War Dead

[editor]

On the day that Iraq ratified its new constitution the number of Americans killed in Iraq reached 2,000.

The military says that 2,000 is an artificial milestone with no logistical significance. I guess I can see their point. What I think is that with 2,000 dead since the beginning of the war Iraq is safer than Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, or Washington, D.C.

Moreover, talk to most war veterans and they'll tell you it's a drop in the bucket compared to other wars. In my experience, Vietnam veterans are very vocal about death and war. But World War II veterans don't like to talk about the war because the scale of the death was so much greater.

Anyway, here are the hard numbers to put things in perspective, as provided by the Associated Press (which also came up with the 2,000 figure for the current Iraq war):

REVOLUTIONARY WAR- 4,435 deaths, 1775-1783.

WAR OF 1812- 2,260 deaths, 1812-1815.

MEXICAN WAR- 13,283 deaths, 1846-1848.

CIVIL WAR- 364,511 Union deaths and approximately 133,821 Confederate deaths, 1861-1865. (Authoritative Confederate casualties are not available.)

SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR- 2,446 deaths, 1898.

WORLD WAR I- 116,516 deaths, 1917-1918.

WORLD WAR II- 405,399 deaths, 1941-1945.

KOREAN WAR- 36,576 deaths, 1950-1953.

VIETNAM WAR- 58,209 deaths, 1955-1975. (From the commencement date for the Military Assistance Advisory Group through the date the last American service member left Southeast Asia.)

PERSIAN GULF WAR- 382 deaths, 1990-1991.

[kjb434]

Thanks for the list. It really puts thing into perspective.

Although every human life is precious, in retrospect, we are doing pretting good in this war.

[west20th]

Thanks for the list. It really puts thing into perspective.

Although every human life is precious, in retrospect, we are doing pretting good in this war.

Also keep in mind that soldiers that would have died in past wars are saved due to medical advancements. This is great news but it also means more soldiers are returning with more severe lifetime injuries.

[westguy]

Do they count those soldiers who die of injuries after leaving the front? I think the number of war dead is very conservative.

[west20th]

Do they count those soldiers who die of injuries after leaving the front? I think the number of war dead is very conservative.

Yes they count all. I believe the 2000th sodier killed died in the hospital a few weeks after his injury.

[HeightsGuy]

Also keep in mind that the figures do not include civilian contractors like Halliburton employees. Unlike previous wars, the military outsources much of its "non-direct-combat" activities to contractors.

[RedScare]

...in retrospect, we are doing pretting good in this war.

I am curious, kjb and editor. How many of your relatives died in this "pretty good" war?

Also, kjb, do you have any concerns about the fact that the US has been unable to quell an insurgency in a country the size of Texas? Has this "war president" given you confidence in going to a "real" war, like, say....China?

[west20th]

I am curious, kjb and editor. How many of your relatives died in this "pretty good" war?

Also, kjb, do you have any concerns about the fact that the US has been unable to quell an insurgency in a country the size of Texas? Has this "war president" given you confidence in going to a "real" war, like, say....China?

War with China? Scary thought. Hopefully capitalism will continue to take hold and communism in China will die a natural death.

[RedScare]

War with China? Scary thought. Hopefully capitalism will continue to take hold and communism in China will die a natural death.

It won't be communism that starts a conflict with China, it will be capitalism...as in who gets the shrinking supply of oil.

[Jeebus]

I am curious, kjb and editor. How many of your relatives died in this "pretty good" war?

I smell a loaded question. Rescare, how many of your relatives have dies from the war in Iraq?

[bruce_oneal]

I smell a loaded question. Rescare, how many of your relatives have dies from the war in Iraq?

yeah, i am not a war or bush supporter, but that was a very loaded question. just steer clear.

[RedScare]

I smell a loaded question. Rescare, how many of your relatives have dies from the war in Iraq?

None, Jeebus, but I still mourn for every preventable American death in this war. My point was to show the cold-hearted calculation one must make to think 2,000 dead Americans is "pretty good". These soldiers' families probably disagree with that calculation.

I might also take the opportunity to point out that, since the Americans are essentially the "policemen" of Iraq, 2,000 dead would be similar to 2,000 dead American police officers in the previously mentioned cities. One would also need to look at the estimated 30,000 dead civilians out of a population of 25 million in comparing the safety of Iraq to Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc.

Only 156 police officers were killed in ALL of 2004 in ALL of the US. The total number of murders of civilians in the ENTIRE US in 2003 and 2004 numbers approximately 32,000. So, the number of dead civilians in Iraq approaches the number of murders in the whole US, with a population twelve times as large.

Just as Tom DeLay was out of line when he made the remark, so too was the editor.

[Jeebus]

None, Jeebus, but I still mourn for every preventable American death in this war. My point was to show the cold-hearted calculation one must make to think 2,000 dead Americans is "pretty good". These soldiers' families probably disagree with that calculation.

