Topic awaiting preservation: Iraq update (Page 1 of 1)

Iraq update - Military - U.S. Casualties in Iraq

US Casualties in Iraq

Killed 1,722
Wounded 12,762
US Army evacuations 18,219

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

UK 89
Other 99
Iraqi Pol/Mil 2416

Total killed 4326

...and the 'civilians'?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Well, the "civilians" casualty figure is extremely hard to factually present - because there are no reliable sources for them.

The 'estimates' range widely between 20k and 120k. We'll probably never know the exact number, if there ever is such a thing as an exact number to begin with. Then there is the DU we have used and continue using over there. And the sanctions, although in a globalized world sactions are nothing more than national concentration camps. I think when all is said and done we are talking well over a million, if not millions.


Ramasax

Sorry the server here is freaking out

(Edited by Raeubu on 08-03-2005 20:17)

The actual number of KIAs for militery members is actually higher than stated.

quote:

---

Killed 1,722
Wounded 12,762
US Army evacuations 18,219...

---

The wounded and evacuated don't get counted towards the killed total if the die outside of the combat AO's.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

The actual number of KIAs for militery members is actually higher than stated.

---

Yes, but can you post reliable figures?

Because I cannot, I choose to post that which I can factually represent.

I realize that it looks very ignorant for me to post something that I cannot find recorded validation for. However, I have my own reason for believing this. On avarage 4 servicemembers die over here everyday, and the militaries newspaper, the Stars and Stripes, covers the deaths and says who the individuals are. I have known of several individuals, WIA, who have died because of wounds after being evacuated to Germany or the US. You can check the paper for weeks and find nothing on the individuals, but you will find information on KIAs from only a couple days before. I believe the number may be double the official figures, much less of a number than is said by some anti-war advocates who say the number is well over 10,000.

I am not trying to say that the numbers are higher to spark anti-war sentiment. I just wanted to share a viewpoint that, although often exaggerated, is hard to ignore.

This was taken from icasualties.org:

quote:

---

Latest Military Fatality Date: Aug 03, 2005

Total Fatalities since May 1, 2003: 1766
March 20th through May 1st: 139

---

We have lost over 12 times as many servicemembers during peacekeeping missions than during the actual war, interesting.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

When one "taps" into the realm of speculation, one soon gets lost.

Though I tend to agree that there are more deaths than officially reported, I cannot for certain say how much, how many more, etc.

Considering recent EXPLOSIONS, I dare to say that this month, and for future months, the tally of Iraqi citizens killed in Islamic extremist explosions, will exceed the deaths of US servicemen.

Yes you can spout all you want about deaths this action has created, but now Iraq itself, let alone the Islamic community, needs to wake up, and see that too many of the deaths caused by Islamic extremists, is the death of their own people.

I fell a wave that is changing the world view of terrorists. I see past terrorist regimes changing their tune, and making amends. I see the peaceful Muslims fed up with the Islamic extremists. Yes we will have to weather this storm, but the end result will benefit this planet, more than you can imagine!

quote:

---

I fell a wave that is changing the world view of terrorists. I see past terrorist regimes changing their tune, and making amends. I see the peaceful Muslims fed up with the Islamic extremists. Yes we will have to weather this storm, but the end result will benefit this planet, more than you can imagine!

---

While you have an optimistic view, I have to disagree.

I see more and more terrorists being created by increasingly oppressive and corrupt world body of governments.

Not just islamic "terrorists" over in the middle-east, but home grown terrorists (or at least deemed terrorists by the government). You know, those who value the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the United States. Those who value personal sovereignty and liberty and are totally against the concept of a globalized fascist state, a corporatocracy. Those who are against the NAFTA, CAFTA and the FTAA. Those who are growing increasingly angry with the way governments are allowing corporations to control them and destroy the environment, manipulate the food supply, and control resources like water and seed. Those who are fed up with government corruption and lies. Those who do not want to have their every move tracked and recorded into a network of surveilance.

