As of Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005, at least 1,880 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,459 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers. The figures include five military civilians.

The AP count is four higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated at 10 a.m. EDT Tuesday.

The British military has reported 93 deaths; Italy, 26; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Slovakia, three; El Salvador, Estonia, Thailand and the Netherlands, two each; and Denmark, Hungary, Kazakhstan and Latvia one death each.

Since May 1, 2003, when resident Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 1,741 U.S. military members have died, according to AP's count. That includes at least 1,350 deaths resulting from hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

Originally posted by Echo2

Since May 1, 2003, when resident Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 1,741 U.S. military members have died, according to AP's count.

Bring 'em on!!!"_______GWBush

Garsh.....when I think of Gee Dubbya's incredible bravery, ah jus' get chill bumps!!..........don't you???!?

While I don't mean to trivialize those 1880 deaths, it's still a relatively low number considering the size of the operation.

well its hard to keep every soldier alive when there are kamikaze terrorists setting off bombs....

i say deaths are to be expected in a war....

i don't know what the shock is about for you guys... its like being pissed off that a pig eats... its WHAT IT DOES>..

and war is pretty much just to kill people... i don't condone it, but sometimes you have to do one thing to avoid another thing that is ten times worse.

Originally posted by Decka


i don't know what the shock is about for you guys... its like being pissed off that a pig eats... its WHAT IT DOES...

If your comparison is that it is no more surprising for our current political leadership to send troops to die for nothing than it is that a pig will eat...........I have to agree.

Good point.

Originally posted by Jester
While I don't mean to trivialize those 1880 deaths, it's still a relatively low number considering the size of the operation.

Jester, I agree. While there's nothing trivial about those deaths, one has to consider this point. Currently, there are roughly 150,000 troops operating in Iraq. Since the war began, many more troops have cycled through. When taken as a whole, the odds of a soldier dying in Iraq, for any reason, are extremely low. We're talking about a death rate of way less than 1%. Hell, the death rate in this country is immense compared to the death rate of our military operations in Iraq.

In other words, each and every one of us stands more of a chance of dying on our own front porches, driving down the road, or working.

Another point to be considered. Look at wars like WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. We're what, 2 or 3 years into this war? What was the death rate during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam 2 or 3 years into those wars? Bear in mind, I'm asking to compare them individually. The differences, I'd bet, would be most enlightening.

As to Bush, I have to wonder if he believes in what's being done. If he honestly believes it's right, maybe he should let one or both of his daughters go, if he's so convinced of the rightness of his cause.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
If he honestly believes it's right, maybe he should let one or both of his daughters go, if he's so convinced of the rightness of his cause.

Since they've reached the age of majority, he couldn't make them go if he wanted to.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Since they've reached the age of majority, he couldn't make them go if he wanted to.

Good point. Then perhaps, he should go. There're people serving right now who're not too far from his age.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
Good point. Then perhaps, he should go. There're people serving right now who're not too far from his age.

http://www.stryker.tk/forum/dumb/dumb4.jpg

Hey, if the guy truly believes in what he's got us doing, then let him put his money where his mouth is. I see nothing stupid about it.

Originally posted by Freethinker
If your comparison is that it is no more surprising for our current political leadership to send troops to die for nothing than it is that a pig will eat...........I have to agree.

Good point.

no... but when you declare war... people die.... its what happens....

its not shocking to me

Originally posted by Txn8ive
Another point to be considered. Look at wars like WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. We're what, 2 or 3 years into this war? What was the death rate during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam 2 or 3 years into those wars? Bear in mind, I'm asking to compare them individually. The differences, I'd bet, would be most enlightening. Here are the percentages of servicemembers killed in the three wars that you mentioned.

World War II - 2.52% (405,399 out of 16,112,566)

Korean War - 2.04% (36,568 out of 1,789,000)

Vietnam War - 1.71% (58,199 out of 3,403,000)

I couldn't find the exact number of servicemembers who have served in Iraq, but from the numbers I did find, I estimate that it would be between 300,000 and 400,000. So the percentage of servicemembers killed would be between 0.62% and 0.47%; much lower than in those three other wars.

Originally posted by Decka
no... but when you declare war... people die.... its what happens.... The point of contention is whether the war should have been declared in the first place.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
Hey, if the guy truly believes in what he's got us doing, then let him put his money where his mouth is. I see nothing stupid about it.

Then you go well with that pic i posted.

To have our president running and gunning on the streets of Fallujah wont solve anything or make things better. Diplomatic leaders do not belong on the battlefield.
Dumb, just plain dumb....

Hey, Micheal Bolton. We get it. Enough, dammit.
I'm still waiting for any Bush offspring to enlist. And for an explanation as to why so many hairy-chested Republicans such as Rush, Dick, Rove, O'Reilly and their dummy ducked military service. I guess these ladies were afraid to break a nail.
The GOP likes to say that liberals hate the military.
Yeah, I have no doubt many Republicans love it. Just not enough to serve. They love it if someone else is doing the fighting. Or someone else's kids are dying. And God forbid you disagree with them even though someone else's kids are dying to preserve the right to dissent. And their flag-draped caskets will be swept under the rug by the compliant media.
But, hey, whoever reads this, I didn't mean to ruin your day. Go back to watching E!

well its hard to keep every soldier alive when there are kamikaze terrorists setting off bombs.... Yeah especially when you taunt them with phrases like "bring 'um on"...

