 |
Thursday, September 23, 2004
I've had it! I am so sick of hearing about how Iraq is such a terrible quagmire that is just as bad, if not worse than Vietnam. It's like opening up the help wanted ads in your newspaper and seeing the plethora of jobs while John Kerry talks about us teetering on the Great Depression. We are no where near Herbert Hoover days.
By the same token, we are no where near Vietnam. We've been listening to the the left tell us what a mess Iraq is since day one. Well if that's what they think of it, then what on earth do they say about these other wars?
I am sick enough to run the numbers, if anybody has any doubt, run the numbers yourself and then tell me if you get something different.
Since March 22, 2003 the United States has lost 1041 American lives in 550 days as of 9-22-04.
247 or 23.72% are considered Non-Hostile according to Iraqi Coalition Casualty Count
WAR-------------------------Total deaths----------Time
Revolutionary War-------------------4,435---------6 years 8 months
War of 1812--------------------------2,260---------2 years 6 months
Mexican War-------------------------13,283--------1 year 8 months
Civil War: Union---------------------359,528-------4 years
-----Confederate-------------------- 198,524------4 years
--------Combined---------------------558,052------4 years
Spanish-American War--------------2,446---------4 months
World War I--------------------------116,708-------1 year 7 months
World War II-------------------------407,316-------3 years 8 months
Korean War--------------------------33,651---------3 years 1 month
Vietnam War-------------------------58,168---------7 years 6 months
Gulf War------------------------------193------------1 month
Click for * source
The amount of time it would take for us to lose equal amount of American lives in Iraq by war.
War-----------------------------Amount of time to equal casualties.
Revolutionary War------------------- 6 years 153 days
War of 1812-------------------------- 3 years 99 days
Mexican War------------------------- 19 years 83 days
Civil War: Union--------------------- 520 years 155 days
-----Confederate-------------------- 287 years 134 days
-------Combined--------------------- 807 years 289 days
Spanish-American War-------------- 3 years 197 days
World War I-------------------------- 168 years 338 days
World War II------------------------- 589 years 218 days
Korean War-------------------------- 48 years 259 days
Vietnam War------------------------- 84 years 72 days
Gulf War------------------------------ 102 days
Method used:
Total number of American Deaths in Iraq (1041)/number of days (550) = 1.8927 average death per day
Total casualties of wars Ex.--Vietnam 58,168 / 1.8927= 30,732 (Total number of days)
Total number of days (30,732)/ number of days in year (365) = 84.199 (84 years)
Total number of years (84) x number of days in a year (365) = Total number of days in years(30660)
Total number of days (30,732) minus total number of days in years (30660) = days left over (72 days)
Since day one, liberals have opposed the war in Iraq. It's time for them to just shut up and back the men and women serving the United States.
Posted at 10:10 pm by Avman
 | | | A Patriot
September 29, 2005 07:10 PM PDT
I'm tired of hearing of everyone complain about "the useless killing of American soldiers" WHAT THE HECK DO YOU THINK OUR BOYS JOINED THE MILITARY FOR?!?!?! to not fight!!!! COME ON! it's not like we sent our fellow americans over there by force; obviously they knew the risk they were taking when they...SIGNED UP for the military! | |
| | | tristero
September 29, 2004 05:49 PM PDT
And the charts proves what, exactly? That measured in lives, the Bush/Iraq War is cheap? I'm sure that's a great consolation for everyone who's lost a brother, a sister, or a husband, or a wife, or a boyfriend, or a girlfriend, or just a friend.
First of all, the best way I know to support the troops is to get a competent leadership in Washington (translated: Kerry administration) before the situation gets far worse. If there is one thing Bush has done well in foreign policy, I have not seen it, and I've been paying close attention (come to think of it, I can't think of a thing he's done right.)
First, not only liberals, but nearly the entire world opposed this stupid war. Among the people were such notorious America haters as Zinni and Shineski, to name the first two prominent military men that come to mind.
And sure enough, the world was right: Saddam was not only not a threat to the US and had nothing to do with 9/11, he didn't have any of capabilities Bush scared so many Americans with.
I am deeply puzzled, because opposition to Bush is not a far right/the rest of the world kind of a thing. Simply put, Bush is completely incompetent. One would think all conservatives, like yourself, who weren't out there on the bleeding edge of fascism would be demanding he be taken off the ticket.
Oh, and by the way, are you planning to serve in Iraq? Have you already? Because if you haven't served, you have a lot of nerve asking kids to get shot at and possibly killed for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with your security, or any other American's.
| |
| | | Rob W
September 27, 2004 01:04 PM PDT
Your post gives a false impression of the problem. The problem is not causalties, it's that we are losing the war and not fighting hard enough because Bush is afraid of the political impact of casualities. The enemy controls significant parts of the country and terror and mayhem are on the rise.
Americans are a strong people, who can take bad news in stride, adjust and win. But Bush does not belive this and hides the truth from them. We need a change of strategy to fix the Iraq problem, and eventually need to be able to turn our forces against the larger political problem of Islamic fundamentalism. Remember that Clausewitz said all wars are a continuation of policy. We lack a policy on these issues and that's why we need a change.
