Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

The Casualties That Don't Matter

▼

The Casualties That Don't Matter

from JoeUser Forums

As I roam about the internet, I am often confronted with macabre counters that enumerate the deaths in the Iraq war. Though well intentioned, those counters miss several major points.

As Brad pointed out, the number (2037, according to the most recent list I checked) is over 2 1/2 years since war was declared in Iraq. And, while the death of EVERY soldier matters, it must be placed in context. 6603 American troops lost their lives on a SINGLE DAY on June 6, 1944 (D-Day)...important because we were ALSO involved in a foreign conflict opposed by a strong contingent of US protestors who felt we had no business being there (don't believe me? Google "America First" sometime, an organization that counted no less than Charles Lindbergh among its leaders). 3650 Union soldiers died in a single day at Antietam. 3100 Union soldiers (estimated) in a single day at Gettysburg (for the sake of the Civil War, I only included Union casualties, not out of disrespect for the Confederate deaths but as a buffer to those detractors who would bemoan the fact that my Civil War death count included deaths on BOTH SIDES of the line).

But those numbers, while important to me, pale when compared to another MORE important statistic that doesn't matter to the liberals, a point made by a conservative talk radio host (don't remember which one). The host asked his liberal callers repeatedly to tell him how many had died in Afghanistan. NOt one of them could.

Now, mind you, MOST of these liberals claim to be pacifists. They claim to be against the war, and that we are at war for oil. Afghanistan stands ignored as it is a fly in their ointment, a point at which most of their spurious arguments begin to unravel. It also is an embarassing sticking point as the casualty count (244, for all you numbers geeks) is too low to afford them the dramatic impact of a number that exceeds the number of years since Christ's arrival on this earth.

Add to that the fact that the number includes the TOTAL casualty count, which is just over 400 more than the COMBAT death count of 1634, and thus is irresponsibly inflated. The number 2037 represents TOTAL US troop deaths, which probably includes a couple cases of "Mohammed's revenge" from some bad Kurdish takeout.

I stand united with many Americans in desperately longing to see the day when all of our American troops come home. But I want them to come home as the heroes they ARE, and not the "babykillers" the antiwar movement is fast making them out to be.

And I believe EVERY deaths counts, but that counting numbers is a shameful attempt to manipulate public opinion through irresponsible reporting. Just as numbers related to chickenpox deaths (to sell guess what? chickenpox VACCINE) ignore the remarkably small amount of cases that result in death, the Iraq war casualty numbers ignore the relatively small percentage of combat deaths.

 

 

7,206 views 38 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Some of you may already know this but I thought Id throw it in:

There is no Al Zaqawi or "Al Queda" in Iraq.
And Bin Laden is dead (and there is STILL NO PROOF that he masterminded 911).

The smart ones among you already know this ... the others ... well, still believe WMD existed
after the inspections and runnup to the 2003 war.

Also the tooth fairy comes at night to swap your teeth for coins
And Santa Claus delivers merry cheer and good tidings and presents at Christmas


Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
... an Robios has a brain. ;~D
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
#27 by rombios (Anonymous user)
Saturday, November 05, 2005


Guess we got our spook! Sure dont have no facts! Just the usual ignorant troll!
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
today, afghanistan is well on its way to becoming a rogue nation once again, bin laden is still free, the taliban is reviving itself and sooner rather than later, we're gonna need to go back and try again.


The NATO force that is currently in operation is doing a fantastic, bang-up job at keeping and maintaining the peace in Afghanistan. The Taliban may exist in small pockets, but as they come out of the woodwork they are stamped out like the bugs that they are. From the BBC:

What is the force?

It is called the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). It will be under a UN mandate but the soldiers will not wear blue berets. It will be under British command for three months, after which Britain will hand over to someone else. Who that might be has not been decided.
It will be between 3500 and 5000 strong. Britain will send up to 1500 troops; Germany has offered the same number; France has offered 800; Spain 700.

That was the initial response to the need for peacekeeping in Afghanistan. Since then, according to the Council on Foreign Relations:

To date, 18 countries have troops in the force, including 13 European Union countries, Norway, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and New Zealand. Great Britain turned down offers of troops from Jordan, Malaysia, and Canada.

