As US Deaths In Iraq Approach 4,000 Over 5 Years, Some Perspective

[MarcusMaximus]

As US Deaths In Iraq Approach 4,000
Over 5 Years, Some Perspective

http://1918.com/images/xl/as_us_deaths_in_iraq_approach_4,000_over_5_years,_ some_perspective.jpg

From The Strata-Sphere (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5229): The ghouls in the liberal media are counting body bags (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080322/D8VIP3NO0.html) as their way of ignoring the myriad indicators of progress in Iraq achieved over the last year. What is important is not how many have sacrificed their lives in Iraq, but whether that sacrifice will be honored by finishing the job or will it be thrown away for political expediency? The liberals and left have made their choice, they want power and could care less about the sacrifices (no matter what lame rationalizations they use to avoid facing the successes in Iraq).

So while we await the more important data, which will show the level of violence al-Qaeda can inflict in Iraq and which has been dropping as we and our Iraqi allies have purged the Islamo Fascists from Iraq, we can put the US effort in Iraq into some perspective. At this site are the mortality rates for the US (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005128.html), by state, for the year 2004. As can be seen the 5 years of fighting first Saddam and then al-Qaeda and their allies equals the annual death rate for Wyoming. It is a fraction of most US state death rates from just one year. In fact, more Americans died in the tiny city of Washington DC in 2004 than died in the entire Iraq war effort. To put it in even more perspective take a state like NY, and divide the annual rate by 12, and you get 12,000 deaths per month, which dwarfs the numbers lost in Iraq over 5 years.

Is this a fair comparison? Of course it is. It is meant to give context to a number that sounds big (4,000), but is actually small. Gateway Pundit (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/sizing-up-sacrifice-iraq-versus-major.html) showed recently that the Iraq War casualties were lower than the military casualties during President Clinton’s terms.

So let’s keep these things in perspective - shall we?

Maximus Note: Also keep in mind that the 4,000 lives loss makes only 2.57% of the current number of troops currently in Iraq - 150,000. But if you were to take the number of soldiers, sailors, marines, and air force personnel who have been assigned duty to Iraq over the past 5 years - that percentage actually gets lower.

All US Forces KIA in Vietnam = 58,169 (1961 to 1972)
All US Forces KIA in Korean War = 33,742
All US Forces KIA in World War II = 292,000 (1941 to 1945)

Folks, my daughter is returning from Iraq in two weeks. I do not take the lives lost in Iraq lightly - But I do very much dislike individuals who politicize the war and undermine the leadership of our country. I equate it to treason.

http://img147.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-23021/loc764/78614_patriotism_123_764lo.jpg

[joyvy67]

Think at the families who lost a members in the war......
We can't be insensitive.

[MarcusMaximus]

I am not being insensitive


But I am being pragmatic

[bizzybody]

The worst casualties ever for American soldiers was at the battle of Antietam. Between 5:30AM and 5:30PM, September 17th 1862, The Union had 12,401 casualties with 2,108 dead. Confederate casualties were 10,318 with 1,546 dead. This represented 25% of the Federal force and 31% of the Confederate.

19,065 wounded and 3,654 dead in one single day. 22,719 total casualties- over two thousand men PER HOUR wounded or killed in that eleven hour battle. Over 34 PER MINUTE.

There were most likely some whiny people back then who figured the Union should just give up after such a horrific battle and let the Republic be torn apart, letting the European countries who backed the Confederacy regain their influence in the western hemisphere. Y'know, like France... that country backed the Colonies in the revolutionary war- but only because it would inconvenience their chief rival, England. France backed the Confederacy in the US civil war because if the south broke away, they'd be beholden to France for their aid.

The only way out then was to go forward, it was the same in the "Great War" and WW2. But in almost every fight the "west" has gotten into since 1945 they've balked at pushing it through to a decisive end- leaving loose ends to come back and cause trouble. (Today's mess with the Islamic radicals is pretty much a loose end from WW2. Google for "Hitler and the Mufti" and get a copy of the documentary "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" to find out more. Islamo-Fascists isn't what they are, they're Islamo-Nazis.)

[BarClone]

coming from one of the Marines just out of Iraq. the media and the public are looking at the number of casualties and over exaggerating the situation over there. i do mourn for those that have lost their lives over there, ive even lost two of my close friends in this war. but the fact still remains. for the amount of success we are having over there and especially in the past year the losses are acceptable.

[MarcusMaximus]

my point exactly - - it's an election year and no one wants to acknowledge any success of the military or the surge.

My daughter is returning from Iraq this week.

Her next duty assignment is Naples, Italy