to be done. Plain and simple. Support or not, what they are doing is insuring future generations of the world. Like it or not, Western Civs have become soft and that softness willultimately destroy you and everyone else you know. History shows you what happens to those that ignore threats upon their world.

The strong did what they could, and the weak must suffer what they must.

-S

PS. Freedom is not free - people have died defending the very freedom you enjoy, and people will continue to die forever more.

[Cpt. Stewker]

My opninion on the war:

I support it. I support it now for different reasons from when we first went in though. At first I first supported it for the reason, that according to most of the world (not just the US), that Saddam had WMDs. We eventually found out that he did destroy them all and didn't have any, which was bad intel on the part of a lot people. And just so I can clarify, BAD INTEL IS NOT THE SAME AS LYING, no one was lied to. When Bush said there were WMDs in Saddam's hands he honestly believed it, as did almost everyone.

Now since the world discovered that there were no WMDs, we couldnt just leave the country the way it was: no government, no real social order, etc. So now I support us completing the mission. That is getting the Iraqi government on their feet and able to support themselves. I can tell you that, Bush will not have our forces moved out of Iraq until that is assured. I agree with that.

And besides leaving Iraq now would be the worst thing the US can do for our reputation, both politically and militarily... Leaving before the job is done only invites disaster for us down the road, it emboldens(sp) those that would like to see the US be no more, it tells them that we can be beaten, pressured to give up, and that we are weak.

[Yahoshua]

The causualty rate doesn't change the fact that D.C. has just as bad a reputation as Baghdad

I'll comment on this when I stop holding my belly and laughing....:damn:

So we have a difference of opinion of the issue. so what?

[Tchocky]

THey are doing a job that needed to be done. Plain and simple. Support or not, what they are doing is insuring future generations of the world. What tense are you speaking in? Do you mean to say that the job does not need to be done any more? Is that because it has been done?
How is the current conflict ensuring (is this the word you meant to use?) any future generations? Surely the continuation of humanity is best ensured by staying away from war.

Like it or not, Western Civs have become soft and that softness willultimately destroy you and everyone else you know. History shows you what happens to those that ignore threats upon their world.
Can you back this up this conjecture? Using the word "history" does not bring history to your side, or indeed anyones. I don't think the West has become weaker; the adversaries of this century are possibly more subtle than others, leading to less strongman imagery. You can't say "tear down this wall" to every terrorist group individually.

[Iceman]

My opninion on the war:

I support it. I support it now for different reasons from when we first went in though. At first I first supported it for the reason, that according to most of the world (not just the US), that Saddam had WMDs. We eventually found out that he did destroy them all and didn't have any, which was bad intel on the part of a lot people. And just so I can clarify, BAD INTEL IS NOT THE SAME AS LYING, no one was lied to. When Bush said there were WMDs in Saddam's hands he honestly believed it, as did almost everyone.

Now since the world discovered that there were no WMDs, we couldnt just leave the country the way it was: no government, no real social order, etc. So now I support us completing the mission. That is getting the Iraqi government on their feet and able to support themselves. I can tell you that, Bush will not have our forces moved out of Iraq until that is assured. I agree with that.

And besides leaving Iraq now would be the worst thing the US can do for our reputation, both politically and militarily... Leaving before the job is done only invites disaster for us down the road, it emboldens(sp) those that would like to see the US be no more, it tells them that we can be beaten, pressured to give up, and that we are weak.

This assessment is spot on and totally ignored by most it seems....whew thought I was the only one who saw this ...people act as if Bush was like Hitler in that he had "Absolute" control over people as well as allies...most jumped on the same bandwagon freely and with sound convictions....hard to know when someone like Saddam continually evaded UN Resolutions and demands to be cleared of all possible suspicions....Saddam is the one to blame .... if any one is ,for the state of affairs in Iraq not anyone else....he did'nt give a squat....period.

[Tchocky]

This assessment is spot on and totally ignored by most it seems....whew thought I was the only one who saw this ...people act as if Bush was like Hitler in that he had "Absolute" control over people as well as allies...most jumped on the same bandwagon freely and with sound convictions....hard to know when someone like Saddam continually evaded UN Resolutions and demands to be cleared of all possible suspicions....Saddam is the one to blame .... if any one is ,for the state of affairs in Iraq not anyone else....he did'nt give a squat....period.
Wrong. It was asked earlier where the insurgents were getting their weapons from. Was it Saddam's fault that the Iraqi Army was disbanded? Was it Saddam's fault that the planning for the invasion aftermath was so poor? Notice where the blame is placed in this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4481092.stm) interview.

I'm not trying to defend Saddam Hussein in any way, but your statement is wrong.