The more western governments grow, the more influence they will wield, and the more oppressive and corrupt they will become. The end result of this oppression will give rise to far worse problems than the current dilemma.

The future is going to be nothing but more of the same in increased doses. And it does not mater if it is a right-footed boot or a left-footed boot on our throats, there is still going to be a boot on our throats. Unless we realize the root cause of terrorism, bad foreign policy and government sponsored terrorists, and make changes accordingly, we are in for nothing but tyranny.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 08-18-2005 23:14)

The studies show that the number 1 reason for these so-called "terrorist" acts is to remove an invader from their country.

You can not call what is going on in Iraq as terrorism. America invaded a country, and they are attempting to install their own government there. These people are there trying to protect their country. They are targetting the US and those who have joined forces with the US. They are doing anything they can to keep the US out of their country. They are targetting the officials who are trying to make US policy, they are targetting the policy which attempt to enforce this US policy, and they are targetting the US Army which is the arm of the US that is sitting in their country.

The US populous is far removed from the crimes that the US government commits on foreigners, but whet that changes and they begin to oppress their own people in such a way we will have the same types of action occuring in the US by US citizens. And it is not terrorism, it is patriotism.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

The more western governments grow, the more influence they will wield, and the more oppressive and corrupt they will become. The end result of this oppression will give rise to far worse problems than the current dilemma.

---

Ok, ok let's all relax and take a breather. More western power is not going to be the be-all-end-all. Again time will tell. But I'd like to look at this possibility as a cornerstone of mankind reaching a new/higher consciousness. Maybe this grows into a "pre-star trek" reality. Or at the very least freedom for all of mankind, irregardless of teritory or religion. Maybe this will vault mankind into a new understanding. And yes I am optimistic for ourselves, and a realist to boot.

quote:

---

The future is going to be nothing but more of the same in increased doses. And it does not mater if it is a right-footed boot or a left-footed boot on our throats, there is still going to be a boot on our throats. Unless we realize the root cause of terrorism, bad foreign policy and government sponsored terrorists, and make changes accordingly, we are in for nothing but tyranny.

---

I consider myself more of a realist, but this statement of yours makes me think you are more pessimistic. And pessimistic to a flaw. There exists no pre-conceived idea about this future you prepose. Even governments, or societies that existed for a millenia, are not within any graph of what possibilities might exist for this new idea of western culture.

Yes it has been postulated, but factually,..............................." We have only just begun! "

You statements sound young and idealistic. Great, fine, lovely.

However, history fails to validate your ideals. That too is ok. Dreaming is great, but don't get bogged down by your ideals and fail to grasp the reality of the situation. We are not living in a society (globally) that values freedom at all. We are a global society of greed, where those who have gained power gained it through sacrificing others.

We are not at a pretipice for a grand jump. We are at a point where we are starting to roll back town the hill we have been climbing. Which is unfortunate, as unfortunate as it always is, but it is a part of a proccess. This is the period of backlash associated with the grand advancements we have just made.

I can also tell you that there is no grand global community on the verge of sprouting up. We live in a period where there are great, grand and enormous hatreds that will not dissappear. We can pretend to have a consolidation, but in the end we still have people killing people at a massive rate.

Your ideals give the warm fuzzy, but I fail to see them being anything close to what the reality of the situation. We hate and we kill, and we will continue to do this for a very very long time.

Dan @ Code Town

Couldn't have said it better WarMage. I do have partial diagreement from your second to last post.

quote:

---

You can not call what is going on in Iraq as terrorism. America invaded a country, and they are attempting to install their own government there. These people are there trying to protect their country. They are targetting the US and those who have joined forces with the US. They are doing anything they can to keep the US out of their country. They are targetting the officials who are trying to make US policy, they are targetting the policy which attempt to enforce this US policy, and they are targetting the US Army which is the arm of the US that is sitting in their country.

