U.S. Casualties in the " War On Terror"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by FFTT, May 31, 2006.

  1. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #1
    It sickens me to think that so many have suffered because of the lies and deception of this administration.

    How many more lives must be lost or destroyed?
    http://icasualties.org/oif/

    Year US Deaths ------ US Wounded
    2003 486 ------------- 2409
    2004 848 ------------- 7992
    2005 846 ------------- 5945
    2006 505 ------------- 1838

    Total 2685 ----------- 18,184 *

    [​IMG]

    *totals updated from below
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    So may lives destroyed for ..........WMDs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Fight them there not here...............War on terror...............I wonder what the next catch phrase from Rove will be? Im still wondering why we went into Iraq when it was Saudi's that were in the majority of Bin Ladens gang. Bin Laden living free in Pakistan.

    This president has pissed away Billions of our tax dollars for what? Theocracy in Iraq? This makes as much sense as Vietnam did.
     
  3. FFTT thread starter macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #3
    http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/2003/911casualties.htm

    Total deaths of all 9/11 attacks 3030

    Total injured of all 9/11 attacks 2337

    Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Civilian_casualties


    Dead

    Iraqis: Total: estimated 100,000 excess deaths (8,000 to 194,000 at 95% confidence interval), with roughly three times as many injured (by September 2004 (from a study in The Lancet).
    Military/combatants (very rough estimates):
    during the 6 weeks of "major combat" in March–April 2003:
    30,000 (estimate by General Tommy Franks)
    Coalition (figures as of 26 May 2006 if not otherwise dated):
    Military:
    2,685 as of 26 May 2006 at a rate of 2.3 per day. These are total coalition casualties not counting Iraqi ally soldiers or Iraqi police.
    2,463 U.S.
    111 U.K.
    112 from all other coalition countries (not including Iraq)
    Iraqi allied soldiers: number unknown. At least 2,235.
    3,327 Iraqi policemen
    Civilians:
    37848-42216 Iraqi civilians reported killed as of 18 May 2006 [10]
    at least 258 private security personnel (as of August 29, 2005)
    more than 150 UN personnel/foreign civilians
    more than 30 journalists
    Insurgents
    Killed:6,657 as of 30 May 2006
    762 were suicide bombers
    Captured:11,703 as of 31 May 2006
    Deadliest single insurgent attack:
    Car bomb - Hilla, Iraq (60 miles south of Baghdad) February 28, 2005
    125 killed, 150 wounded
    Journalists
    According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 45 journalists and 20 media support workers have been killed while covering the war in Iraq.

    Wounded in action

    18,184 U.S. military as of 26 May 2006 at a rate of 15.9 wounded per day
    8,344 too badly injured to return to duty within 72 hours more than 850 wounded in action in Fallujah (as of 24 November 2004)
    As of 11 March, 2006, the United States Army estimated that 355 American troops had to have limbs amputated, and more than 1,700 troops suffered brain injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    155 U.K. military during the initial invasion
    Iraqi combatants: number unknown
    Civilians (of any country): number unknown
    Injured/fallen ill
    U.S. military: number unknown. The Pentagon reports that more than 1 in 4 returning U.S. soldiers have health problems that require medical or mental health treatment.
    U.K. military: 2,703 (as of October 4, 2004; includes troops wounded in action)
    Iraqi combatants: number unknown
    Iraqi civilians: At least 42,500 civilians reported wounded between 2003-2005

    All this to insure the wealth of military industrial tycoons and oil barons.:mad:
     
  4. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #4
    That's why so few support the war anymore. It seemed like a good idea to a lot of people at first, but the longer it goes on, and the more that comes out about why we went in the first place, the less it seems like a good idea. From what I can tell, even people who think Iraq had something to do with 9/11 don't want us there anymore. The lack of any end in site and the continued poor planning doesn't help either. Bush wants us to wait for History to judge him. I don't think it will look back too kindly.

