Number of U.S Soldiers killed in Iraq exceeds death toll of 9/11

[Blalron]

This belongs in nowhere else but the pitt. Bush has now officially killed more of our own (admitedly indirectly, but still the direct consequence of his decision making) than Osama Bin Ladin. I hope we feel really good about ourselves now. Although the Bible that Bush says he believes in says "Do no repay evil with evil"... well, try not to think about the contradictions. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

[Puzzler]

Look, I don't usually participate in discussions about internal US debates. But this post had overflowed my BS meter. It's one thing to oppose the war, but totaly another to blab such nonsense.
Your argument is similar to claiming that Roosevelt "killed" more Americans than the Japanese, because the US casualties in WWII exceeded the casualties of Pearl-Harbour.

No, I do not equate Iraq-war to WWII!

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Blalron

Number of U.S Soldiers killed in Iraq exceeds death toll of 9/11

That is incorrect. The combined death toll for U.S Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is now equal to that of 9/11.
At the current death rate of 2.57/day, it'll be another 3 months or so before the number of U.S. Soldiers killed in Iraq exceeds the death toll of 9/11.

[The Understander]

Originally Posted by Puzzler

Look, I don't usually participate in discussions about internal US debates. But this post had overflowed my BS meter. It's one thing to oppose the war, but totaly another to blab such nonsense.
Your argument is similar to claiming that Roosevelt "killed" more Americans than the Japanese, because the US casualties in WWII exceeded the casualties of Pearl-Harbour.

No, I do not equate Iraq-war to WWII!

You may not have equated the Iraq war to WWII, but you did a damn fine job of... equating the Iraq war to WWII.

[Puzzler]

Originally Posted by Enfant Terrible

You may not have equated the Iraq war to WWII, but you did a damn fine job of... equating the Iraq war to WWII.

No. I equated the stupidity of these two claims.

[yojimbo]

Re: 9/11 are we taking American citizens killed or are we talking amount of people killed on 9/11.

Americans made up the vast majority on that day but lots of other nations lost people as well. It was Britain’s biggest loss to terrorism in one day for example. Two Irish citizen died IIRC.

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by Enfant Terrible

You may not have equated the Iraq war to WWII, but you did a damn fine job of... equating the Iraq war to WWII.

Another victim of the SDMB Analogy Disease.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Puzzler

Your argument is similar to claiming that Roosevelt "killed" more Americans than the Japanese, because the US casualties in WWII exceeded the casualties of Pearl-Harbour.[/size]

Not at all. The Japanese started the war with us, therefore our people who were killed are dead because of them, not Roosevelt. The war in Iraq is an aggressive war of conquest, with 9-11 being the excuse, not a valid reason. Therefore, all the deaths on both sides in Iraq are Bush's fault, because they would not have happened without him and are completely unnecessary.

[Operation Ripper]

You stupid, stupid foolish fuck. Put on a head-to-toe veil and STFU.

[elucidator]

Ooooh, burn! You must really knock 'em dead at the Mensa meetings.

[Dead Badger]

Originally Posted by Enfant Terrible

You may not have equated the Iraq war to WWII, but you did a damn fine job of... equating the Iraq war to WWII.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier, largely-ignored rant on this very topic.

[Operation Ripper]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Ooooh, burn! You must really knock 'em dead at the Mensa meetings.

I do, suck it bitch.

[Gatopescado]

Originally Posted by Blalron

This belongs in nowhere else but the pitt.

What do they have to do with it?

[Revtim]

If you count civilian casualties, the death toll LONG surpassed 9/11.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Revtim

If you count civilian casualties, the death toll LONG surpassed 9/11.

Ah, but those are Iraqis and don't count.

[The Understander]

Originally Posted by Dead Badger

I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier, largely-ignored rant on this very topic.

Hm. Missed that one. But I'm going to stick to my guns here.

[from dictionary.com]

equate: to reduce to an average; make such correction or allowance in as will reduce to a common standard of comparison.

analogy: a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Our common standard of comparison, in this case, is the fact that both WWII and Iraq are martial actions (our common standard of comparison, meeting the definition of equation). Since WWII was obviously not a mass murder of American soldiers by the American government, the argument goes, Iraq is obviously not a mass murder of American soldiers by the American government. It is an analogy, and it only works if the equation war = war holds true.

This does, of course, hold true only if one's position is that a war waged for either just or unjust means, by a legitimate government, is never murder. Or is the argument that there is some similarity between WWII and Iraq that is not shared by other wars?

[Zoe]

The argument is that there is a dissimilarity between WWII and the Invasion of Iraq; enough so that the two do not invite comparison.

