Why American casualties in Iraq are so LOW

by kokomero Wed May 05, 2004 14:22

that it was standard practice for the Brits in the north to report men who died in IRA attacks in the North as being killed in traffic accidents in the Cyprus etc. where they could get away with (ie in the case of orphans or those without next of kin for other reasons).

by RJT Wed May 05, 2004 18:39

Perhaps your general confusion stems from your misunderstanding what is, and is not, included in the "official" count. The 700+ figure referes to U.S. military deaths, including those who pass on as a result of combat related wounds. It specifcially does not include contractors, Iraqi's or anyother category. However, I am sure you really don't care as this does not fit in to your anti-American diatribe.
Yes, at the end of the day the U.S. is filled with evil and violent prejudiced infidels as you and your "kin" preach. This no doubt explains why the U.S. remains the most ethnically and religiously diverse countries on earth and why so many leave their birth place to seek a better life. But hey, you don't want to really believe that, right? After all, it's all one big conspiracy and the U.S. is behind it all.
Jerk!

by David C. Wed May 05, 2004 19:57

The US death toll - the number that Americans pay attention to - SHOULD include military, contractors, foreign troops and Iraqis working for the US. The number of these groups injured should also be published with each incident. If this honesty were practiced, then the debate on when to withdraw would be much more advanced than it is now. America has been damaged far more than it will admit.

The Iraqi resistance, with almost no resources, are systematically demolishing the US military. Bin Laden is wrong about many things, but he is right when he says that the US is a paper tiger that can be defeated and humiliated with relative ease. After the US flees Iraq - and it will - it will be a decade or more before it can repair its military and it will be even longer before it becomes arrogant enough to invade another country on a whim. This is a good thing for the world.

There is absolutely no doubt that the US has already lost the war in Iraq - the only remaining question is how many people (American, Iraqi and others) it will kill before it flees. This is not just my opinion, it is also the opinion of people like General William E. Odom, the former head of the U.S. National Security Agency. So, RJT, you are not only the citizen of the most hated country ever, you are also the citizen of a nation of losers.

America's ethnic and religious diversity and its internal rule of law are admirable, but its fundamental racism, arrogance and intolerance towards non-Americans is abhorrent. In America, non-Americans are the new 'niggers'. America CAN be salvaged and repaired, but not by people like you.

by righteous pragmatist Wed May 05, 2004 21:12

The smallest unit of the U.S. Army/ Marine Corp is the rifle squad consisting of nine men which subdivides into two four man fire teams.
Two men in each squad is armed with the 5.56mm M249 SAW light machine gun.
Two men are armed with the 5.56mm M16A2 semi/automatic rifle mounted under the barrel with a 40mm M203 grenade launcher.
The other men are armed with ordinary M16A2 automatic rifles.
Each man carries a full load of a dozen or more 30-round magazines or 40mm grenade rounds as well as fragmentation, high explosive or white phosphorous hand grenades.
They usually carry really really sharp combat daggers and lethal bayonets.

Humvees( those wide body jeeps) are usually mounted with Browning M2 .50 calibre machine guns or Mk 19 heavy machine guns( really an automatic grenade launcher that fires 40mm rounds).

When Iraqi thugs who barely know how to wash and shave and wipe their asses attack American GI's they are commiting suicide.

Usually they get shot full of fucking holes or get blow to hell by exploding shrapnel.

If that doesn't work the Americans call in air strikes.
The AC-130 ( really a converted cargo plane which bristles with machine guns, cannons and rockets) flys over head and blows the fucking shit out of them.
F18 fly in low and drop naplam on their asses.


Iraqi scumsuckers are getting their asses kicked.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAH!

by David Wed May 05, 2004 21:20

What are they doing there anyway

Don't they know that when america claims something they have to let them have it?

someone should have told them the rules.

by David C. Wed May 05, 2004 21:47

The Americans have lost Iraq because too many of them are like righteous pragmatist. They think war is still about 5.56mm M249 SAW M16A2 M2 .50 Mk 19 AC-130 F18 and other such bullshit.

