Can people please stop saying ONLY 3,000 soldiers have died?

Question

You can't quantify or qualify the deaths of our soldiers. I'm a liberal, I don't like this war. But for the love of God if I see one more conservative downplay the loss of American life I am going to lose my @#$%. Their lives whether it is 1 or 2,000 or 500,000 all mean something.

Answer 1

Usually it is the liberals who downplay our soldiers deaths and then quickly compare them to the amount of Iraqis who have died. I'm a veteran of the Iraq war, but at least you and I can agree on a couple of things.

Answer 2

I agree with you even 1 life lost is too many for a lie. It is easy to downplay when it is not your own flesh and blood. We can not even imagine what the parents, children and spouses of those who have died are going through!

Answer 3

Yes, my friend, it is ONLY 3,000. Whether it is 3,000 or 4,000, it is ONLY. This war has now dragged on longer than US involvement in WW2 with only a tiny tiny fraction of the casualties of that war. Some battles in WW1 saw 50,000 Allied deaths in a week, and some of the battles went on for six weeks. Add it up. Some battles saw over 600,000 killed, and this in a matter of 6 weeks. The battle of Verdun dragged on for 10 months in 1916 and saw over 250,000 dead and 500,000 wounded. That one averaged out to over 800 dead per day, or more killed in a DAY than the US is losing in Iraq in a YEAR, and that went on for TEN MONTHS like that.

Even worse, in the Battle of the Somme on the very first day, July 1, 1916, the British lost over 19,000 dead (in ONE DAY) which is almost as many lost in ONE HOUR as the US lost in Iraq in an entire YEAR.

So "only" is a relative term. It is probably safer to be in combat in Iraq than driving on the highways in the US.

The real kicker for the US is that when we finally do get out of Iraq all hell will break loose and the place will fall to pieces so all the war casualties would have been essentially to accomplish nothing.

Answer 4

The president is only fooling himself. His so called plan isn’t even a plan,but mere ramblings of a Hitler-wannabe
The 20000 troops he wants to send are only taking the place of the wounded and killed
soldiers that have been sent home over the past year.
He is merely adding meat to a meat grinder.

Thinking and barely thinking Americans. Do not let this man deceive you and send our friends and family members to a wasteful fate.

ps...only 3000 died. Guy find out about the number of wounded....only over 20000 wounded?

Answer 5

i know what you mean. My city has lost 28 people so far.... i relate to the annoyance. it's more than an annoyance really! it's direspectful, and is extremely unconsiderate! i think that every one that includes the word ONLY when talking about deaths deserve a slap/punch to the face.

Answer 6

in all wars people must die for freedom in the revolution 10,623 civil war 970,227 ww1 320,710 ww2 1,078,162 vietnam 211,471 and to save Iraqs womon fram rape and ther kids from geting their hands cut off with saws and so you dont nead to get off your butt and stop your plain from getting hijacked . only 3,000 in this long is not to bad . unless you liked 9/11

Answer 7

Blood money for the war machine...Halliburton is making out so the neocon stockholders are happy.

Answer 8

Only 3,000 soldiers have died and most were not from combat. There were 400,000 casualties in WWII and 58,000 dead in Vietnam.

Answer 9

When you don't respect the sanctity of life, what's a few thousand soldiers or 500,000 Iraqis? That's just collateral damage in their way of thinking.

Answer 10

Your screen name answered your own question. As a liberal, you wouldn't like anything in our world, you people create chaos, and others create order. You need to quit blaming conservatives and look at your sanctimonious media like CNN who's reporter sat at an enemy snipers elbow as they shot one of our troops. Your whole stucture of liberalism reeks of puke in my book. I wished that reporter or you had been on the receiving end of the bullet.