Revtim: If you count civilian casualties, the death toll LONG surpassed 9/11.

Der Trihs: Ah, but those are Iraqis and don't count.

I understand the irony of your response, Dir Trihs, but the numbers also don't include those killed in car accidents, construction accidents, etc.

The day will come, however, when there will be no more excuses for Bush's having been responsible for the deaths of more Americans in Iraq than the number of human beings that were killed on 9-11. (Yes, they were of many nationalities.) He is also responsible for the deaths of those in the forces of the coalition. Their governments depended on the intelligence presented to them.

Why do 75% of the people in our armed forces in Iraq still believe they are avenging the deaths on 9-11?

[El Cid Viscoso]

Don't care. When I was employed by the Feds I signed up with the knowledge that I might end up spindled, bent or lacerated.

In the military it's part of your job to accept the fact that you may choke out the end of your life as a torso seeping gallons of donor blood. You are a weapon. War uses you like I use a pencil.

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Ah, but those are Iraqis and don't count.

Yeah, it's not like they're valuable innocent life, like blastocysts.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by El Cid Viscoso

Don't care. When I was employed by the Feds I signed up with the knowledge that I might end up spindled, bent or lacerated.

In the military it's part of your job to accept the fact that you may choke out the end of your life as a torso seeping gallons of donor blood. You are a weapon. War uses you like I use a pencil.

I wish they'd put this on a recruiting poster.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Zoe

I understand the irony of your response, Dir Trihs, but the numbers also don't include those killed in car accidents, construction accidents, etc.

Except that those are accidents. The Iraqis deserve more consideration in this than the Americans, in fact. We attacked them. Frankly, I don't care about the deaths of people who invaded a country for no good reason; it's the ordinary Iraqis who are the victims here ( not to mention the Iraqi soldiers who died defending against our aggression ); not our soldiers. Our soldiers are the bad guys in this; not the only ones, but they are most certainly not the victims.

Originally Posted by Zoe

Why do 75% of the people in our armed forces in Iraq still believe they are avenging the deaths on 9-11?

Because otherwise they would be forced to admit to themselves that they are not noble warriors defending America, but murderous thugs no better than some gangbangers who break into someone's home, set it on fire, kill the family and kill a bunch of cops.

[The Understander]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Except that those are accidents. The Iraqis deserve more consideration in this than the Americans, in fact. We attacked them. Frankly, I don't care about the deaths of people who invaded a country for no good reason; it's the ordinary Iraqis who are the victims here ( not to mention the Iraqi soldiers who died defending against our aggression ); not our soldiers. Our soldiers are the bad guys in this; not the only ones, but they are most certainly not the victims.

Because otherwise they would be forced to admit to themselves that they are not noble warriors defending America, but murderous thugs no better than some gangbangers who break into someone's home, set it on fire, kill the family and kill a bunch of cops.

Gangbangers are not threatened with court-martial and imprisonment for not breaking into someone's home, etc...

The thugs are the ones who gave our soldiers the criminal orders.

[The Understander]

Originally Posted by Zoe

The argument is that there is a dissimilarity between WWII and the Invasion of Iraq; enough so that the two do not invite comparison.
<CTRL-X> ensues

Why do 75% of the people in our armed forces in Iraq still believe they are avenging the deaths on 9-11?

So, it's simply a poor analogy, as mentioned in Dead Badger's link--I don't know that I would split the hair so fine, but I can understand the sentiment.

As to your second question, I'm really sad about it, but I believe that for a good number of that 75% (and for a good number of Americans) an "Arab is an Arab is an Arab". They attacked us--any attempt to delineate who is whom is simply liberal navel-gazing. And on the other side, it's much the same mechanism. Fucking tribalistic nonsense, but there you have it.

[The Understander]

Originally Posted by Zoe

The argument is that there is a dissimilarity between WWII and the Invasion of Iraq; enough so that the two do not invite comparison.
<CTRL-X> ensues

Why do 75% of the people in our armed forces in Iraq still believe they are avenging the deaths on 9-11?

So, it's simply a poor analogy, as mentioned in Dead Badger's link--I don't know that I would split the hair so fine, but I can understand the sentiment.

As to your second question, I'm really sad about it, but I believe that for a good number of that 75% (and for a good number of Americans) an "Arab is an Arab is an Arab". They attacked us--any attempt to delineate who is whom is simply liberal navel-gazing. And on the other side, it's much the same mechanism. Fucking tribalistic nonsense, but there you have it.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Not at all. The Japanese started the war with us, therefore our people who were killed are dead because of them, not Roosevelt. The war in Iraq is an aggressive war of conquest, with 9-11 being the excuse, not a valid reason. Therefore, all the deaths on both sides in Iraq are Bush's fault, because they would not have happened without him and are completely unnecessary.