Its not. Its about using box cutters creatively. Its about 12 photos from a digital camera, emailed to a magazine. Its about speaking foreign languages. Its about education and critical thinking. Its about intelligence in both senses of the word. Its about morality and the moral high ground. Its about communications. Its about culture. The cartoon-minded call it 'hearts & minds'.

Americans, especially right-wing, red-state americans like righteous pragmatist, are not good at this new war. They don't understand it. They can't fight it. They desperately want to fight a tank battle in the desert or launch a bombing mission with B52s or storm a machine gun nest and kill 'bad guys'. They want war to be a simple contest of violence. But its not anymore. That's why their multi-trillion dollar army is being dragged through the dirt by a few thousand Iraqis 'who barely know how to wash'.

As an example, look at the defeat of the Americans in Fallujah. There are Iraqis in Fallujah who were 'bad guys' under Saddam Hussain, then became 'good guys' when the Americans invaded, then became 'bad guys' when they rebelled against American arrogance then became 'good guys' again when the Americans abandoned Fallujah to the 'Fallujah Protection Brigade' or whatever its called. Meanwhile, all the americans have managed to do is kill many hundreds of civilian men, women and children in full view of the world's 4 billion television sets.

The Americans are lost. They haven't got a clue. They will flee from Iraq in humiliation.

by kokomero Thu May 06, 2004 10:18

we regularly see full of bullet holes or blown up by RPGs or roadside bombs? You can have all the fire teams and weapons you like but the Iraqis are in the right and have the will to win.

Looking at the list of 700 American dead most of (incedentally mainly marines) them were killed in groups denoted by a red bar under the photos, showing that the Iraqis have negated your tactics!

The Vietnamese kicked your asses with low-tech weapons and tactics, often taking your own unexploded B52 bombs and turning them into improvised weapons in underground factories, and the Iraqis will do the same! Wake up and get out of Iraq before you are forced into a humiliating retreat and your puppet regieme is eventually toppled.

Justice and freedom for the Iraqi people from colonial occupation!

by righteous pragmatist Thu May 06, 2004 13:44

The dick weed who wrote the original article is complaining about American casualties being so low. He's positively disappointed:

"Improvements in body armour, field medical care and evacuation have collectively reduced the proportion of injured soldiers who are killed to about 1 in 6, which is much lower than the 1 in 3 ratio experienced in all previous American wars, including the first gulf war. "

So are you going to protest against the use of body armour, field medecine and evacuation?
AWW pure lamb not enough Americans are dying to keep you happy?

Maybe the UN should say the Americans are commiting war crimes by not letting Iraqi gunmen and terrorist kill them?

Why do we need Bin Laden anyway?
Why not just crash passenger airliners into the Sears Tower or the Superbowl or the Golden Gate Bridge ourselves!
Maybe we should wear sackcloth and throw ashes on our heads?

Maybe we should repent and do away with our Constitution and implement Sharia Law?

After all we are imperialist agressors who conquered Europe in World War 2 and GAVE IT BACK to you fucking cocksucking limp wristed French cheese loving cocksuckers who play with Barbie dolls rather than GI Joes

by kokomero Thu May 06, 2004 16:53

the Americans did not liberate Europe, the Russians did along with the Brits and resistance fighters all over Europe.

This is borne out by the casualty figures from WWII , the overwhelming majority of whom were Russians!

I would remind you that if the Germans had reached the Caspian Oil fields the US would have been able to achieve SFA with the help of the Brits and resistance fighters and Europe would still be under Nazi rule!

Rather than conquering Europe and giving it back (as if it was theirs to give in the first place) the US proceeded to divide Europe without any consultation and sentenced half of Europe to live under an effective dictatorship for nearly half a century!

Should we thank you for your help?

No!

Do we need that kind of help?

The answer is a resounding NO!

As for being limp-wristed I think the American fixation with nude males in Iraqi prisions contrasts with the French love of women, and if the plastic which masquerades as cheese in the US is what is on offer give me a ripe Camenbert any day you bog-trotting redneck philistine!

by pavilion type Thu May 06, 2004 17:08

might be that a lot of American and many other nationals combatants are presently understood to be "outsourced labour".