---

I have to disagree that all of what is going on in Iraq is not terrorism. I mean, those targeting our soldiers I suppose for the most part are rebels, so long as they are Iraqi citizens opposed to the occupation. But there have been a lot of bombings in Iraq which are targeted at civilians. Just yesterday 43 innocent people were killed by car bombings, and that, to me, is terrorism.

This is where I get a little confused because it just does not make sense for people fighting for their freedom to be targeting, or at least indirectly killing, hundreds of their fellow citizens. Nor does it make sense for any foreign mujideen, whom we trained, to be doing it either. Not tactically, politically or any other level that I can think of. Who is it benefitting? It surely doesn't make them look good, nor does it help their cause. I get the feeling there is more to those attacks than we are being told. It just doesn't make sense.

Zynx, welcome aboard. All I can say is if you are a realist, learn a little more about how the world works, and it will help you achieve that goal a little better.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Zynx, welcome aboard. All I can say is if you are a realist, learn a little more about how the world works, and it will help you achieve that goal a little better.

---

Thanks Ramasax. You too Warmage.

I don't expect to know it all, and I appreciate others keeping me grounded with some of my lofty ideals. Yes I do know more about history of war, and the US's strongarm tactics with other countries, and much of it disgusts me, but too many times I see littler and littler patience on the part of people who are overly go-ho about recent events, and their impact for the future(Pun intended).

People in power do change their ways of thinking. Don't tell me everyone knew that Israel would give land back to the palestain people? Especially for specific land areas, that they asked for? Or did I miss the leaflet about Khadaffy and his resolve to admit, as well as pay for the Pan Am disaster? Sure it's not as often as I'd like, but times have changed, and history has also show us positive chnage happens as well as the negative.

So I'm just a little too optimistic on Iraq, for my own good I guess. Yet slowly Muslim attitudes against their extremists brothers is being heard louder everyday. And some terrorists groups in other countries are coming to an agreement with their governments. Some of them are just disappearing altogether. Perhaps The world is slowing saying enough is enough?

I'd like to think so.

Just an odd bit of artistic perspective.

The rest of the world:
We cannot hold back this war. We must weather such things as we have always done.

America:
How can that be your decision?

The rest of the world:
This is not our war.

America:
But your part of this world! Aren?t you? You must help. Please. You must do something.

The rest of the world:
You are young and brave, master America, but your part in this tale is over. Go back to your home.

Descention within America's ranks:
Maybe Treebeard?s right. America does not belong here. It?s too big for us. What can we do in the end?

America:
The terrorism of Muslim origins will spread. And the democracy of America and our valid allies will burn, and all that was once green and good in this world will be gone. There won?t be an Democracy/America!

(Edited by Zynx on 08-20-2005 03:39)

Iraq Update

from here US Casualties since Bagdhad fell

16,373 Total U.S. Casualties

1,894 Dead 14,479 Wounded

I find this comparison both alarming, and informative US Deaths in Vietnam and Iraq by Month

So far, Iraq is bloodier than Vietnam was on a comparable timeframe. Looking forwards in time, if we do not exit soon (within the next year), expectations of casualty rates should shoot through the roof (according to the chart).

Recent remarks from Saudi Arabia seem to indicate that things are starting to "head" in such a direction - Saudi Arabia issued a formal warning to the US that the civil situation in Iraq is threatening to burst apart into Civil War.

Of course, Mr. Bush and his croonies are totally ignoring this (at least, that is the impression they are giving to the public).

Will we learn from history?

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-25-2005 15:55)

quote:

---

Will we learn from history?

---

Will we ever learn from history?

"We must stay the course"
-LBJ, 1967 / GWB, 2005

We haven't thus far and there is no sign of any change of heart among our corporate...er...government heads.

That one graph with the gigantic spike in Vietnam deaths after 4 years is pretty alarming. Thing is, I don't know for sure that it would escalate to such in the case of Iraq, at least not in actual military deaths, unless they reinstated the draft. Reinstating the draft would only lower the approval ratings more, which are already below 40%, so let them try it. They would need some powerful propaganda -- or a convenient terror attack -- in order to garner support. Either way, you are looking at possible problems on the homefront. This is not the 60's.