The Japanese had no interests in invading the continental United States. The Japanese wanted us to refrain from halting their imperialist advances in the Pacific. If Roosevelt had acceded to these Japanese wishes they certainly would have never attacked American soil again during the war, the war against the Japanese was not necessary for the security of the United States as Japan was not intending to invade the United States but only to send a message to us that we would not be permitted to interfere with Japan's imperialist designs in the Pacific.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Enfant Terrible

Gangbangers are not threatened with court-martial and imprisonment for not breaking into someone's home, etc...

The thugs are the ones who gave our soldiers the criminal orders.

I suspect that the penalty for not doing what the gang's higher-ups demand is a trifle harsher than imprisonment, and more one sided than a court-martial.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Originally Posted by Operation Ripper

You stupid, stupid foolish fuck. Put on a head-to-toe veil and STFU.

I think you're confusing Iraq and Afghanistian.

Or maybe Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

[XT]

Number of U.S Soldiers killed in Iraq exceeds death toll of 9/11

Meh. So what? I'm curious...why does this statistic mean so much to the anti-war crowd? Its like the breathless waiting for the 1000th soldier killed...as if that is some kind of threshold. If the war is stupid, and a waste, then its stupid and a waste...the fact that more soldiers have died than died on 9/11 is really trivia. If the war is stupid and pointless then if 1 soldier dies, its still a shame. If its not, then if millions die, then its worth it.

-XT

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by El Cid Viscoso

War uses you like I use a pencil.

How can you say that? A pencil is made of wood, while a soldier is made of flesh and blood and makes a huge bloody mess if you try to sharpen one end of it. Plus it doesn't have a core that can write on things particularly successfully, and is very difficult to hold in one hand. Also, a pencil is usually only a few inches long, whereas a soldier is usually around six feet tall. [/analogy disease]

[oy vay]

Originally Posted by jjimm

How can you say that? A pencil is made of wood, while a soldier is made of flesh and blood and makes a huge bloody mess if you try to sharpen one end of it.

bwahaha I'm going to hell for laughing at that but it was worth it.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

And things don't look to be getting any better any time soon.

Are we ever going to get out of this?

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Originally Posted by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

Are we ever going to get out of this?

Sure. We got out of Vietnam, didn't we? That took what, 12 years?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If you want to count innocent civilians killed for no reason, Bush makes Osama look like a piker.

[elucidator]

Remember when GeeDub was asked how many civilians were killed in Iraq? He more or less shrugged, said "about thirty thousand". IIRC, that is the most lowball figure with any credibility behind it, estimates vary wildly. I don't pretend to know, but this much I do know, and for sure: if he hadn't made the decisions he made, the vast majority of them would still be alive. If I had done so, I hope I would be ashamed to show my face in public. He should retire to a Methodist monastery and spend his days in penance. If he went to the same Sunday School I did, he must fear the question: What have you done to my children?

[Biggirl]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Meh. So what? I'm curious...why does this statistic mean so much to the anti-war crowd? Its like the breathless waiting for the 1000th soldier killed...as if that is some kind of threshold. If the war is stupid, and a waste, then its stupid and a waste...the fact that more soldiers have died than died on 9/11 is really trivia. If the war is stupid and pointless then if 1 soldier dies, its still a shame. If its not, then if millions die, then its worth it.

-XT

Because the soldiers dying in Iraq are dying for no good reason whatsoever. Yes, our soldiers know that when they sign up, it they may be called upon to sacrifice their lives but one would hope that the President of the United States would not lie his way into a counterproductive, asinine war for no good goddamned reason.

In the beginning, justification for this war was the 9/11 attacks (of course it's changed a gazillion times since then) and now we have concrete numbers to tell us that our own incompetent government is responsible for the deaths of more Americans than the crazy madman who hates us.

[elucidator]

"We have met the enemy, and he is us"
- Walt Kelly, Pogo

[Biggirl]

We send them to fight and die for no reason whatsoever and when they come back to us maimed and broken we want to jimmy the numbers in order to make this misadventure look not so costly.

And when I say "we" I mean this worthless piece of shit administration 50% of my fellow Americans saddled the rest of us with.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Biggirl

Because the soldiers dying in Iraq are dying for no good reason whatsoever. Yes, our soldiers know that when they sign up, it they may be called upon to sacrifice their lives but one would hope that the President of the United States would not lie his way into a counterproductive, asinine war for no good goddamned reason.