The popular B2C1C2D1D2 magazine "People" did an interview special with some of these contractors in it's first edition of April, which probably came with a free gift or something. Available at all good bookshops and so on.
Also treated upon were such issues as the end of Friends, English Prince William's new girlfriend, ways to spice up your livingroom furniture, and I can't remember the rest.

The Geneva Convention might have something to say about "out-sourced" combatants, but I wouldn't risk it.
Great news for the cricketeers no?

by David C. Thu May 06, 2004 19:14

...that American casualites are too low. I think that casualties on both sides are far too high, actually. I was complaining that the number of officially reported American casualiies severely underestimates the damage inflicted on 'coalition' troops...

by Terry Fri May 07, 2004 00:50

US Casualities are always low because they have far greater fire power.

In Vietnam around 80,000 died in the war and apparently over the next 10 years a further 50,000 Vietnam veteran committed suicide as a result of the horrors they went through. It's debateable whether to add these to the list, though I would.

Notwithstanding that, the number of dead Vietnamese was well over 2 million. As far as I know the extra 200,000 murdered by Special Forces, death squads and the CIA in Operation Phoenix probably should be added to the 2 million.

But whatever way you look at it, far less Americans than Vietnamese were killed. Certainly a ratio higher than 10 to 1.

In Iraq we can be sure the ratio is similar or even higher.

In the Gulf War, about a 100 to 200 were killed in action, whilst several 100,000 Iraqi's were killed. But again apparently somewhere in the region of 10,000 to 20,000 have already died of Gulf War illness (although I can correctly recall the figure I had seen, it is that order of magnitude).

And does all this matter. Well obviously when looking at this from the point of view of a someone in power who controls a very powerful army, then the less casualities you have the more likely you will be spurred on to greater adventures and so forth.

The tragedy is that it is generally ordinay folk on both sides that get killed. Granted that a certain proportion of the soldiers crazed killers, but that is really a product of the respective societies that they live in and the lifetime or propaganda that they have been exposed to.

As the say about Patriotism. Ultimately it boils down to killing strangers on behalf of strangers.

by kokomero Fri May 07, 2004 10:24

May 9th, 1945. On this day the German fascist regime collapsed 58 years ago - the regime that had brought so much suffering, bloodshed and destruction to many European countries. In the USA, sociologists ask a question to elementary school students from time to time: "Which country did America fight against in WWII?" The majority of American schoolchildren say that it was the Soviet Union. This answer was given this year as well. Furthermore, they all think that it was the United States that won the war. It seems that there has been a lot of effort to pervert historical facts and falsify the truth about the war.

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9916_patriotic.html

With western Europe secure, for the time being, Hitler decided to embark on a massive
campaign through the Soviet Union. This was known as Operation Barbarossa. It would
eventually be the greatest land battle in history, with over 25 million casualties from its
beginning in June 1941 to its end in July 1943 when the Soviets began a counter offensive that
would eventually lead to Germany’s defeat in 1945.

This was a year BEFORE the invasion of Normandy in 1944 when the Germans were already a defeated army in the east. How easy it is for you ignorant boneheads to claim the credit bought with the blood of over 20M Russians!

http://www.stalingrad.net/

While Nazi Germany lost World War II, does that necessarily mean that we [US/K] won it? Only if we ignore the specific objective of Great Britain and France when they initially declared war on Germany in 1939 and only if the pronoun “we” encompasses the Soviet Union, who was the true victor in the European arena of World War II.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0302c.asp

Then you Americans, self-styled saviours of Europe, together with your British lapdog served up Eastern Europe on a plate to the Russians in Yalta in 1945 where the partition of Europe was agreed by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.

Of course we have you Americans to thank again for widespread subversion during the cold-war, exporting Nazi torturers to South America where you used them in your proxy war.

Time after time you have shown yourselves to be capable of winning battles but losing the war often blind to history as in Vietnam where you barreled into a conflict where the French colonial forces had already been defeated and the writing was on the wall before you ever started.

