How many American Forces do you REALLY think have died in Iraq? Do you think that the death toll accurate or intentionally understated?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15467740/
2006-10-30 06:59:02 · 13 answers · asked by sexy law chick 5 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than what's being stated to us. We live in the Age of Misinformation and of the Spin Cycle. Of course that's only speaking of AMERICAN casualties. What about Iraqi casualties? And that's only speaking of those KILLED in the war. What about the many more that are WOUNDED, MAIMED, CRIPPLED?
2006-10-30 09:47:48 · answer #1 · answered by Alex T 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"In a historical context, the losses, both civilian and military, that are occuring in Iraq today are not even a blip on the radar screen. No conflict in the history of warfare has ever achieved such a low casualty rate (less than 5%). No conflict in the history of warfare has ever mitigated and minimized civilian losses to such a degree. In military terms, this conflict is a success, much like the conflict in Vietnam was.
"In political terms, it is a disaster. The bumbling PR and rhetoric of the leadership is a contributing factor, but the naivete and lack of historical wisdom among the US population is the primary reason why support for the conflict is waning. As citizens, the US population is a impatient, ill-informed, spoiled little child who expects everything to be easy, wants to be loved by everyone, and is not willing to work hard for anything. Winning any type of conflict against a determined enemy with that type of population is going to be very difficult. "
Although I wouldn't call it a "disaster", Shane makes some great points.
2006-10-30 17:42:49 · answer #2 · answered by C = JD 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In 37 days in early 1945, 6,831 Americans and over 20,000 Japanese were killed on a small island known as Iwo Jima, or Sulfur Island. Most Americans today are completely ignorant of this battle and couldn't find Iwo Jima on a map to save their lives.
In three days in July of 1863, nearly 8,000 Americans lost their lives at Gettysburg. Probably less than 20% of Americans today can even tell you what state Gettysburg is in.
In just over 2 months in the summer of 1944, 29,000 Americans, 11,000 British, 5,000 Canadians were killed during Operation Overlord, better known as D-Day. Estimated civilian deaths from Allied bombing during that campaign exceeded 12,000. It should be noted that these civilian deaths were French citizens.
Total German civilian deaths from Allied military operations during World War 2 exceeded 1,800,000.
My point? In a historical context, the losses, both civilian and military, that are occuring in Iraq today are not even a blip on the radar screen. No conflict in the history of warfare has ever achieved such a low casualty rate (less than 5%). No conflict in the history of warfare has ever mitigated and minimized civilian losses to such a degree. In military terms, this conflict is a success, much like the conflict in Vietnam was.
In political terms, it is a disaster. The bumbling PR and rhetoric of the leadership is a contributing factor, but the naivete and lack of historical wisdom among the US population is the primary reason why support for the conflict is waning. As citizens, the US population is a impatient, ill-informed, spoiled little child who expects everything to be easy, wants to be loved by everyone, and is not willing to work hard for anything. Winning any type of conflict against a determined enemy with that type of population is going to be very difficult.
2006-10-30 15:38:36 · answer #3 · answered by Shane L 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would be nice if you could have a 5 year-old war and nobody died, but it never happens. The reason for the increase for the month of October is because the terrorists want to have an affect on the elections. They want weak Democrats in office.
2006-10-30 20:43:11 · answer #4 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
George Bush and his cronies should all be put on trial for genocide, crimes against humanity and conspiracy to murder.
There are far too many British and American forces in Iraq, and yes I believe the toll is inaccurate.... think you can trust the people doing the counting... they lied about the war.
By the way the Iraqi Death toll of innocent children, women and men is 600,000 and counting.
2006-10-30 21:26:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is accurate. However the sad truth is that no one believes it because of the way the media is trying to play their games again. It was the same way in Nam. Media played their games with numbers and lied to the American people!
2006-10-31 01:22:42 · answer #6 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is probably understated. I think it is very sad and scary. And the article does not even say how many Iraqi people have died.
2006-10-30 15:09:32 · answer #7 · answered by J.Z. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the death figures are probably correct. What tens to get overlooked in the numbers are those severely injured either physically or emotionally for life.
2006-10-30 21:35:29 · answer #8 · answered by MUD 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we are in a war and soldiers die. In WWII, we did not worry about the thousands of deaths. What has happened to this country?
2006-10-30 16:01:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
DOD casualty figures are usually very accurate. It's a shameful waste of American lives.
2006-10-30 17:08:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