Rob
| |
| | | Name kj1
September 26, 2004 02:03 PM PDT
The stats you have posted show more than just a comparison of losses and time. They show the difference between what has now been commonly accepted at the ‘Greatest Generation’ and ‘VN and later’. The ‘Greatest Generation’ was not made in a day. It took the work of the United States American people years (can you say 200).
I also believe that there can be made a direct comparison to the rise of various media outlets that label themselves as ‘news’ after the ‘Great Generation’ to today. And that comparison leads us to the argument of are they liberal or conservative (like there is really an argument). What has taken generations of Americans to build, has been torn down by rich liberals (oxymoron?, I think not!) in just years.
Conservative Americans, with a strange sense of patriotism and bravado, made the USA what it was. And those that are left (barely a silent majority) must train others and rise again to make it what it can become.
| |
| | | Name kj1
September 26, 2004 02:01 PM PDT
The stats you have posted show more than just a comparison of losses and time. They show the difference between what has now been commonly accepted at the ‘Greatest Generation’ and ‘VN and later’. The ‘Greatest Generation’ was not made in a day. It took the work of the United States American people years (can you say 200).
I also believe that there can be made a direct comparison to the rise of various media outlets that label themselves as ‘news’ after the ‘Great Generation’ to today. And that comparison leads us to the argument of are they liberal or conservative (like there is really an argument). What has taken generations of Americans to build, has been torn down by rich liberals (oxymoron?, I think not!) in just years.
Conservative Americans, with a strange sense of patriotism and bravado, made the USA what it was. And those that are left (barely a silent majority) must train others and rise again to make it what it can become.
| |
| | | Pat in NC
September 25, 2004 07:52 PM PDT
I hate everyone of our losses, but this is why men and women join the military. They give their today for our tomorrows. They fight the enemy where they are instead of waiting for them to fight all of us here. The anti-war people will cry our leaders failed them is we have another major 9/11. Thank God for our brave troops-now & in the past. | |
| | | Bevan
September 25, 2004 07:29 AM PDT
To Scott:
Of course conservatives see things in black and white - it's called having principles. We believe in right and wrong, without all of the relativism and the objectivism that the far left is so fond of. I don't look at issues and see "shades of grey", "colors", or "complexity and subtlety". I see a right and a wrong way to do things.
Furthermore, even if you discount early wars because of population size, you still have the more recent wars like Vietnam and Korea. | |
| | | Scott Salyer
September 24, 2004 11:34 PM PDT
conservatives have the odd problem of using black and white logic for any given problem or scenario. if you opposed the war, you must be a bad American and you must not care about the troops.
well, guess what? it just so happens that the world is complicated. questioning the motives and logic behind the policies of our leaders is about as patriotic as it gets. further, i don't know one person that doesn't appreciate to the fullest extent the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers.
if the world were just black and white, we wouldn't need to discuss any of this. but we live in a world of shades of gray, colors, complexity and subtlety.
by the way, what's the point of those numbers? to say 'hey, it's a bad war, but it's not a massacre. be thankful'.
www.common-insight.com | |
| | | sonny corleone
September 24, 2004 08:05 PM PDT
Also, the percentage of the population back then who could serve in the military was smaller because blacks and women were excluded. | |
| | | sonny corleone
September 24, 2004 08:03 PM PDT
to JS Blanco,
great point, but you can make a better argument if you adjust the number of casualties per war to account for smaller population totals. The War of 1812 lists only twice as many casualties as Iraq, but the entire population of the country back then was around 7 million, compared to the July 2004 estimate of 293 million. | |
| | | DagneyT
September 24, 2004 03:44 PM PDT
Refreshingly, Jeff, you've made some excellent points.
And Randy is showing the usual lack of logic from the left. That's why oil prices are up, Randy? sheesh! Married to their theories as usual.
OT, Jeff, I am also a Bronco fan, but I live in Texas! Did you leave Colorado to get away from Libs? They've apparently voted them all out of office, per pals there! I, for one, do not miss dealing with snow! | |
| | | Jeffery
September 24, 2004 11:34 AM PDT
You also forgot to mention how many people died for nothing when Bill Clinton bombed Iraq.
But that being said, you want to talk about people who died for nothing, you should see the people who needlessly die because they refuse to defend theirselves. Like Rwanda, they tried peace, they realized too late that peace doesn't work. | |
| | | Randy
September 24, 2004 10:28 AM PDT
Too many died in Vietnam - for nothing. Too many have died in Iraq - for nothing.
When will conservatives understand that in order to support the troops one does not have to support an unjust, illegal, deceptive war. The best way to support the troops is to give them the equipment they need to finish the job, and then bring them home.
How many more have to die for Iragi oil? | |
| | | Marty
September 23, 2004 11:50 PM PDT
As for me, the War on Terror will not even begin until 3000 soldiers have given their lives to redeem those lost on 9-11.
I'm taling redemption, not revenge -- We have not yet even begun to fight! | |
| | | Marvin
September 23, 2004 11:34 PM PDT
Unfortunately, our fellow American's on the left are listening and aren't likely to.
God bless. | |
| | | Wild Bill
September 23, 2004 10:54 PM PDT
What a smack down. You must not drink Kool aid. | |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