And sending 2 110 lb girls that are the offspring of our nation's leader into the armed forces is going to help how?

Yup. they need everyone that they can get.

Unless of course you think "supporting the troops" means sending them back to Iraq over and over again.

First off, that was not a yes or no question (you answered 'yup')

Secondly, that is the armed forces job, sending them back over means you are giving them breaks to see their families or keeping them out of the gunfire for a while. There is nothing wrong with resending troops over.

stop-loss orders are not "giving them a break"...yeesh gimmie a break.

Originally posted by Decka
when you declare war... people die.... its what happens....

True.

The other thing that happens is that the numerous "defense" and petrochemical corporations that are involved amass even more billions in profits.

______________________________

""There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" = Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. War is the only racket in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives...""____Major General Smedley Butler, US Marine Corps

Originally posted by Evakian
Then you go well with that pic i posted.

To have our president running and gunning on the streets of Fallujah wont solve anything or make things better. Diplomatic leaders do not belong on the battlefield.
Dumb, just plain dumb....

Then it must disturb you immensely that I am a member of the armed forces, doesn't it?

Honestly, the whole thing is moot anyway. Regardless of my oppinion, Bushy boy isn't ever going to see Falluja, let alone carry a gun anywhere near it.

There was a time when national leaders went into battle. Kings, Emperors, etc. never avoided the battlefields, though they went there with extreme precautions. Evakian, I was mostly venting my frustration at knowing that I'm eventually going to serve in a war that I don't agree with. I'm a Missouri National Guardsman. Excluding the MOARNG's band, every single unit in this state's been at least once.

Originally posted by boykorda
Hey, Micheal Bolton. We get it. Enough, dammit.
I'm still waiting for any Bush offspring to enlist. And for an explanation as to why so many hairy-chested Republicans such as Rush, Dick, Rove, O'Reilly and their dummy ducked military service. I guess these ladies were afraid to break a nail.
The GOP likes to say that liberals hate the military.
Yeah, I have no doubt many Republicans love it. Just not enough to serve. They love it if someone else is doing the fighting. Or someone else's kids are dying. And God forbid you disagree with them even though someone else's kids are dying to preserve the right to dissent. And their flag-draped caskets will be swept under the rug by the compliant media.
But, hey, whoever reads this, I didn't mean to ruin your day. Go back to watching E!

boykorda, most of the soldiers I know are staunch repugnant-kins. It makes political dicussions a bit one-sided seeing as I'm neither a Demon-crat, or Repugnant-kin. To be honest, I'm trying to cut down on the amount of criticism I've leveled against both of my CIC's. Being that I'm now in the military, it's bad form for me to make rude comments about them, even if they do deserve it.

Originally posted by Evakian
First off, that was not a yes or no question (you answered 'yup')

Secondly, that is the armed forces job, sending them back over means you are giving them breaks to see their families or keeping them out of the gunfire for a while. There is nothing wrong with resending troops over.

You're right, there is no problem with that practice. The purpose to such a rotation is to keep soldiers from becoming over fatigued, and such. Waging war is a psychologically draining practice to begin with. Adding in the stress of being seperated from one's family makes it all the harder. There's a reason why the divorce rate among soldiers is alarmingly high.

The problem though is recruiting. The armed forces are having trouble, all across the board, getting people to join. They're offering enlistment bonuses for the jobs they need filled the most, they're paying for people's college educations, etc. For example, I'm going in as a 91W, which is a Medic. The need for Medics is immense. So much so that the enlistment bonus is $10,000.00. Once I've completed my training, I'll recieve $5,000 up front. On the third aniversary of my swearing in ( 15 AUG, 2008), I'll recieve the remaining $5,000.

Unfortunately, most people get to the whole "war in Iraq" thing, and that's as far as they get. It's made for a really bad situation.

Originally posted by Evakian
And sending 2 110 lb girls that are the offspring of our nation's leader into the armed forces is going to help how?

Morale booster...LOL Have you SEEN them??? They're friggin' HOT!

You're pronouncing it wrong its "Republicrats"

Originally posted by Freethinker
True.

The other thing that happens is that the numerous "defense" and petrochemical corporations that are involved amass even more billions in profits.

Well, I don't think a just war's been fought in thousands of years. Rome fought simply to expand. So did the Greeks, the Turks, the Persians, the Celts. Later, the French, the English, the Spanish, among many others in old Europe fought wars of expansion.

Prior to European invasion of this continent, some of the tribes also fought wars of expansion, creating empires that rivaled the old european ones for size. The Aztecs, the Maya, and the Inca come to mind.

Our going after Afghanistan I think was justified. There were three thousand dead innocents, and a major blow struck against us. The Taliban harbored the men responsible, and refused to give them up. That made them allies of our enemy, which made our enemy.

Iraq, to my mind, is an entirely different story. If Bush had been truthful about it, that would have been one thing. In either case, I'm glad that such a petty, tyranical, genocidal, maniac is no longer in power. I just wish that it'd been done differently.