    Americans have notoriously short attention spans, and can be pretty impatient with incompetence. Eventually.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
  6. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #6
    Oil?
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    Well i guess we are still waiting for it??? This is what happens when you let the republicans run every branch of govt. We are being sold out everyday and Iraq was just 1 example of the constant screwing of the this country by those that pay for those campaigns. We all know now Bush had nothing on Iraq but sold Saddam as = to Bin Laden. He could have done more on Oil just by requiring everyone drive something that gets at least 20 mpg but dropping Bombs and building weapons is so much more fun. Plus he got to look like a hero on mission accomplished day. Bush went from a Hero to a Zero. He & Cheney,Rove,Libby,Hastert,Delay all missed the vietnam lessons so here we are repeating the same thing because of a party of draft dodging cowards.
     
  8. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #8
    Nah, you're not still waiting for oil. The realisation has just come that the oil wasn't for you in the first place: It was for the corporations. Now that the prices have doubled and the oil companies have more oil than ever before, everybody's happy! (and by everybody, I mean everybody who counts, of course ;) )
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    I'd bet they expected more oil and could just raise prices a bit. But instead there isn't as much as they thought available, getting to it is a nightmare, and terrorists keep blowing up the pipelines because they know that's what we're really there for. So they raise prices exponentially and still make a killing with record profits because as much as we complain, we still pay it.
     
  10. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #10
    Equally frightening, but in a different way.
     
  11. FFTT thread starter macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #11
    The whole idea was to take over and stabilize the flow and price of oil.

    DeBeers does it with diamonds, there is little difference.

    Saddam was threatening or at least challenging OPEC's control over the region.

    Neo-Cons wanted a strategic launch point for actions in the middle east.
    We already knew from desert storm that distance, heat, sand and military gear do not go well together.
    Strategically we needed to be closer.

    Not an excuse, but their point of view.

    I honestly think some old timers were envisioning the short dirty little war
    that would end up like the French welcoming the troops after Normandy.

    The citizens know why troops were sent and frankly their expectations far exceeded reality.

    By now the military presence should have been handed over to diplomats
    and peace keepers, but it didn't work out that way.

    My message now to the Iraqi people would be

    You better pull yourselves together and figure out if you want to live
    with your children dodging bullets and bombs, or do you want to co-exist
    and get along with the rest of your lives?

    Anyone breaking the peace should be dealt with strongly and legally.

    If you want jobs, stop fighting and re-build your country.

    You have the right to strongly disagree with someone, but that does not
    entitle you to kill them for their difference of opinion.
    You have to choose local leaders to voice your concerns and take it from there.

    WE'RE LEAVING! It's your country and it's about time you act for the greater good of all.

    Idealistic yes, but that's how I feel at the moment.
     
  12. calebjohnston macrumors 68000

    calebjohnston

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    #12
    The sad thing is that there are still plenty of people that think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and therefore still somewhat support the President.
     
  13. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #13
    I think it would be a lot easier to make that decision if they weren't dodging bullets at the moment or living with a gun to their head. People don't think clearly when under great stress.

    Does the same logic apply to the American Government? Do they enforce that equally all over the world? If not, why not?
     
  14. FFTT thread starter macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #14
    It was damn foolish of our esteemed leaders to think that our mission(ary) Evangelical takeover of a 9000 year old civilization would go over unchallenged.

    Many do not want us changing their ways especially with regard to women.
    They know that the poor will still be poor while a few keep the wealth to themselves.

    Right now I would be strongly promoting cease fire discussion zones, but
    I don't have any answers on how to effectively stop the violence if the people of Iraq won't fight for themselves.
     
  15. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #15
    Do the people of Iraq even have weapons? I'm sure the warlords do, but the people themselves do not, nor do they have any ways of making them, thanks to the trade embargo of yesteryear. (is that still in effect even though they've been conquered?)

    How can they be expected to fight for anything when they are powerless?
     
