Why do liberal Democrats pretend the US military death rate in Iraq is so high? What about these stats?

Question

If today's Dems were in power during Hitlers time, how fast would we have pulled out of Europe? No way Kerry and Durbin could stomach these losses.

Check out these stats for perspective. Contrary to what Murtha and others say, we aren't losing men and women at an alarming rate.
War......Deaths... Duration(months).... Deaths/month
WWI.....116,708............ 19...................... 6,142
WWII.....407,316............ 44..................... 9,257
Korean....33,651............ 37........................ 909
Vietnam..58,168............. 90........................ 646
Gulf..............148............... 1.......................... 148
Iraq............2,582............. 40........................... 65




With 134,000 troops in Iraq the annual death rate is 5.79 per 1,000
In the US general population (at home) the annual death rate is 8.25 per 1,000.
We are dying faster here than in Iraq! Granted the troops are almost all young and healthy, but this is a war.

Sure each war is different, but the point is this one is resulting in relatively very few deaths.
Obviously I'm not trying to minimize any one soldier's life. The people in ww2 were real people also.
Honestly, I don't think the Iraq war was really about what we said it was about (I could be wrong, just my gut feeling). WMD's and UN resolutions were just excuses. It wasn't lies though (unless Clinton was lying about it too). The Drudge Report played soundbites of Clinton and other Dems saying Saddam had WMD's, was working on WMD's, that to solve this will probably require regime change in Iraq...all in the late 90's and 2000. Being wrong and lying are 2 different things.
In my opinion, the real reason was to reshape the Middle East to stop radical Islam. Whether it will work or not remains to be seen. The goal has always been to put a stable gov. in place in Iraq. If we leave prematurely the country could go to hell and all that sacrifice would be for nothing.

It's liberals that have been focusing on deaths. The almost seem to have been relishing the body count at times.
It seems that they want us to fail there. Maybe they think failure will help them get votes.
It's too bad everybody doesn't just realize Bush isn't pulling out, and just support what we're trying to do for the good of the country. If we we're united, I think our chances of success would go up dramatically (with a lot fewer soldiers lost). When the terrorists see us wringing our hands and protesting against our president over relatively few deaths, they've got to be thinking "If we just keep up the pressure, we can get them to vote in some pansy that will pull America out in defeat."
We're there. Whether it was a bad idea or we could have done things better isn't relevant now. We need to win, and being united to that end can lead us toward the best possible outcome.

rainman read your constitution. Do you really want to rehash the 2000 election? How many times are you supposed ot recount votes? Gore wanted to recount until he got more votes in Florida.
The rules of the election were there before the election. Nobody made it up after the fact. The electoral college is set up so that smaller states aren't overwhelmed by larger states (same reason every state has 2 senators regardless of population). Learn about how our system works before you start getting paranoid over something perfectly legit.

Answer 1

I don't think they're pretending. All the wars you mentioned involved madmen trying to take over the world, and if they all had not been leaders of their countries, they would have all been labeled as terrorists.

If losing one American soul for oil rights, or for Haliburton's war profiteering, is not alarming to you and does not seem wrong to you, then I pray that you are never elected to a political office. There are too many people like that in office already.

And if you're going to tell me that American's elected our current President, then surely you jest mortal. The Supreme Court (most of whom were appointed by Daddy and Ronnie Ray-Gun) is the reason why Dubya is in office. Where else in the world (besides third world countries) can you be elected President by coming in second place in a two way race?

Answer 2

??
Well, I give you this, you researched your question. So I definately respect you for going through the trouble. And I checked for accuracy (on some of it, not all) too. Good job!!

I have a couple issues with this though.

1. You are comparing apples and oranges. Each war is different. Our WWII losses would have doubled if we didn't drop the bombs. Should we consider doing that now, as Nixon apparently did during Vietnam?

2. Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Was that the end of the war? Technically, we are not in a war right now. Maybe that is why the dems are upset. What is the mission in Iraq? First it was WMD's. Then when that turned out to be a bald-faced lie, we shifted to "isn't it better now that Saddam isn't in power?". After that, it was "we need to provide stability until a government is formed". All that has been done. So, what's next? What is the mission? Oh, now we have to wait until the Iraqi army is up to task. BTW, remember how Rumsfield demanded that the Iraq army be disbanded? Would it not have been better to keep them in service?

3. Have you asked the mamma and papa of #2,582 in your stat sheet about how they feel?

You are missing the whole point of the debate by focusing on "deaths", and showing us that it isn't really that bad.