However, considering there are currently upwards of 20,000 private security contractors (i.e. mercenaries) in Iraq and growing, (2nd largest force behind the US military) and the military is continuously being privatized to this effect, who knows. Perhaps they can take over where the military leaves off. I am not sure, but I don't think any official tallies are kept on these numbers. That aside, the whole military privatization thing is troubling for the future implications. I recently watched a Frontline docu called 'Private Warriors' which I would recommend.

We also now have a report telling us that between 90-94% of those fighting the occupation are Iraqi citizens. At what point do they become considered rebels, revolutionaries? The British considered American insurgents as terrorists as well.

Bush is fully aware of the growing problems with his little pet project, which is why he is increasingly looking like a 'deer in the headlights' when in public. He's lost his arrogant swagger and looks pretty lost lately. This has some to do with Katrina I am sure, but it started well before that. Perhaps he truly has fallen of the wagon.

As an aside, what do you make of the British soldiers who were caught in Arab garb firing at Iraqi police officers in Basra? Surely brings to the forefront something that has had me wondering for a while concerning the attacks on Iraqi civilians. Who benefits? What are the possibilities that certain defense contractors would prefer a Civil War and/or an escalation in hostilities? Does the old addage "Divide and Conquer" come into play here?

I know this is all merely speculation, but it seems to fit, and thus I have my suspicions.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Well, the situation in Iraq is very complicated, and is becoming more and more so every day (instead of becoming simpler and easier).

Besides a growing "unrest" (if you prefer, rebellion) among the civilian Iraqi's, there is something else heating up in Iraq, that is being totally ignored right now - the Kurds.

There is a war going on in Turkey right now, between the Kurds and the Turks. It is an actual war, although I think most in official places would like to call it more along the lines of "terrorists" (the favorite word of the day). Now that they have Iraq to the South to base their main military operations from (and the borders are semi-protected by the Americans, of all things!), it is becoming quite a problem.

I saw some actual footage (a german team did some reportage from the "front" there in Turkey - I don't know how they managed to do it - pretty gutsy stuff!) of a "skirmish" between Turkish troops and Kurdish militants. It was pretty sobering.

I think things are going to start "cementing" in Iraq - after all, it takes awhile (years) before a resistance gets going, and before it can really get grass roots support from the civilians. We have seen this in every conflict of that nature since human memory.

It depends on whether or not we are still in Iraq, when these events start to escalate. If we are, we will only have the option of escalating in turn (this is called reacting) - not a good situation to be in (as we learned in Vietnam). I'm hoping that we start exiting Iraq next year. It might be a pipe dream, but I really don't see anything else that we can be doing that is constructive there - not anymore. Staying longer is just contributing to the dislike against us among the populance. When that reaches critical mass, or a crisis ignites it, then we will have an escalation on our hands.

quote:

---

Besides a growing "unrest" (if you prefer, rebellion) among the civilian Iraqi's, there is something else heating up in Iraq, that is being totally ignored right now - the Kurds.

---

I can honestly say that I have heard very little with regard to this. Basically, all I am hearing is that there have been clashes between Turkish authorities and groups being classified in the media as "Kurdish separatist guerillas".

I'll have to take your word on this for now. I hope you are wrong and this does not escalate.

With regard to things "cementing", can't argue there. I'd like to see us out of there ASAP. Pipe dream indeed though. Either way, stay or leave, I don't see things improving.

On the Frontline docu I linked to above (you can watch it online), the permanancy of the bases that have been set up is all too apparent and truly troubling. They are not being called permenent bases though, but "enduring" bases. More rhetorical spin.

Another disturbing aspect, and one contributing factors of our failure I am sure, is that the military is doing just as they did in Vietnam, closing themselves off from the public in these massive facilities. Not necessarily a choice now, but it does not help with image when your military is living in luxury on these KBR-run bases, have full power, water, choice meals ($20 a plate), video games, Subway franchises, etc. and the Iraqis are ... well ... not doing so hot.