Yes? Did you actually read what I wrote? If its wrong, then its wrong. What does it matter that there are now more soldiers dead than died during 9/11? What DIFFERENCE does it make? Its just trivia. Why even acknowledge that the numbers hold some kind of significants....or only get fired up about it when we cross one of these mystic thresholds? They are unrelated. The thousandth soldier that died? He was no different than the other 999 before him (or those that came after)...the fact that he was the thousandth soldier killed is just trivia. He was important in his own right...just like the first soldier. But the number 1000 has no other meaning. Just like the fact that more soldiers have now died in Iraq than during the 9/11 attacks has no meaning.

-XT

[elucidator]

...If the war is stupid and pointless then if 1 soldier dies, its still a shame....

"If"? You need some wiggle room? I don't.

[Biggirl]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Yes? Did you actually read what I wrote? If its wrong, then its wrong. What does it matter that there are now more soldiers dead than died during 9/11? What DIFFERENCE does it make? Its just trivia. Why even acknowledge that the numbers hold some kind of significants....or only get fired up about it when we cross one of these mystic thresholds? They are unrelated. The thousandth soldier that died? He was no different than the other 999 before him (or those that came after)...the fact that he was the thousandth soldier killed is just trivia. He was important in his own right...just like the first soldier. But the number 1000 has no other meaning. Just like the fact that more soldiers have now died in Iraq than during the 9/11 attacks has no meaning.

-XT

Yes I read what you wrote. You asked why people do it and I told you one of the reasons why. This is what the comparisons are saying: Yes it's wrong. See how wrong? It was even wronger-- in absolute numbers, than what Osama did.

Of course those who voted for the current administration and who supported this war don't want to make that comparison. Too bad.

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Originally Posted by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

And things don't look to be getting any better any time soon.

Are we ever going to get out of this?

This story is incredibly important. It's on the front page of my local newspaper, anybody else? Are they burying this news in any parts of the country? It seems like the Democrats ought to be able to make hay with this!

For those of you who don't like clicking links blindly, the headline is "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat."

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Gah. I just realized I linked to page 2 instead of 1. So here's a fixed link. It is to the NY Times, so you may have to register but it is free.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

[elucidator]

GeeDub says its just a comma on the pages of history. No biggee.

[athelas]

Originally Posted by elucidator

"If"? You need some wiggle room? I don't.

Whoa, nice dodge of the point there.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by bluethree

Are they burying this news in any parts of the country?

Well, Washington D.C. for one place. The report was completed last April, yet our President (AKA Operation Ripper's Daddy) kept it under wraps and continued to feed us happy horseshit fot months.
No doubt Bush'll call for another investigation into the leakge of classified information on 'national security' grounds.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by athelas

Whoa, nice dodge of the point there.

Bring it.

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Originally Posted by Squink

Well, Washington D.C. for one place. The report was completed last April, yet our President (AKA Operation Ripper's Daddy) kept it under wraps and continued to feed us happy horseshit fot months.
No doubt Bush'll call for another investigation into the leakge of classified information on 'national security' grounds.

D'oh! I didn't realize that. I thought we were doing pretty well that it was on the front page of the Washington Post.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by elucidator

GeeDub says its just a comma on the pages of history.

Comma comma down doobie do down down...

[Lissa]

I was just perusing this link. I am trying to figure out something and maybe you all can help. http://icasualties.org/oif/

Ok, it lists 19910 wounded. Then, down below, it lists 11,902 wounded-RTD (I infer that means returned to duty) and 9230 wounded. Is that last number wounded and not returned to duty? If so, the total wounded would be 21, 132 right? What am I missing here?

BTW- The number of wounded is pretty powerful too.

Also, another linked article stated that over 100k soldiers sought out VA treatment. Is this for things like PTSD since only about 20k were physically wounded? Are other numbers captured by the GAO and DOJ when calculating services to returning war veterans that would skew this data? Such as, marking every call, or request for job return services, or some other form of assistance rather than treating physical and mental wounds amongst veterans?

Because, if we have lost over 3k and 100k are wounded (mentally or physically) so much as to require professional services, this war is very costly to the American People.

Please note, I am not overlooking Iraqi deaths, just focusing on this part of the discussion.

Finally, as a slight hijack, with 20k wounded and 3k dead, it seems that Battlefield Medicine has been very effective. Does anyone know how this stacks up to previous wars? I mean, saving more than 4/5 war related casualties is an amazing feat. I reckon there are a lot of untold stories about the amazing logistical abilities and hard work of the Battlefield Doctor's, Nurses and Medics.

[Grey area]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Why do 75% of the people in our armed forces in Iraq still believe they are avenging the deaths on 9-11?

Rationalization. If I was putting my neck on the line, thousands of miles away from home, I'm gonna need a good reason and might have to make one up.