The point is, we are stuck, just like Vietnam and Korea. When are the troops coming home? We still keep 30,000 plus (I think, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) in South Korea. But our troops in Korea aren't dying. Iraq troops are.

And, the democrats ask, WHY?

It has nothing to do with death rates, but why we are over there, what is the mission?

Answer 3

Here is another stat to ponder. The 2582 does not report that (as of the first of the year, so may be more now) 714 of those were non combat deaths. So do the math, one days fire fight when I was in Korea, but then CNN etc. have been doing their best to report only the bad news (MSNBC just makes up the news) do to their "progressive" left leaning liberal agendas. There are 18 Provence's in Iraq, 16 are secure with only an occasional attack, one has already been turned over to the Iraqi's, the Pry-minister said today that he believes they will all be turned over by the end of the year. The loss of even one of our volunteer troops is terrible no matter which battlefield in this third world war they make the supreme sacrifice on, but this is a war and we darn well better support it or our civilization will be pushed back to the days of the Persian empire.

Answer 4

The problem is that because no major war has been fought for such a long time now, and that people aren't used to living in fear and terror the way they had to during WW1 and WW2.

If you think those casualties are bad, the British had some 58,000 casualties in ONE DAY during the Battle of the Somme (yes, not all of those were deaths, but that's 58k men the British couldn't use again, for a while at least).

Because of the relatively long history of relative peace, and the way conflicts are being fought nowadays, people aren't used to seeing as many deaths and casualties anymore. That's why whenever anyone dies now, they announce it as if it was the end of the world or something.

Also, you left out the Civil War, which had I think some 620k deaths (both sides), the bloodiest conflict in US warfare.

Answer 5

i am in the army and i agree with the fact that the lose of life is lower than we have experienced in any war, especially one of as long a duration. i must say that the numbers pale in comparison to those that were lost on 9-11. something that democrats never care to mention. and when you factor in that the deaths are the result of a national defense strategy (whether you believe in it or not), then they are still minor. i do not say this all to belittle the lose of lives. i have served the army in 3 different capacities...as an enlisted soldier, an officer in one branch, and as an officer in the branch i am currently in. i used to be a nurse corps officer, and i have seen first hand the toll that war has waged on young men and women. i also have had the opportunity to talk to the same men and women who have been injuired. i think what needs to be understood is that all the fighting men and women are not bitter about having been injuried. and i would go so far to say that not everyone who has died for his/her country is sad to have done so (but i am sure that each person who is dead is not happy to be there). moreover, i can say that EVERY parent of a deceased soldier does not hate the military or the administration. what i can say is that oftimes in teh media they only portray family members who are displeased. those who want to protest, and soldiers who want to speak out against the war. this is because the media is about ratings, and those types of stories grab the hearts and minds of people and they tend to tune in for the controversy. i have had parents of dead soldiers thank me for my service and were proud that their sons and daughters gave the ultimate sacrifice.

i think that people need to realize that our military is a volunteer one, and that when a soldier enlists, they know that the job means that they will one day have to go to war. and if this is not the case, then they definitely have a warped perception of the profession they are in. this goes equally true for the active as well as the reserve forces. some reservist say that they should not have to go over seas to do this job. i argue that it is your job to do so, and that is why you were training for one weekend to do it. the only valid argument could possibly come from national guard soldiers, whoses primary mission is state driven. but even so, they were/are well aware that they are capable of being "federalized" to perform the nations mission.

Answer 6

Id like to add to that. In world war 2, the total sizes of the countries involved(US, Germany, Japan, UK, Russia, Australia, Canada, and France) was 420 million people, with a death toll of 36000 people per day. The war in iraq is between 310 million people. so Its about 500 times less violent per person of each country.

Answer 7

Reality does not have a whole lot to do with some folks opinions. Anything at all that will make the current administration look bad is accepted as if it is gospel. Get used to it, it'll never change.

Answer 8

Your math is off.

From July 05 through June 06 we took 660 casualties.

660 divided by 143,000 = 0.0049
multiply by 100 gives you 0.49%

So the death rate is even lower than you thought.

Pity the news media is covering this up.

Answer 9

I think this liberal subculture is a phase and they will slowly be phased out through abortion, since they are 10 times more likely to have one and a conservative is 2 times more likely to raise a family and pass on their values.

Answer 10

if your smart ww2 we fought multipal countrys and iraq and afgan dont compare to the nazis. but i belive the death toll comes from terrorist coming from iran or syria.