Are you saying that each war has no comparison for finding success? If so, then how do we calculate success in each conflict? Its impossible to acurately factor things like terrain, technology, or emergency medicine against body counts. Therefore we're forced to compare this war to the previous. I'm not saying its right, but to gauge the success of war, you have to use some pre-determining factor.

I might also take the opportunity to point out that, since the Americans are essentially the "policemen" of Iraq, 2,000 dead would be similar to 2,000 dead American police officers in the previously mentioned cities.

Only 156 police officers were killed in ALL of 2004 in ALL of the US. The total number of murders of civilians in the ENTIRE US in 2003 and 2004 numbers approximately 32,000. So, the number of dead civilians in Iraq approaches the number of murders in the whole US, with a population twelve times as large.

I agree completely with your numbers. Why jerks like Delay say the things he does, yet stills get re-elected again and again is no clue to me.

Also, could you explain, in your opinion, which of the 2000 deaths were preventable?

[sevfiv]

Are you saying that each war has no comparison for finding success?

perhaps there is no success in war

[west20th]

Are you saying that each war has no comparison for finding success? If so, then how do we calculate success in each conflict? Its impossible to acurately factor things like terrain, technology, or emergency medicine against body counts. Therefore we're forced to compare this war to the previous. I'm not saying its right, but to gauge the success of war, you have to use some pre-determining factor.

I agree completely with your numbers. Why jerks like Delay say the things he does, yet stills get re-elected again and again is no clue to me.

Also, could you explain, in your opinion, which of the 2000 deaths were preventable?

You don't measure success by body counts. You have definite goals and as you reach those goals you are successful. In a war with ever-changing reasons for entering and no clear definition of success defining or gauging success is indeed difficult.

If you are of the opinion that a country does not enter a war with another country unless they are attacked by that country or have war declared on you by that country then all 2,000 deaths were preventable.

[RedScare]

Are you saying that each war has no comparison for finding success? If so, then how do we calculate success in each conflict? Its impossible to acurately factor things like terrain, technology, or emergency medicine against body counts. Therefore we're forced to compare this war to the previous. I'm not saying its right, but to gauge the success of war, you have to use some pre-determining factor.

I agree completely with your numbers. Why jerks like Delay say the things he does, yet stills get re-elected again and again is no clue to me.

Also, could you explain, in your opinion, which of the 2000 deaths were preventable?

I would first categorize wars into two groups, one in defense of oneself or others, and the second as unilateral aggression. Without getting into the debate of whether or why a war is categorized that way, I feel the wars in defense are successful if the aggression is repelled, and the wars of unilateral aggression are never successful, due to loss of life, property and/or respect.

The 2000 preventable deaths goes with the previous thought. Again, without wishing to debate WHY I believe so, I believe the war is naked aggression on the part of the US, with no imminent threat from Iraq. Therefore, I believe all of the troop deaths in Iraq were preventable.

[VelvetJ]

Yeah, what Redscare said.

[Jeebus]

Good answers, and points taken - with no arguements to follow.

[TJones]

It won't be communism that starts a conflict with China, it will be capitalism...as in who gets the shrinking supply of oil.

Red, it is only shrinking because bleeding heart liberals won't allow drilling of new sites, that barely cause a footprint in the sand. It surprises me how "Communistic" China is though, they just tried to buy Citgo for cryin out loud. Yes, very communistic. Our government was smart enough to thwart that idea though. Needless to say China was very pissed. The USA does not have a shrinking oil supply, there is plenty underneath our own soil, we just have to tap it.

Red, I just have to ask you, do you believe the war in Iraq, is 1) in defense of it's people to overthrow a Dictator who killed thousands of his own countrymen, or 2) did Bush just decide that he was just tired of some guy who harbors terrorist and because he has the best Army in the world at his disposal, just go in and slap the little guy around a bit ?

[nmainguy]

Thanks for the list. It really puts thing into perspective.

Although every human life is precious, in retrospect, we are doing pretting good in this war.

[HeightsGuy]

Red, I just have to ask you, do you believe the war in Iraq, is 1) in defense of it's people to overthrow a Dictator who killed thousands of his own countrymen, or 2) did Bush just decide that he was just tired of some guy who harbors terrorist and because he has the best Army in the world at his disposal, just go in and slap the little guy around a bit ?

Duh, neither, it was about WOMD. Conservatives tend to conveniently forget this from time-to-time.

Thanks for the list. It really puts thing into perspective.

Although every human life is precious, in retrospect, we are doing pretting good in this war.

"There was never a good war or a bad peace." Benjamin Franklin.

[Jeebus]

I've never seen two gay people disagree about so much.

[RedScare]

Red, it is only shrinking because bleeding heart liberals won't allow drilling of new sites, that barely cause a footprint in the sand. It surprises me how "Communistic" China is though, they just tried to buy Citgo for cryin out loud. Yes, very communistic. Our government was smart enough to thwart that idea though. Needless to say China was very pissed. The USA does not have a shrinking oil supply, there is plenty underneath our own soil, we just have to tap it.

