Who thinks that 3000 is too many casualties for a 4 year conflict?

Question

In my opinion, 3000 is a small number for the time frame. We are doing good so far in Iraq. I don't understand why everyone is complaining?
In WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, we lost more than that in a few days in one battle. During the first two days of D-Day, we lost approx. 9000 soldiers to enemy fire.....in just 2 days. On Iwo Jima, there were 6,825 Marines killed in just 36 days of fighting for that little island.

So.......3000 in 4 years? Pft! What's the problem?

I say the US was justified for ousting Mr Hussein, despite the bad intelligence on the WMD's (it wasn't a lie). He was an evil man and do NOT doubt he was a threat. He WAS a threat to everyone in the world. He needed to go regardless of the reason why we went in there.

Answer 1

Even one death is one too many but put into context the war in Iraq is going well. Parents, wives, children, brothers and sisters of our brave young men killed in battle may not agree though some would say it is going well and that their fallen hero believed in what he or she was doing. The people in the US expect instant results and do not seem to have the capacity to wait for good things. They want everything right now. The democrats and others say we didn't win in the first days and we cannot win now. This is wrong. Wars are nasty things but once engaged upon must be fought to their conclusion. You cannot quit half way through. I do not know if we made the right decision to invade Iraq but now that we have we must repeat must fight until that country is secure it is our sacred duty.

Answer 2

While I agree that by war standards 3000 is very low, especially when there are 17,000+ murders in the United States every year, but I think you are acting a little flippant about it. This is because even one death is one too many. There are people who oppose the war and they will seize on any advantage to make their case. This is fine, political discourse is perfectly acceptable in this country. What you have to understand is that the average person is more than capable of putting this into perspective. The antiwar movement in this country does not have traction. What they have is vocal minority. While many people have issues with the strategy of the war, these same people also support the troops and state that we cannot abandon Iraq. If you really want to know just how insignificant the antiwar movement really is, just examine numbers of protests and actions during the Vietnam War versus today. What you will find is that they are almost non existent today. The media gives them lots of coverage and by doing so creates the false impression that they have greater numbers and support than they actually do.

Answer 3

Lets see...3000, over 50000 for Vietnam, approximately 40000 for Korea, and many more for World Wars 1 and 2... I would say that for a conflict that is only 4 years old the averages are very good. In Korea and Vietnam 3000 casualties would be more of a monthly or weekly total. To say that the individual soldiers and their family's are just statistics would be very wrong, and I WILL NOT DEBATE that. Since many have been effected (Myself included) But I will say that it could have been much worse!!!
Lets get the job done RIGHT! and get out of there, but the active statement is lets get it done RIGHT the first time.

Answer 4

America has become so concerned about world opinion that we want to fight nice wars. That is not what our military is trained for.
We should have invaded Iraq, used as many people as needed to seal the borders and then disarmed the people. To hell with being nice about it. 3000 is a very low number for a four year conflict, more than that died each year in Vietnam. But if this had been done correctly, the number would be a lot lower.I was only aa corporal in the Marines during Vietnam, but I could have done a better job in Iraq than these boot generals of today..

Answer 5

If you took in to account how vicious the media portrays the enemy I would say it is a miraculous number.

Coming from a military family I know the loss of soldiers is a very painful thing, but as cold hearted as it sounds no one I know thinks the losses are unacceptable.

My dad air lifted hundreds of dead and wounded soldiers out of combat in Vietnam, and himself lost his entire crew on what would be his last Flight, he knows how brutal war is, and it infuriates him how the media trivializes the losses down to numbers and then acts like it is the biggest number ever.

Milestones are great... but only for distance, not for trivializing the loss of brave men and women.

Answer 6

Agreed.

Everyone has made valid arguements. And countered well.
I too cant see why the fuss is about.

Here is an interesting article: According to this. in 2004. Compared to the last 4 Presidents. It shows President Reagan lossing more troops. What war did we fight then? Humm. nothing major.
http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/20/21940/0381

Alot of troops die from accidents, and illiness, etc etc.

Answer 7

Soldiers die in training accidents; doesn't mean the armed forces should be disbanded.
Iraq is a different type of conflict. The US casualties are much lower than that of the insurgents. (Or at least, so we are told.)
The soldiers need support from their country. Like it or not, they are there and have a job to do. Too many people are putting them down. They deserve respect for laying down their lives to defend freedom.

Answer 8

Personally I think that one casualty is already too much when a war cannot be justified like it was the fact in Iraq and even a little in Afghanistan.

The thing is that you cannot win a war by counting your casualties, if you take the example of Vietnam, the US had less the North Vietnamese, but they still lost the war, so basically every one who fought and died in VietNam just like in Iraq are fighting for nothing because ultimately they will be on the losing side.

Answer 9

I will assume that the asker is so flip about his question because he/she's probably under the misconception that 'service' in his world consists of AOL or yahoo. So I'll explain.

The Problem? That ONE life is too many casualties for what's going on in Iraq. And its not war my friend.

In war, the job of marines and soldiers is to:
-Close with the enemy
-Engage same
-Take and hold terrain
-Destroy enemies, their assets, and equipment

Not to police, build infrastructure where little existed, make nice being goodwill ambassadors with guns, make sure Iraqi's get the right to vote, etc. The War was over about 3 years ago from this soldier's boots. It is now Nation Building that is costing lives.

Answer 10

I life so far from there, but I can feel what they feel. Did you ever think? That every times you take a breath is something that so meaningfull for them. When you sit on a chair, ready to have dinner, there're many people who are running from hundreds of bombs. Cry, scream, and blood is everywhere. How many people who has died, or hurt, is something matter. But the most important from it all is: What you have done for them?