Main Forums > The Roundtable
Casualties and hysteria
Bemidjiblade:
I work as a graveyard waiter and the news is always on the TV at our restaraunt ('cause there's only so long I can watch the Weather Channel, and Adult Swim is too inappropriate, dang it).
Last week I heard a news report about a car bombing, and the AP news mantra was that "This puts the casualties in Iraw at 2700!!! Congress is putting new pressure on Prez. Bush to pull out."
Ok. For the record, I am a HUGE fan of the US Armed Forces, and the freedom they have purchased not only for us but for the world at large through their bravery, duty, and sacrifice.
But if we're serious about this being a war on terror, exactly what sort of casualties were we expecting?
Here is an excellent DoD comparison of casualties by war.
I wish that no one had to die preserving freedom. But as long as there are bad men who won't stop trying to take our freedom and our lives away, someone has to stop them. Thank God for the US Military.
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/MMID/casualty/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf
In short:
Revolutionary War: 4,435
1812: 2,260
Mexican War: 13,283
Union Army in Civil War: 364,511
Spanish American War: 2,446
WW I : 116,516
WW II: 405,399
Korean War: 36,574
Vietnam Conflict: 58,209
Persian Gulf War: 382
The losses in our war against terror are tragic. Every death means a family/marriage/friendship broken, probably dozens. But this is a war. In war, good people die so that other people can live free.
The willingness to put lives on the line for that good purpose is only one of the many reasons the men and women of our armed forces deserve our respect. They do NOT deserve to be back-stabbed by a political maneuver that would pull us out ahead of time and make every one of those sacrifices in vain.
jefnvk:
I agree. I cannot agree with this mentality that in war, no one should die. I think it comes from our 'I should get what I want' society.
I look at these stats, and wonder how some people today would react to something like D-Day, or Iwo Jima, where casuality counts could approach in ONE DAY what ours have been in two and a half years.
And I would have put Revolutionary War at a higher count than that, but then again, it may not include milita casualities.
roo_ster:
Those who do not particularly like America do what they can to undermine support for the war on militant Islam.
In the case of the media, they believe that a focus on casualties will undermine our will to see it through. It is nothing more than propaganda provided at no fee for the jihadis.
Know them for what they are.
Standing Wolf:
--- Quote ---In war, good people die so that other people can live free.We could easily have won the war against Islamic terrorist savagry in 2001 without incurring the loss of a single American life. We've had the necessary technology in our arsenal since the summer of 1945.
We're a lot like the guy with a CCW permit and a whole safeful of fine firearms, who insists upon duking it out with criminals instead of carrying and using any of his firearms.
Art Eatman:
That I support our efforts in Iraq doesn't mean I don't (via hindsight) see some serious mistakes. For instance, it's now obvious that the general who said we needed more troops initially, to clamp down tighter on the country after the first phase of combat was over, was correct.
It seems to be the case that nobody in the Administration or the Pentagon foresaw the numbers of hostiles coming in from outside Iraq, just to fight Infidels. These seem to be in the forefront of the Sunni resistance.
One aspect of the continued Sunni hostility that puzzles me: If they want us out of there, don't they realize that all they have to do is quit shooting at us? How can they not see this?
Art
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version