Red, I just have to ask you, do you believe the war in Iraq, is 1) in defense of it's people to overthrow a Dictator who killed thousands of his own countrymen, or 2) did Bush just decide that he was just tired of some guy who harbors terrorist and because he has the best Army in the world at his disposal, just go in and slap the little guy around a bit ?

TJ, you're going to drag me into this whether I want it or not.

The US currently pumps only about 7.5 million barrels a day, while consuming 22 million, leaving a deficit of 14.5 million barrels daily. ANWR, at its highest estimates, according to the government, may produce 1.4 million barrels a day, only 10 percent of our current deficit. Everyone agrees that the US production peaked around 1970 and is in steady decline, while our consumption increases 2-3 percent annually.

China, at the urging of the US, is adopting many capitalist practices, though it is still largely a communist government. Add to that the incresed usage from India, and world oil consumption is expected to increase to 120 million barrels a day by 2015, while the ability to produce it is expected to hit 100 to 110 million by then. If the production shortage stays like that for long, it is not hard to figure out what happens next.

This segues nicely into your second question. I don't believe that either suggestion is correct. I believe that Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld convinced Bush to invade Iraq in furtherance of the "Kissinger Plan" of controlling Middle Eastern oil supplies (feel free to Google Kissinger Plan). The WOMD argument, nuclear argument, terrorist link argument, and finally, the liberation argument are merely excuses, as the American people, nor the international community would never accept the Kissinger Plan argument as a legitimate reason to attack. I don't think it was hard to convince Bush to attack, since he despised Saddam anyway.

Once again, this is my opinion, not meant to inflame. We have more important issues right now, such as willing the Astros on to Game 5.

[west20th]

I've never seen two gay people disagree about so much.

Don't get to the gay bars much eh? Seriously though, There are a lot of gay conservatives out there. We aren't all libs. Lots of room for disagreement there.

[WesternGulf]

Ditto

[gto250us]

Ditto

There is not one damn thing in all of Iraq that is worth one American life, let alone more than 2000. We should never have gone there and they should pull every American out today.

[TJones]

Red, as always, very insightful, but my hardline conservative views keep me with the belief that we will "buy" oil as long as it is "sold" to us, I also believe, and this is just recently, that we will definately start taking our share of Iraqi oil. Yes, you are hearing this from a Republican. I just don't see any other way, the plan may be that The Reps. will wait until we are voted out of office(next election), and it will be left up to the Dems. to do the dirty work, but of course the blame will be put on the GOP. We will then take as much as we can, and then in about 15 years, we will resume drilling for oil, here in the U.S. Just my opinion also.

[RedScare]

Red, as always, very insightful, but my hardline conservative views keep me with the belief that we will "buy" oil as long as it is "sold" to us, I also believe, and this is just recently, that we will definately start taking our share of Iraqi oil. Yes, you are hearing this from a Republican. I just don't see any other way, the plan may be that The Reps. will wait until we are voted out of office(next election), and it will be left up to the Dems. to do the dirty work, but of course the blame will be put on the GOP. We will then take as much as we can, and then in about 15 years, we will resume drilling for oil, here in the U.S. Just my opinion also.

TJ, I don't think that is "hardline conservative" at all. I think it is a realistic view of what the world's most powerful government will do to keep the world's biggest economy running. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive or lying.

[DJ V Lawrence]

On the day that Iraq ratified its new constitution the number of Americans killed in Iraq reached 2,000.

That's like, 2000 too many.

[TJones]

Duh, neither, it was about WOMD. Conservatives tend to conveniently forget this from time-to-time.

"There was never a good war or a bad peace." Benjamin Franklin.

Heightsguy, I didn't forget about the WMDs. I don't think saddam ordered all 200,000 Kurds shot in the head. He used Chemical Weapons <----a weapon of mass destruction, to kill them, did you forget about that ? Are you going to deny, that piece of crap saddam, didn't have any WMDs. He was just a goodie two shoes that never did anything wrong, just another victim in Bush's quest for world domination ! Gimme a break cheif. Here, I'll be happy to cash your reality check for you. There are evil people in this world, the USA has been labled the "Police of the World". We aren't wanted when we take things into our own hands, but we are the first ones that are called upon when things get out of hand, and are expected to give the most, and do for others what they cannot do for themselves. God bless every soldier, willing to give his or her life for what they believe to be right, I pray for everyone of them, that none get hurt as they fight for your rights, and freedoms, as well as the freedoms of others that are oppressed. If our President, no matter which party, started throwing chemical and biological weapons into your neighborhood, wouldn't you hope that someone would take him out ? If our President, took your wife or husband away, accused of treason, when you knew it was a lie, would you hope that someone would destroy that person ? Spare me the analysis, just answer the questions. I apologize for the soapbox rantings. I just think people are smart enough to realize the Iraq war is a neccessary evil. You have to cut the head off the snake before it bites, that is what was done. Heights, do you think the people of Iraq are a little happier that there is democracy now, however fledgling it may be ? or do you think they miss their Uncle saddam, and wish things were back to the good ol' days.

Whew ! I need a Beer dammit, first the Astros, and now this !