  16. FFTT thread starter macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #16
    Information is a powerful weapon.

    There is also a deep vacuum of respectable leadership.

    Essentially, right now they need to act as cheerleaders for the peace.

    This will not happen overnight, but they have to agree to stop the violence first.
     
  17. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #17
    Information is indeed powerful, but I think they're also lacking in that department. Iraqi access to information is far inferior to the luxury we have in the West.

    I just don't see how they're supposed to recover on their own. I don't think they should have been knocked down in the first place, but since that happened anyway, the countries who did the beating should be responsible for what happens as a result. It is their collective responsibility (the US, the UK, etc.) to ensure that a new responsible government is set up.

    Iraqi violence we see today is completely understandable, and it won't just go away. Supposing that fifty years down the road, China conquers the US to remove the useless democracy, it's also completely realistic to imagine people hiding out and resisting for decades to come. Violence will continue to happen as long as there are people who don't like the situation. Telling the people of Iraq to basically just "grow up and stop resisting" won't do any good whatsoever. I'm probably preaching to the choir here though, since you already said you know it's idealistic to hope for that.

    I don't claim to have a solution, but there's got to be more involvement on the part of the invading countries than just telling Iraq to "smarten up". It's certainly frustrating that it's been such a long campaign, but these things do take time. Bush and Blair should have known what they were getting into when conquering a country. The idea that such an undertaking could happen cleanly overnight is unrealistic and an insult to Iraq.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    Yeah, the problem with that is that we managed to lose control something like thousands of tons of weaponry from rifles to artillery shells to explosives. So yes, the people of Iraq have weapons. It is apparently quite easy and cheap to buy them there. That's one of the big problems we face after leaving a power vacuum in the wake of Saddam.

    They ARE fighting. The bulk of the Iraqi insurgency is homegrown and largely Sunni, not foreign fighters.
     
  19. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #19
    Do you have any links to back up your claim that Iraqis have easy access to all sorts of weapons?

    Also, what sort of stance are you taking on this? Is it time that America just run along and leave things worse than they were in the first place?
     
  20. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #20
    I so agree, how many insurgents did George create by killing 100,000 Iraqi's? calling Iraqi's insurgents is more Rove spin. These are Iraqi's and there is a civil war going on but they will continues to be called "insurgents" what a bunch of BS we must endure from this administration of lies and spin. What happened to those WMDs? afterall thats why we went there isnt it. How many more will die for nothing?
     
  21. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #21
    Now now, DHM, let's be fair; They died for more death! ;)
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    Sure I do.

    You mean am I in favor of cutting and running? Not really. Call it a phased drawdown of US forces to Kuwait. I don't see that we're making things much better for anyone other than Iran, so my feeling is that the sooner we leave, the less damage we'll end up doing.

    We should move most of our troops to the sidelines, renounce any basing rights in the country, and ask the world community very nicely to assist. And hope that we can stitch this Humptey Dumptey back together. And we need to admit we make a huge mistake. But lets see the politician who has the stones to do that eh?
     
  23. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #23
    Excellent, thanks for those! You're changed my perspective about whether or not weapons are widely available to Iraqi civilians, especially thanks to the third article.

    Aye, a phased withdrawl would be ideal. Pulling out all at once is just too rapid a change.

    It'd be great if Bush and Blair just admitted that they screwed up on the whole WMD fiasco, but, like you said, that'll never happen. Unfortunately, without even the most weak admission of remorse, I doubt there's much chance of the international community being much help here.

    Whatever is done, just washing their hands of the situation isn't going to help anyone, except maybe the American soldiers in Iraq at this moment.
     
  24. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #24
    Perhaps we shouldnt be so fast leaving Iraq with Iran saying No to the worlds deal they just offered them. We will need those Iraq bases to start airstrikes on Iran.:eek:
     
  25. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #25
    Is bombing everyone into submission a legitimate way for a country to get what it wants? :p
     

Share This Page