Operation Iraq: American lives lost

[Strut&Rut]

A Daily Look at U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq
08-24-2004 10:43 PM
By The Associated Press

As of Tuesday, Aug. 24, 962 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq in March 2003, according to the Defense Department. Of those, 720 died as a result of hostile action and 242 died of non-hostile causes.

The British military has reported 64 deaths; Italy, 18; Spain, 11; Poland, 10; Bulgaria, six; Ukraine, six; Slovakia, three; Thailand, two; and Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and the Netherlands have reported one death each.

Since May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 824 U.S. soldiers have died _ 611 as a result of hostile action and 213 of non-hostile causes, according to the military's numbers Tuesday.

Since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq, 6,690 U.S. service members have been wounded in hostile action, according to the Defense Department's weekly tally.

Those numbers don't seem to be getting any better. GW pulled troops from Europe and Korea, but there's more on the way to Iraq. Pretty interesting, with the status of North Korea still a mystery, as to why we pulled our troops from that area.

GW better get his foot outta' his arse, or else the Dems are gonna' stick his head in the mud during the debates. And with 50% of the American voters still undecided, that will not be good...

[Bushman/hun]

Just curious , did you think lives lost was going to go down anything soon? These other persons? why? what made you think that?

[PABuck_HNTR]

Those numbers don't seem to be getting any better. GW pulled troops from Europe and Korea, but there's more on the way to Iraq. Pretty interesting, with the status of North Korea still a mystery, as to why we pulled our troops from that area.

Bush's troop withdrawl plan doesn't start in Korea and Germany until 2006 and takes 10 years...So Bush has pulled no troops yet.

[kevin1]

Considering the scale of the operation , and the firepower being applied , the casualty rate for OI is probably one of the lowest for any American lead conflict other than Desert Storm . Desert Storm ended , so it wouldn't be reasonable to compare to it since OI is ongoing . Compare OI to other conflicts and you'll see .

[logs]

strut&rut, You got this little piece of information from where?

And with 50% of the American voters still undecided,...

One of the reasons the polls do not shift as greatly as in other elections is that the great percentage of voters are already decided. It guess it is more like 40% each and 20% undecided but that is just a guess based on the polls. Where did you pull this number 50% from?

As far as what is going on and how the troop levels will effect the situation or status of NK, there isn't enough room to discuss all the options and reasons why on this forum.

Im not sure of your voting intention but you are certianly following the demmies Talking Points with your post, why?

[slugman]

these numbers are quite minimal if you look at the amounts from previous wars. Not that it makes loss of life any easier to swallow.

[driftrider]

Far more U.S. servicemen died in the first few minutes of the D-Day invasion...and that was just to get our foot in the door in Europe. In Iraq we've lost about 1000 men to both combat and non-combat related causes...but let's not forget what has been accomplished for that relatively low number of casualties.

In less than two months we decimated the fourth largest military in the world.

We overran and took control of a country the size of Texas.

We ousted one of the most brutal totalitarian dictators of both the 20th and 21st centuries.

We forever put an end to the possibility of Saddam funding and outfitting terrorists with WMD built by or purchased by Iraq.

We've permanently eliminated the threat of Saddam Hussein's Iraq to Israel.

We've liberated the Iraqi people and mad it possible for them to establish a free and democratic republic, self-governed and based on the rule of law, not the whims of an unstable madman.

We've sent a VERY clear message to the rest of the rogue countries of the world that we WILL take action to eliminate them from being a threat to the U.S. and her interests abroad. Since the invasion of Iraq, North Korea has admitted WMD research and become much less confrontational. Khadafi has publicly announced that Libya will comply with non-proliferation treaties and cease all further efforts to produce or acquire a nuclear weapon, and opened Libya up to inspectors to verify just that.

We uncovered the dirty dealings of our so-called "allies" with Saddam and the Oil For Food program.

All in all, I'd say that the accomplishments justify the sacrifice of less than 1,000 servicemen who VOLUNTEERED to do what they did.

Mike

[Strut&Rut]

strut&rut, You got this little piece of information from where?


And with 50% of the American voters still undecided,...

Logs,

Modern history has taught us that most 3rd party candidates are either totally committed to their party or are undecided, sometimes until they walk into the voting booth. Most, within 30 days of the election, are undecided, as they come to grips that they will vote for one of the Big Two.

Recent polls indicate that anywhere from 5-25% of Registered GOP/DNC voters are undecided (various Internet/paper searches, multiple states).

The 3rd party accounts for approximately 20% of the total vote, added to the average of 15% of the major parties, = 35%. I know, the 3rd party isn't represented statistically that way, but statistically a larger percentage of 3rd party voters actually vote (somewhere near 80%).

Ok, so that's 35%. And we know that throughout close elections, approximately 10% of "guaranteed" 1st party polled voters actually change their votes after the primaries---which indicates in reality that they are undecided. 35 + 10 = 45%.

So I was off 5%, sue me. Which will easily be compensated by my following comments.

About the war:

Yes, the fatality rates are not alarming, but realize that almost 90% have been since the fall of Baghdad. Look at the last paragraph, where 6600+ servicemen have been injured. That number was < 1000 when GW declared combat operations over.

That's 5500+ new injuries as "peacekeepers". If I can pick that up, don't think the Dems in Kerry's camps are not drooling with those figures for the primaries.

I've been for the re-ployment of our foreign troops, but with Korea being so unpredictable, does anyone think reducing the number of our troops in that region is a good thing? I, for one, do not---until that maniacal ba$tard is out of power---as he is equal or worse than Saddam probably ever was...

In conclusion, let's put it this way...

With the shuffling of troops, growing fatalities/injuries in Afghanistan and Iraq, many people with children of draft age are hedging towards Kerry, especially when the liberal media keeps mentioning the word "Draft". As a college person, trust me I know. I hear it from staff/colleagues with children, and I hear about it from the students.

Those children, of draft age, are also eligible to vote. Does anyone remember the largest turnout of voters between the ages of 18-25? I'll give you a hint...it had to do with an invasion of Iraq and guys by the name of Bush & Clinton. We know who won that election, which was decided by young voters and 3rd party voters voting for...yep, everyone's hero---Ross Perot.

Liberal spin...nope. Just be very afraid that Kerry for President is becoming more likely the longer we maintain our "peacekeeping" forces in Iraq. Period.

[Strut&Rut]

Drift,

All of those reasons are both sound and justifiable.

However, none of those reasons are why we invaded a sovereign nation, are they? NO, they are not. And does it matter that Congress OK'ed the invasion...no, it does not to most Americans. Many Americans believe in conspiracy theories, and this whole Operation is like a modern day soap opera---with very colorful characters, I might add

GW doesn't have to convince me, but he does have to convince a large portion of America before November.

[logs]

Strut&rut, not even close. This country is so evenly divided at this time that unless you have some FACTs to back up either 45 or 50% it's not worth the time to read the info. I'll stick with the many polls that are update, some almost daily.
Its close to a dead heat at this time and as I said on the other thread (Rants) Bush and the party better come out with a good detailed platform or we'll be dealing with the demmies and liberal socialist for a long long time.

I do love how you like to use all those "book" numbers but they don't always apply. The polls are in real time and use voter registration list from previous elections. That is a lot more reliable info.
You still living in Academia?