U.S. Iraq war casualties reach new milestone

[shorebird]

That number is bad, for sure. Makes me sick. But, to put it in a little wider view, 4,000 dead was the summer of '68'.

[Diomedes]

oh for sure it's a small number compared to wars from years past

but not one of them was necessary.  Bush Cheney ought to be brought up on murder charges for all of them.  what a waste of life.

nevermind the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

But I've said all that enough.  I hope the survivors come home asap, and I hope the new administration finally changes our policies to actually support the veterans.

[ATV]

But, to put it in a little wider view, 4,000 dead was the summer of '68'.

But, to put it in a little wider view, 35,000 or so dead was the summer of '43'. Vietnam - No big deal.

[Diomedes]

ha, well put

[Seabiscuit36]

My grandfather was in the Battle of the Bulge.  He always called Vietnam vets wimps and druggies.  When you live thru that battle, and save hundreds of men(the Germans overran their position, he organized shoring up the lines), you get a pass.  It was pretty cool every Christmas he would get letters from men he served with, thanking him for getting them thru that day, to enjoy all the Christmas's after

[Rome]

you do realize iraqis are killing iraqis and outside terrorists are targeting iraqi citizens not just our troops.

No, I didn't realize that.  Tell me more, Herr Bush.

[Drunkmasterflex]

I have a ton of respect WWII vets, really any that have been through major combat ops.  But it was different for them, they had a ton of support and they fought a known enemy.  It is very difficult when that area is gray.  

I was talking to my Platoon Leader about his father who is a Vietnam Vet and his father actually said he thinks we have a more difficult battle.  The reason being is that we deploy for 12-15 months and really have no downtime there are constant patrols and other than going to the gym not many ways to blow off steam.  They were able to get laid and drink, that would certainly help.  

To be honest going on R&R leave was the best and the worst thing that could happen, I really needed it after 9 months.  However, after coming back I went into a severe depression for about 2-3 weeks, that has never happened to me in my life.  This has been an experience that I will never forget and even though it sucks I wouldn't do it any different.  This certainly has made me a different person, some ways better and others not.  For a while I didn't like what it was doing to me, I am about as mean as a rattlesnake now, though I think that will change.  I wish I could tell more at this time though it isn't feasible, another time I guess.  

[shorebird]

But, to put it in a little wider view, 4,000 dead was the summer of '68'.

But, to put it in a little wider view, 35,000 or so dead was the summer of '43'. Vietnam - No big deal.

Going by that logic, then Iraq must not be too big a deal either.

How about Stalingrad? The Germans surrendered in Feb. of '43', after what is known as the bloodiest battle in human history, with an estimated 1.5 million casualties.

[ATV]

Going by that logic, then Iraq must not be too big a deal either.

Wooooooossshhh.

[shorebird]

But, to put it in a little wider view, 4,000 dead was the summer of '68'.

But, to put it in a little wider view, 35,000 or so dead was the summer of '43'. Vietnam - No big deal.

ha, well put

Going by that logic, then Iraq must not be too big a deal either.

Wooooooossshhh.

So........ over 4,000 dead in Iraq, and 58,212 dead in Vietnam are no big deal?

[shorebird]

You two should hook up and go to the next Eagles taterskin game together.

[Diomedes]

You're obviously missing ATV's tone and point here.  Let me break it down for you:

We start out this exchange saying 4,000 or so are dead in Iraq, and that it's awful. 

Then someone says, 'yeah but if you put it in perspective, look at Vietnam, there were a lot more casualties there,' which you have to admit could sound a lot like, 'hey, Iraq ain't that bad.' *

ATV, wishing to argue against this 'hey Iraq ain't that bad' intimation, and against all the stupid thinking that precedes and supports that kind of talk, says 'well sure but let's follow that line of reasoning out: If Iraq is nothing compared Vietnam, then Vietnam is nothing compared to WWII."

This is when your sarcasm detector should have been donging like Big Ben, because that is a patently ridiculous statement.  Everyone everywhere agrees that Vietnam was awful, and that you don't go around saying shtein like, 'Vietnam wasn't as bad as WWII because more people died in WWII.'

Do you see what he did there? He's took the same logic in the first comparison, and by applying it just a little further down the line, pushed it to the point where it becomes clear as day that it's bad thinking.

And if you didn't get the sarcasm by that point, then the "no big deal" quip really should have tipped you.

'Whoosh" was the sound it all made buzzing over your head.



*It should also be noted that no one started out by directly saying, "Iraq isn't as bad as all that, look at Vietnam."  The sentiment could be taken from what was said, but it is not the only thing that could have been intended.  Of course ATV decided to take it that way, because this is an internet forum and it's no damn fun to have serious discussion.  It's far better fun to pigeon hole someone into a stupid statement and then brow beat them with clever sarcastic one liners.

[Phanatic]

I have a ton of respect WWII vets, really any that have been through major combat ops.  But it was different for them, they had a ton of support and they fought a known enemy.  It is very difficult when that area is gray.  

I was talking to my Platoon Leader about his father who is a Vietnam Vet and his father actually said he thinks we have a more difficult battle.  The reason being is that we deploy for 12-15 months and really have no downtime there are constant patrols and other than going to the gym not many ways to blow off steam.  They were able to get laid and drink, that would certainly help.  

To be honest going on R&R leave was the best and the worst thing that could happen, I really needed it after 9 months.  However, after coming back I went into a severe depression for about 2-3 weeks, that has never happened to me in my life.  This has been an experience that I will never forget and even though it sucks I wouldn't do it any different.  This certainly has made me a different person, some ways better and others not.  For a while I didn't like what it was doing to me, I am about as mean as a rattlesnake now, though I think that will change.  I wish I could tell more at this time though it isn't feasible, another time I guess.  

Man it definitely is changing you. Just gotta make sure you make it into a positive when it is all said and done. Be safe and get home! My military experiance changed me but it wasn't nearly as intense as what you guys are going through. Gulf War I was nothing in comparison.

[shorebird]

ATV, wishing to argue against this 'hey Iraq ain't that bad' intimation, and against all the stupid thinking that precedes and supports that kind of talk, says 'well sure but let's follow that line of reasoning out: If Iraq is nothing compared Vietnam, then Vietnam is nothing compared to WWII."

Do you see what he did there? He's took the same logic in the first comparison, and by applying it just a little further down the line, pushed it to the point where it becomes clear as day that it's bad thinking.

I wasn't saying 'hey, Iraq ain't that bad', though it might have looked that way to someone who is here for no other reason than to be an ass. My point was more to the thinking that overall tactics and weaponry have improved to the point that not as many lives are lost nowadays. Your comment about casualty rates dropping so drastically right before my comment was really what I was reffering too.

I just assumed that the displaced Redkins/Teletubbie fan ATV was just being his normal ignorant self.

whooooosh, back at ya'.

[ATV]

In a Washington Post op-ed today, a former Special Operations interrogator who worked in Iraq in 2006 sharply criticizes American torture techniques as ineffective and dangerous. "Torture and abuse cost American lives," he writes:

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. ... It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

The writer, who used a pseudonym for the article, adds that when he switched his team's techniques to a rapport-building method, they found enormous success. One detainee told the author, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

From www.thinkprogress.org