This peacekeeping force, though authorized by the Security Council, is not officially a U.N. mission. However, in March 2002 the Security Council approved a United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), which will be headed by Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian diplomat and advocate of small-scale peacekeeping projects. Beginning with about 100 international representatives, UNAMA will coordinate relief, reconstruction, and recovery efforts, narcotics control, and other U.N. political activities in Afghanistan.

Just because we don't have Osama in Gitmo doesn't mean that all hell is breaking loose in Afghanistan. Things are progressing well and the democratically elected government is being established. The challenge comes from trying to make the nation transition from a heroin-based economy...

So, Kingbee, before making an off-handed remark about how poorly things are going in Afghanistan, why don't you take five extra seconds to Google "Afghanistan peacekeeping forces" and find out for yourself?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, Kingbee, before making an off-handed remark about how poorly things are going in Afghanistan, why don't you take five extra seconds to Google "Afghanistan peacekeeping forces" and find out for yourself?


thanks for the suggestion.

a little more than five extra seconds researching the situation might have enabled you to discover the un security council's global policy forum report on afghanistan--a much more contemporary assessment than the one you find so comforting--isn't nearly as optimistic.

"The UN also has a political mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) aimed at integrating all UN activities in the country. But Karzai’s authority barely extends beyond Kabul’s suburbs, warlords rule most of the country and opium production flourishes as the nation’s chief economic pillar. Afghanistan remains a “failed state” in spite of NATO and UN presence."

have five extra seconds on me: Link
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
just to be clear, i'm not criticizing the efforts, abilities nor commitment of anyone working or putting themselves in harm's way to improve the situation in afghanistan.

my problem is with decision makers whose ambitions for iraq have distracted them from doing what needs to be done in afghanistan
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Kingbee, but I wouldn't trust crap that comes out of the UN. Rape, murder and supporting genocide is all those blowhards have going for them. Even their "World Health Organization" is more about politics than public health. They've been worthless since the Korean War, but over the last 20 years, they have just been criminal. The fact they are allowed to infest New York is a blot on the whole U.S.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
my problem is with decision makers whose ambitions for iraq have distracted them from doing what needs to be done in afghanistan


Name one instance when the Commander of Operations in Afghanistan has been denied any assets because the Commander of Operations had them diverted to Iraq!
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact they are allowed to infest New York is a blot on the whole U.S.


the un's failings are indeed a blot on the us but, contrary to the first commandment of real estate, it's not a matter of location so much as a consequence of deliberate non-performance and non-compliance with treaty obligations entered into and executed in accordance with the us constitution. if the us sees no further need for the un, why not do the right thing and withdraw?

whether you loathe the un or not, the assessment i quoted seems much closer to everything else i've heard, read, been told about or been revealed to me in visions about afghanistan than the blue sky singrdave embraces.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Name one instance when the Commander of Operations in Afghanistan has been denied any assets because the Commander of Operations had them diverted to Iraq!


oh there was that time last tuesday when...

let's pretend for a second the commander of operations in afghanistan in 2003 had been foolish enuff to ask for something that would have interfered with the invasion of iraq. how quickly do you feel it woulda taken to transform him into the former commander of operations?
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another interesting little tidbit is that the 2037 fatalities come from 1990 Battalions (or equivalent type unit for branch). Which means that most battalions that have had fatalities have only had 1 or 2... and many of them haven't been KIA.

Kind of puts it into perspective, doesn't it.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

a little more than five extra seconds researching the situation might have enabled you to discover the un security council's global policy forum report on afghanistan--a much more contemporary assessment than the one you find so comforting--isn't nearly as optimistic.

Funny you would use the UN as a source.  The solved the Genocide problem in Sudan, how?  By redefining it as non-genocide!  Boy they are good and we can trust what they say real well.........

 

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

let's pretend for a second

That is your problem kb.  You dont have any facts, just let's pretend.  Before making statements of facts, you should at least have some evidence said facts are not just opinion, but really have some basis in reality.