U.S. Iraq war casualties reach new milestone

[Rome]

The sooner that idiot and the gang of thugs around him are out of office, the better.

January 20, 2009 can't get here soon enough for me.

[Geowhizzer]

Interesting op-ed piece from the Washington Times:

To win in Iraq

[Diomedes]

might as well start the year with a roundup..

U.S. Troops
3,003 killed.
22,057 injured.

Iraqi civilians
Bush flippantly admitted to 30,000 in the spring of '06.
52,512min/58,097max killed according to Iraq Body Count. (counting only deaths reported in media., a very conservative number)
here's a rapidly aging summary of different estimates
one recent estimate based on research by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that 650,000 civilians have died in violence since the U.S. invasion.
150,000, says the Iraqi Health Ministry.
nobody really counts the dead Iraqis.  Only the invaders are counted.

for reference:
9/11 Civilians killed: 2,986
Osama Bin Ladins killed: 0

Economic costs
In April of '06, WashPo reported greater than 320 billion. The war costs at least 200 million dollars per day, and $1 trillion dollars will have been dumped into this distaster before too long.  A couple scholars (one a Nobel winner) have estimated the cost at greater than 2 trillion.


U.S. casualties by war (active wars bolded)
357 - Afgan War (2001-2007)
382 - Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)
2,260 - War of 1812 (1812-1815)
2,446 - Spanish-American War (1898)
3,003 - Iraq War (2003-2007)
4,435 - Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
13,283 - Mexican War (1846-1848)
36,574 - Korean War (1950-1953)
58,200 - Vietnam War (1964-1975)
116,516 - WWI (1917-1918)
405,399 - WWII (1941-1945)
498,332 - Civil War (1861-1865)

Length of U.S. wars (active wars bolded)
Vietnam War ...... 8 years, 5 months
Revolutionary War  .........  6 years, 9 months
Afghanistan  ...........  5 years, 2 months
Civil War ......... 4 years
Iraq ............  3 years, 9 months
WWII  ............... 3 years, 8 months
Korean War  ........ 3 years, 1 month
War of 1812  ......... 2 years, 6 months
U.S.-Mexico War  ............  1 year, 10 months
WWI  ............  1 year, 7 months
Spanish American War ............  8 months
Persian Gulf War  .......... 1.5 months

propaganda used
We must stay the course.
Mission Accomplished.
Coalition of the willing.
Bring 'em on.
The insurgency is in its last throes.
U.S. troops will be greeted as liberators.
Smart bombs.
Victory is the only option.
Dead or Alive.
End of major combat.
WMDs
It will be a quick war.   "I doubt six months" - Rumsfeld.
The U.S. doesn't execute POWs or civilians.
Iraq and Saddam were connected to Al Queda and 9/11.
Iraqi oil will pay for the reconstruction.
The U.S. doesn't torture.
There is real progress being made in the reconstruction of Iraq.
We're there to get Saddam out, then we're Audi like a Saudi on 9/11.
The U.S. doesn't torture.
The world is safer because the U.S. invaded Iraq.
We're there to free the people and give them Democracy (whether they like it or not).

[Butchers Bill]

Comparing wars across different generations is like comparing athletes from different generations.  They didn't compete the same, have the same rules, or use the same equipment...and that goes for both sides of the argument.

[ice grillin you]

to call the iraq INVASION a war is disingenuous and really pisses me off

[Phanatic]

to call the iraq INVASION a war is disingenuous and really pisses me off

Sign of the apocalypse.... I agree with IGY.

Sure the actual invasion was a war. After that it has turned into a police action. We called a war a police action in Vietnam and now we're calling a police action a war in Iraq.

[Butchers Bill]

Just goes to show you that no matter what you do, if people don't like the current War/Conflict/Police action they'll want it called something else.  During Vietnam people were pissed because the gov't kept calling it a police action...now people are pissed because Iraq is called a war.

Worthless semantics...especially to the people fighting and dying.

[Diomedes]

Comparing wars across different generations is like comparing athletes from different generations.  They didn't compete the same, have the same rules, or use the same equipment...and that goes for both sides of the argument.

Perspective is the point, not comparison.  I suppose you'd rather Iraq were discussed in a vaccum without reference to any other war?  Or maybe not discussed at all?

[Butchers Bill]

Comparing wars across different generations is like comparing athletes from different generations.  They didn't compete the same, have the same rules, or use the same equipment...and that goes for both sides of the argument.

Perspective is the point, not comparison.  I suppose you'd rather Iraq were discussed in a vaccum without reference to any other war?  Or maybe not discussed at all?

Discussion is healthy Label Maker, and something you clearly have no interest in.

Comparing conflicts across generations is pointless for the reasons I pointed out before.  Iraq should be discussed based on whats happening in Iraq today, not what happened in Vietnam 40 years ago. 

[Diomedes]

That's some strange ass logic, but luckily I don't take direction on how a subject should be discussed from the likes of you.  Feel free to ignore history if that makes you feel better.  I think it's quite valid to bear in mind the other wars in U.S. history when considering the current wars. 

What's it called when your opponent assigns you a position that you don't hold, and then attacks it to make you look bad?  Whatever that's called, you're good at it.  I never said we ought to compare...you created that position for me, and you're the one harping on it.

[Butchers Bill]

Dio, you posted all kinds of stats comparing various US wars, and now you want to backpedal and say you really weren't comparing them.  I didn't put you in that position, you did.

[Diomedes]

No.  I posted a list of facts.  I made no comparisons or extrapolations from them.

[Wingspan]

Ted Williams would have kicked ass in Iraq

[Phanatic]

Just goes to show you that no matter what you do, if people don't like the current War/Conflict/Police action they'll want it called something else.  During Vietnam people were pissed because the gov't kept calling it a police action...now people are pissed because Iraq is called a war.

Worthless semantics...especially to the people fighting and dying.

If you think the difference between war and police action is just semantics then I've got nothing for you. Certainly you approach a war a whole hell of a lot differently the you would approach a police action. There in lies the problem. The strategy in Iraq was fubar as soon as the invasion was over because the yahoos in charge bought their own hype and decided to sell the whole thing the wrong way. Everyone had the wrong expectations from the get go and now your seeing the political back lash. Bush is not an evil dicator. He is however horrible at foreign affairs and has made a mess that will last for many generations to come. Of course that is how this whole mess got started anyway. the only thing conservative about Bush are his stances on social issues. Besides that he's a fiscal liberal with the same horrible foreign affair traits that Carter had.

In my humble opinion anyway...

[Butchers Bill]

Just goes to show you that no matter what you do, if people don't like the current War/Conflict/Police action they'll want it called something else.  During Vietnam people were pissed because the gov't kept calling it a police action...now people are pissed because Iraq is called a war.

Worthless semantics...especially to the people fighting and dying.

If you think the difference between war and police action is just semantics then I've got nothing for you. Certainly you approach a war a whole hell of a lot differently the you would approach a police action. There in lies the problem. The strategy in Iraq was fubar as soon as the invasion was over because the yahoos in charge bought their own hype and decided to sell the whole thing the wrong way. Everyone had the wrong expectations from the get go and now your seeing the political back lash. Bush is not an evil dicator. He is however horrible at foreign affairs and has made a mess that will last for many generations to come. Of course that is how this whole mess got started anyway. the only thing conservative about Bush are his stances on social issues. Besides that he's a fiscal liberal with the same horrible foreign affair traits that Carter had.

In my humble opinion anyway...

I do not disagree with most of what you are saying, but who gets to define "war" and "police action"?  People are fighting and dying for causes...does it really matter what we call it?