And guess what, you're getting it wrong again in Iraq ignoring the British colonial experience there.

Will you morons ever learn to stay at home and mind your own business!

by Abigail Mernagh Fri May 07, 2004 19:52

How do I start with so many anti- American comments. Do I love this government? no Do I love this militant state I live in? No
I did not and do not support the war in Iraq, I did not vote for that snaky little Bush...but here we have things. And all I am trying to do is what so many Americans choose not to do which is to educate myself. Let me say that my ancestors came to this country from Ireland, and that you can't knock everything about America. Our country started by breaking away from the British and by putting public good over private interest. Obvoiusly this all has been fucked up, but please know that there are many Americans trying to change things here in the corporate US of A. So many people here are busy working two jobs trying to keep our heads above water that they can't see how crooked our system has become, a new akakening is on it's way.

by Terry Fri May 07, 2004 20:24

People here are not anti-American per se, but they are anti-American government. Sometimes it may come across as the former.

People are often frustrated with 'Americans' as a whole because they feel in general they should as a whole wake up to what is going on and be more critical. I think most people accept that indeed there are many Americans against US foreign policy and the general nature of the society there and so on and are doing what they can. We wish there were many more and wish you every success.

I think it is not always clear to people in general that once you are immersed in a propaganda system (ie. US corporate media), that it is quite hard to break out of it (the conditioned thinking that is)

But I think we have to be honest it is not an American trait to take in all the propaganda and believe it, it is a human trait WHEN one is subjected to a life time of it. I think Nazi Germany is a case in point.

To find out more about how propaganda and the 'system' moulds people check out these essays:

Against School http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm

CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES: THE TYRANNY OF COMPULSORY SCHOOLING by John Taylor Gatto
http://www.spinninglobe.net/condunces.htm

by David C. Fri May 07, 2004 20:36

Abigail is right. In the past I have been as guilty as anyone else in being careless with American stereotypes, but it is worth remembering that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moral people. Individuals shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of their government, especially in a highly-contolled 2-party state like the US. Also remember that the United States is currently governed by an administration that got fewer votes than its opponents. When we look at the torturing, violent, ruthless, racist country that the US now seems to be, we should also keep in mind the country of the Bill of Rights, of the civil rights movement and of ethnic diversity. What has happened to America is a tragedy.

by neutral Sat May 29, 2004 18:18

Hey Mr Jerk - not everybody hates america. For example. the Bin Laden family seem to like it, they have been there often enough doing business with the Carlyle group

s http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/warroom/topic.cgi?forum=15&topic=36

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,583869,00.html

by A Russian-liberated East German Mon May 31, 2004 20:32

This is page is truly filled with the most stupid and pseudo-nationalistic drivelings I have ever read. I don't usually waste my time with such pages but what I see here is such gross distrotion of historical facts, that I feel compelled to say something. I am going to assume that most of these posts come from anti-American Americans because I cannot see how historically educated europeans could possibly make such ridicoulous claims

1. 75% of the credit for wining WWII must go to Russia. But wining WWII for Russia, just like for Nazi Germany was a conquest, a very different from a liberation.

Normandy was a sideshow. 8/10th of the german field army was on the east front. Russia took the bulck of the casuatlies (~7 million military ~13 civilian), compared to 140,000 for USA on the European theater.
But victory of one dictator (Stalin over another Hitler) does not equal liberation. Let's not forget that Stalin invaded Fineland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, and that his record on human killings was higher in magnitude (but less discriminate) than that of Hitler. Let's also not forget that when Stravka suggested the Red Army tanks should roll to the atlantic (in 1945) he simply answered, "and who would feed them?".
As to the fate of the Jews in Russia, lets not forget that Stalin was about to embark on the biggest progrom in Russia's history when he died ("the Jewish doctor's plot").

So to my country men, I would suggest listening to Michell Sardou's "Si les ricain n'etais pas la..." but substitute "Russie for Germanie".