I do not know if things were like this when you were in service, but it was really an eye opener as well as appalling.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Where is the reality of this attempt?

Of all of the history of US intervention(s), why is that many people revert back to the Vietnam war?

Why, because too many people who disagree with this action, are more than willing to compare, (Vietnam=Failure), to this action(Iraq=Failure).

Why is this posted by many?

Because it is EASY.
Because it is SIMPLE.

And because it is a memory engrained into the psyche of the majority of americans.

Therefore it's the easy way to show others, based on the trivial comparisons to the V-War, that the US's actions in Iraq is a failure, and WRONG.

Unlike myself, does anyone deal with South Vietnam, as well as South Korea?

Trust me, they are better off, after TIME has passed.

B Patient chums!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

Donald Rumsfeld was giving the President his daily briefing. He concluded by saying ?Yesterday, three Brazilian soldiers were killed in conflict in Iraq.?

?OH NO!? the President exclaimed. ?That?s terrible!?
Rumsfeld sat stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sat, head in hands.

Finally, the President looked up and asked??

?How many is a Brazillion??

The proseution rests m'lud.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Unlike myself, does anyone deal with South Vietnam, as well as South Korea?

Trust me, they are better off, after TIME has passed.

---

You call the death of millions better?

You are a strange person.

Second, how would you know if they are better off? You have no idea of how they would have been had there not been wars there.

As for South Korea, they may be enjoying a better standard of living than North Korea, etc, but believe me, the psyche of the land is really torn in two. I think you need to ask Master Suho about this (he lives in South Korea). And that war is still going on!

Anyway, Korea /= Vietnam.

Korea was a war. Vietnam was a regional conflict. Two different things, entirely. Korea is an international effort, through the UN. Vietnam was not.

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-30-2005 07:46)

quote:

---

Korea was a war

---

But not 'technically'.... correct? What was it it... the marshall plan... or something... it's late I'm tired brain no working.... good nite. =)

This helps a bit, to put both military actions in perspective Korean and Vietnamese Wars

There really was a war between North and South Korea - but I don't think the US actually declared war. The US lead the UN force that tried to keep the "peace" between the two warring factions. The war between North and South continues to this day.

Zynx: Quit stealing my old rhetoric. You are totally freaking me out now.

WS: The last actual declared war was WWII. Since then, all the foreign conflicts we have fought in have been illegal, at least in a strict constitutional sense.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Unlike myself, does anyone deal with South Vietnam, as well as South Korea?Trust me, they are better off, after TIME has passed.

---

quote:

---

You call the death of millions better?

---

Could you possibly STOP perpetuating your worst ideas of The Vietnam war, onto me, before asking me?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

Zynx: Quit stealing my old rhetoric. You are totally freaking me out now.

---

RAM, If I have stolen anything let me know, as I don't think I have! Of course I do see your jokularity with your post, and so I can only say, that perhaps MENSA people think alike?
Z.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

Could you possibly STOP perpetuating your worst ideas of The Vietnam war, onto me, before asking me?

---

Those are cold hard facts. I haven't perpetuated anything onto you.

If you say that Vietnam and South Korea are "better off" because of warfare, you can't snidely "slip" by the "little" fact that millions died during the conflicts themselves (on all sides).

And you need to seriously research the Vietnam war - because it is no way similar to the Korean war.

quote:

---

I haven't perpetuated anything onto you.

---

I was comparing WARS with Vietnam & Iraq, based on FAILURE.

quote:

---

, are more than willing to compare, (Vietnam=Failure), to this action(Iraq=Failure).

---

Then I asked;

quote:

---

Unlike myself, does anyone deal with South Vietnam, as well as South Korea? Trust me, they are better off, after TIME has passed.

---

So this comparison was about the after-effects OF war, NOT a comparison of their individual wars.

quote:

---

If you say that Vietnam and South Korea are "better off" because of warfare, you can't snidely "slip" by the "little" fact that millions died during the conflicts themselves (on all sides).

