Why do liberals count American deaths in Iraq, do they know what war is?

Question

As for how long we have been in Iraq, the cost of a war is not measured in time. It is measured in lives lost.

While our media are impatiently waiting for the 4,000th American death in Iraq that they can trumpet, and rub our noses in — in the name of “honoring the troops” — we need to understand that casualty rates in Iraq are low, as wars go.

If and when that 4,000th American death in Iraq is reached, we need to recall that more Marines than that were lost taking one island in the Pacific during World War II.

During the Civil War, more than twice as many Union soldiers as that were killed — in one day — at the battle of Shiloh, and again at Gettysburg.

The “war on terror” is a misleading phrase. It is the terrorists’ war against us — and it is not something that we can unilaterally call off. Our only choice is where to fight it, over there or over here.

Answer 1

Because the war is over. Isn't that what Bush said? Why did we go there anyway? I missed the part where they attacked us. I wasted a year in Iraq for WMDs? Oil? Sadaam? Who really knows? Still trying to figure it out.

Answer 2

The death toll is low compared to previous wars. Here is an interesting fact: Since 1980 we are currently enjoying the longest stretch of time without a terrorist attack against the US. The second longest was from 1988-1993. Is the war working or not? I think that the slow down of attacks may be due to the disruption of the terrorist cells because of the war.

Answer 3

Well gosh, that 'over there, over here' deal has worked real well for the Brits and Spaniards, hasn't it???
What Bush will never accept is that he's made things immeasurably WORSE by going to Iraq, making enemies of the families of civilians killed by us or others, and providing a 'cause' for Islamic extremism. I can't argue with any of them seeing our presence in Iraq as another Crusade. I think part of Bush and co. being there is their desire to proselytize Moslems to Christianity.
Any discussion of numbers of military deaths must, in my view, include a cost-benefit analysis. WWII was a real threat to us and freedom-loving people. So heavy sacrifice, tragic as it was, could be accepted. But when 60,000 Americans die for nothing in Southeast Asia, and 3600+ die in Iraq for King George the Moron's hubris, the cost-benefit relationship hits the skids. Pure cost---no benefit.
When conservatives want more war, do they know what war is? Bush and Cheney didn't serve at all. McCain did, but obviously didn't get enough blood the first time around, so he's spoiling for more. One of the worst American traits is our penchant for violence, whether it's against defenseless animals or against other human beings. All such people will have to work out that bad karma in future lives if they don't work it out in this one.

Answer 4

Once again, I've got to question the logic of "over there or over here." Do you think the Terrorists have forgotten where America is, and are just waiting to follow us home? Honestly, now is the ripest possible time for them to strike here, while our entire national guard is deployed in Iraq. This war leaves us vulnerable, it does not protect us.

You are correct that the death rate for American soldiers is commendably low. That's a real testament to the training of the U.S. Armed Forces. What's deplorable, is how many of those deaths occurred after the Mission was Accomplished. Competent leadership knows to lay out attainable goals.

Answer 5

Actually, the casualty rate is very high.

The "count" excludes the soldiers and marines who are kept alive long enough to be evacuated out of Iraq. It also misses the 26,000 wounded, and the IED's have a disproportionately-high likelihood of brain injuries, so these wounded are generally pretty well toast.

Then there is the fact that not less than 60% of the returning veterans--even those who stay in and get sent back to hajji land--have ptsd to beat the band.

We count all of the losses. Guess what: some of us spent time in green, and we have the scars to prove it. Some of us don't have scars that show on the outside.

The "war on terror" is a fiction. WE started the war. WE created Saddam Hussein and bin Laden and the Taliban. We also created Tim McVeigh. The point to keep in mind is that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with international terrorism EXCEPT it provides a Disneyland for martyrs-in- training.

Anyone with half a brain can see that the only solution is to get out. Get out tactically. Tomorrow morning is not too soon.

Last one out, turn off the lights.

Answer 6

well you r not looking at the whole picture (as most cons aren't so at least your not alone)

1st, The "war on terror" actually has very little to do with the "conflict in Iraq" it has more to do with this looks like im doing something and it makes people scared to not trust that im doing something

2nd, why is the media is waiting for the 4k mark??? who can stop that from happening???,

3rd, What is the exact value of the American soldiers life???

I can understand that success can only be measured by the amount of sacrifice it takes to achieve it, However one must also remember that ultimately the cost of that sacrifice will be redeemed in one way or another,

as in I no longer trust the information provided by either side of our political system as almost all of them voted to put us there when less than half of them had actually read the briefing that sent us there in full to begin with,(and thats just me, imagine what other crazy people think)those that had read the briefing in full understood it one of 2 ways, This is true and accurate or this is some serious B.S. (which, it actually turned out to be)

Answer 7

If Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, Why are they there and fighting like hell?
Could it be that they are smart enough to try and do what Saddam intended to do,---take over the oil fields there and in Kuwait and the route to the shipping port.---In doing that would they have America by the groin? Like Saddam almost did?
Those who say that "oil is not worth fighting for", will be the first to cry "Nuke those bas tards";--- if their job is lost because the industry that supports their job, and the transportation so vital for them and their industry, is cut off for lack of fuel.

Answer 8

Actually, I think there are a lot of so-called "liberals" who know a lot more about war than many of their sabre-rattling right wingers who are quick to lambaste any person who questions the war in Iraq as "un-patrotic" and "helping the terrorists.

For example, John Kerry, Al Gore, Charles Rangel, George McGovern all served in the armed forces.

George W. Bush ducked conflict by pulling strings to get into the Air National Guard, despite his marginal scores. Dick Cheney decided that he had "other priorities" by getting several deferments. Paul Wolfowitz, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh all did not serve. Neither did Newt Gingrich.

There's a nice description for folks who beat the war drums for a hawkish policy, yet when it came for their time to put their money where their mouth is, declined to do so. It's called a Chickenhawk.

Answer 9

You are a wise man. There was an article I was reading that said in comparison to other major wars we have been in, this one is going the best, not to say loosing American lives is good. If you remember during the first year or so all the libs were comparing this to WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Notice that they stopped now. That's because more people died on D-Day that the three years we've been in Iraq. And the three years we were in Korea we lost 53,000 men. They don't realize you can't win a war with no casualties. They count deaths because that is the ONLY thing they have to go on to say that this war is bad.

Answer 10

Al-Queda is coming here, while we are bogged down over there.

Bush left America wide open to attacks by not controlling the border, and anyone can see the terrorists who attack soldiers in Iraq have a choice; they can fight there or here.

They have been training and now they are gearing up to attack America, just as the NIE says.

Get it? Bush screwed us ALL by letting them get stronger, more organized and by giving them the impression we are on a crusade...

Or don't you listen to Chertoff's gut?

Answer 11

stop selling fear ! as in "..only choice..fight it..over there or over hear"

you did a great job spinning the truth (sad that it's American dead, but I guess you don't care or you would not use them and point fingers saying others do it also)

You sorta of answered your own question by comparing Iraq to real wars. Wars that we fought to win. Wars that had a plan for victory. Wars that had a President capable of winning them.

yes we have had bloodier wars, but we had a plan to win and a leader with the courage to do so