Finally let's talk about what life would have been like under Soviet occupation.
Let's first talk to the anti-americans. You claim that the Russians "liberated Europe". Do you call Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1990 a liberated place? Would "liberated people" like the East Germans in 1947, the Hungarians 1956, the Czeck in 1968 and the Polacs in 1980 have to brave tanks with rocks and molotov cocktails (I don't believe the Iraquis have tried that one yet)?

The Americans may only have played a minor role in defeating Germany, but they ensured that the rest of western Europe did not fall under Soviet domination and that Stalin had some check to his madness. Lastly I want to address the Germans on this board: Stalin wanted to enslave you, exterminate your elite (like he did with the Polish inteligensia at Katin) and rape all your women (basically what HHitler wanted to do to the Russians, this sounds medival but read Anthony Beevor's Fall of Berlin to see what life would have been like without those imperialist Americans).

2. The French, Belgian, Dutch and Danish nations as a whole contributed more to german vicotry than to german defeat.

The french like to worship their "resistance" heroes who were in effect terrorists. In 1940, when Britain, Holland, France, Norway, Belgium and Poland (1939) were smashed by Germany, the governments of the occupied countries fled to England to form governments in exile. Only France and Belgium CAPITULATED and even condemend as traitors those that joined the English (You will recall that De Gaule was condemend to death in abscentia). The mojority of the French population supported the Petain-Laval colaborator government (laval wanted France to officialy join the war against the allies) untill 1943, when it became obvious that Germany had lost the war (Stalingrad, Kursk). French war industry turned out massive quntities of materials for the germans and Renault also bulit artilery for the Nazis. Frenchmen from all walks of life joined the SS to fight in the east (also don't forget the all-volunteer batalions of Leon Darnell), incidentally the last defender of the Reichstag in Berlin was a French SS man.

Now counter this with the major resistance action, which consisted of cuttign telephone cables. Yeah, a few trains were blown up, but as often as not, these trains contained french civilian STO's, and contrary to the Yugoslav resitance which tied down 43 divisions, the french resitance was effectively dealt with by other frenchmen (la milice). Being stationed in France was usually a vacation for the divison on the eastern front.

So please don't claim that western european resistance movements won the war or liberated anything.

3. America is a nation that acts in its self interest just like all nations of this planet. But it is much much more benovolent than say the French.

General Ausseres just published a book about the French occupation of Algeria. He was the chief of inteligence, and he details how Algerians were systematicaly tortured and I would suggest the American army interogators at abugraib read his work, for the have much much to lear in terms of calualted cruelty and mass executions. In Algeria, there were so many Mai-lai's that they desrve but a footnote in the French press.

But no need to look as far back in the future to look for french cuelty and self interest. Does anyone even remember the nuclear tests in the Pacific in 1997 (branded, at the time, a unilateral action against the will of the world)? Does anyone even remember the Rainbow warrior (in the 80's)?

4. If the chattering classes are worried about "counterbalancing" the american military might, I suggest they look to China: not with hope, but with fear.

I am truly curious: Europe cried out (but of course did nothing) against the overthrow of a vile tyrant by the american military. Will there be any noise from those same mouths when China bloodily invades Taiwan and overthrows its democratically elected governement? Seeing how little concern the recent French-Chinese joint naval maneuvaers generated, my feeling. China has publicly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Taiwain...doesn't that sund pretty awfull? Does this not mean anything to you, my country men?


I can't belive I wasted this much effort on you uneducated mofos. So please, do me and yourselves a favor, don't use history to make politcal points while being totally ignorant of it.

by Northern Eye Mon May 31, 2004 22:05

Dam those pussy french. Maybe they should have dropped their nuclear weapons on a couple of Japanese cities instead to make you happy.

And hey, the French are to blame for the tortures at Abu Graib are they?

by hiedi Tue Jun 01, 2004 01:08

I have only two words for you:Welcome to vietanam iraq vietnam iraq vietnam iraq vietanam iraq... get the picture and learn from history. You will be punished for stealing the oil!!

by Maroni Tue Jun 01, 2004 01:28

It was always claer any number of casualties they would give would be at least half of wah it is really, they would never give thereal numbers, they did it in Vietnam and so they would always do it, they have to give the illusion to the public opinion that they are invincible.
It's the story repeating itself and as usual human beings never want to learn from it, in a war there is never a winner, and no matter how much business they will be doing with Iraqi oil in the future they will remain loosers, not because of the casualties they would have suffered but for the cowardice of killing so many innocent people for OIL!
I have many american friends all over the US, I love them and they love me, and most Americans are amazing people, but this administration who tricked them and stole their vote is to blame for its illigal behaviour even against the same American people themselves!
This is a truly new VIET-IRAQ!

by Tom Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:53

Some experts in intelligence allege that if the Taliban had facilitated the construction of the pipeline and US control over Central Asian oil and gas reserves, the latter would have paved the way for economic assistance to, and political recognition of, the Taliban. the fact thatTalibans refused to to accept US conditions frustrated the Americans. According to co-author Jean Charles Brisard," At one moment during the negotiations the US representatives told the Taliban,' either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.'"

Wake up Americans and smell the coffee!!

by Sean Healy Tue Jun 01, 2004 14:32

The Russians may have taken more casualties and diverted more German infantry than the Americans, but the Americans were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific, winning back vital fuel resources for the Allied war effort, not to mention doing the same in North Africa while Hitler was still beating the snot out of the Red Army. Finally, American and British air superiority devastated German industrial production, making it impossible for the Nazis to sustain their war effort, while American factories churned out armaments for the Red Army and all the other allies.

To the topic at hand: even if we accept a recalculated death figure of 3,000 for US troops in Iraq, it would still take 20 years like this last one for Iraq to equal Vietnam. Oh, and about 2 million Iraqis would have to die, too.

by s - a Tue Jun 01, 2004 14:48

Could David/David C inform us if you are or not David Carlin of the Anti-Racism Network and Socialist Workers Party?

Thank you

by kokomero Tue Jun 01, 2004 17:55

The Russians won WWII starting with the fall of Stalingrad, and Normandy was a sideshow.

The war in the east had almost no bearing on the conflict in Europe or North Africa and Japan wasn't defeated until months after Germany and at that only with the use of nuclear weapons because the Yanks didn't wan't to take losses against the Japanese along the lines of what the Russians did.

At no time did I suggest that the Russians winning was a good thing East German, if you look carefully you will see that I said the Yanks and Brits handed Eastern Europe to Stalin on a plate.

So much for American liberation ... you had to wait 45 years more for that.

America does a shite job of liberation on the basis of history and has the attention span of a giant gnat and hence should not be entrusted with any long term projects of the type it aspires to.

They have shown time and again that they learn nothing from history and can be regarded as the body-builders of world politics, all muscle and no brain!

by Tom Yum Tue Jun 01, 2004 19:04

This is my answer to the following!

"To the topic at hand: even if we accept a recalculated death figure of 3,000 for US troops in Iraq, it would still take 20 years like this last one for Iraq to equal Vietnam. Oh, and about 2 million Iraqis would have to die, too."


And you feel so proud that Two million Iraqis have to die!?
This is revolting. Remember that the american army went there to kill and be killed on behalf of a few who make huge amount of money. example: Bush Family and Bin Laden family. if you know about the BUSHLADEN DEALS! Iwould never be a fool to kill or die for anything like this.
If ever Americans were liberators, we can be sure that they are not in the case of Iraq, it's clear what they went there for, the only and one reason O I L!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

by Tom Yum Tue Jun 01, 2004 19:08

This is my answer to the following!

"To the topic at hand: even if we accept a recalculated death figure of 3,000 for US troops in Iraq, it would still take 20 years like this last one for Iraq to equal Vietnam. Oh, and about 2 million Iraqis would have to die, too."


And you feel so proud that Two million Iraqis have to die!?
This is revolting. Remember that the american army went there to kill and be killed on behalf of a few who make huge amount of money. example: Bush Family and Bin Laden family. if you know about the BUSHLADEN DEALS! Iwould never be a fool to kill or die for anything like this.
If ever Americans were liberators, we can be sure that they are not in the case of Iraq, it's clear what they went there for, the only and one reason O I L!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

by Tom Yum Wed Jun 02, 2004 00:00

If a million Iraqis DIE, they die defending their country, and that's an HONOR!
If a thousand American soldiers die, they die only to make Bush and his Mafia more rich.
Moral, it does not matter how many Iraqis die, they do it for a just cause and it will always be a honorable Victory.
Even if few thousands of American soldiers die, that's a defaet, because no matter how huge and powerful is thier war machine they still get their asses kicked by simple poor and untrained beduins... just Immagine if we give them half of what the american army has...just immagine!

by Just a plain American Sat Jun 05, 2004 05:30

For all of the posts about WWII: Here in America our “historical propaganda” books teach our children that the Allied powers were victorious over the Axis powers during WWII. They highlight, as they should since they are American history, the battles fought by the Americans. If one chooses to take more classes on WWII, they would learn more about each countries activity during those times. I was never taught that America single handily ended the tyrannical reign of Hitler. But make no mistake, if America did not enter WWII (Late, and interestingly enough we were ripped then for NOT going to war sooner) the world would be a very different place.

But that is the past, and now we are in the present making new history. Do I want our soldiers in Iraq, dieing again on foreign soil? No!!! The deaths are already to high for my liking on both sides. I would have preferred a diplomatic solution to Hussein’s oppressive reign. Since that did not happen, then a war with very limited casualties to the American forces and Iraqi civilians would have been, very unfortunately, acceptable.

My last sentence is sure to raise some ire, so lets be very blunt and honest. No matter what reasons are given for the war in Iraq (both for and against) the bottom line is that Hussein was a very bad man. He was an absolute terror to both his people and the rest of the world. And although the US went against the UN council and invaded Iraq for, as I read here, “our greed for oil”, lets not forget all of the country’s that continued to trade with Iraq even when they was a UN trade embargo for just their general greed.

The US has tried to limit the number of total casualties inflicted during war. From “smarter bombs” to body Armour for our troops, casualties have been reduced. Still not acceptable for those who are anti war, but far better than the 300,000+ that died during the bombing of a single city during WWII.

For all US troops in Iraq, I truly wish they weren’t there. I, and the rest of the world would have preferred a diplomatic solution to the problem. But since there couldn’t be, we are again fighting on foreign soil. Only this time the rest of the world doesn’t have extreme fanatic/terrorist wanting them not only dead, but their entire way of life wiped out (not yet at least). The rest of the world does have their own terrorist, but they are generally internally politically motivated.

So for our troops, just get the fucking job done and come home. Do what needs to be done to stay safe and restore order and peace to a country that needs it. I wish you weren’t there, but I support that you are.If we weren’t in Iraq, than people would hate us any other reason. It wouldn’t matter what, there were bitches and complaints before Iraq, and there will be others after.

by toneore Tue Nov 16, 2004 23:41

Just over 1000 US troops have been killed. It will take 60 years at that rate, to match Vietnam. There are 10 MILLION people in the US military. Do you think the deaths of 1000 are a daily topic of conversation in Topeka, Kansas? Get real. The war is a NON-ISSUE in American politics. It wasn't even decisive in the presidential electioon recently. People in Europe need to cop themselves on. They think they know it all about us here in the US. You don't. Stop listening to charalatans like Michael Moore and get on a plane and come to the US and find out for yourself.

by paddy Wed Nov 17, 2004 00:38

you must be very proud as an american. 100,000 dead is a non issue, very very proud.
all the coverage in western media is on every poor us soldier killed, 1000. 1000 iraqis for every american, murdered and massacred. we should look to the iraqi dead not the invaders. Iraq DID NOT invade america. amerikka INVADED iraq. blood is on its hands. and if you win this who will you invade and murder next? and how many more people will be butchered. 100,000 in less than two years and its a non issue, you're a nasty piece of work tonore, i hope you never suffer like the non issue iraqis