---

I can, and will. I say this because I have had many personal communications with peope from these countries. And the overall idea, is that while it took millions to gain freedom, it is far better to lose millions to gain nothing!

quote:

---

And you need to seriously research the Vietnam war - because it is no way similar to the Korean war.

---

Again I never asked, nor stated the comparision of WARS, between these 2 countries. I only wished to show that the end result of EACH countries losses, was a eventual, time-passed, positive outcome.

And this is one view I have of the Iraq conflict.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

(Edited by Zynx on 10-06-2005 02:22)

quote:

---

I can, and will. I say this because I have had many personal communications with peope from these countries. And the overall idea, is that while it took millions to gain freedom, it is far better to lose millions to gain nothing!

---

What did they gain? Are you still under the impression that wars, particularly when speaking of modern American wars, are fought for "freedom" and "democracy"?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

What did they gain? Are you still under the impression that wars, particularly when speaking of modern American wars, are fought for "freedom" and "democracy"?

---

No Ram I don't consider that they are fought for such lofty ideals, but I'm sure the spirit is there.

And if I'm coming off misunderstood, I'm sorry. I'm still trying, and I appreciate your candor.

I talk to many Japanese at my work, and the younger generation just won't talk about their country's past. They feel ashamed, and would rather let it pass into history, and celebrate what they have. Those in Vietnam are also a bit closed to discuss the issue. Although I sense that they feel it justified for what they have, compared to what their parents went through. As for Korea, they feel a bit empowered to what their country went through. They feel stronger for what happened, and seeing how weak the North is, when it comes to the simple things in life. Food, shelter, and help amongst your neighbors. Many many northerners tempt fate to make it to the south. Not unlike Mexicans coming to the US. And even involving other countries to have their familys re-united after the separation.

Ever heard of Shiri'? It's a Korean movie about a northern chinese infiltrator who is trained to kill both the N&S leaders. She goes to Japan for a face change, then re-enters Korea, to start the project of death. She falls for a South Korean cop. And therin lies the rub. North loving South and vice-versa. Now the name Shiri' is for a fish cut off from the South after the separation. The North sliced into, and changed the rivers direction so that it no longer made it to the south for spawning. Before Shiri, Titanic was the highest grossing movie in Korea. Shiri almost double that! A Korean movie that barely made it to the US in DVD rental, made more money in Korean theaters than Titanic, including Titanic dvd rentals in Korea!

So overall what I see is these countries who have gone through wars, seem to come out of them better off when they went in. Of course it takes years and years, and generations to change the ways of thinking, that cascade throughout business, and poilitics.

Of course this doesn't happen with ALL conflicts, but it does exist. At least from what I have asked, and heared. Maybe I've only been told the minority of that opinion. Not sure. But, "the ends justify the means", is not always an altogether false statement with war.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

So overall what I see is these countries who have gone through wars, seem to come out of them better off when they went in. Of course it takes years and years, and generations to change the ways of thinking, that cascade throughout business, and poilitics.

---

We have no idea how the countries would have turned out, without the wars, Zynx. In the case of South Korea, we can look to the North, and make somewhat of a comparison - which I think isn't too far from how it might have turned out. However, I have no idea what Korea was like before that - maybe Master Suho will grace us with his knowledge.

But Vietnam is totally different! Remember, we actually fought against the North. And the North eventually succeeded in conquering the South (after we pulled out). In Korea, it is still ongoing. The war there is still going - it is just in a cease fire (that has been broken repeatedly).

The Vietnam War served no purpose, as one can see, other than to kill millions.

And if you are really saying that Vietnam has turned out better...?? Better than what?! Better than it was before (a colony of France, then invaded by the Japanese in WWII, then again a colony of France, then attacked by the US) - ok, well, I guess them fighting for their Freedom WAS a good thing (as it did succeed)!

But had the US not "intervined", then it would have become as it is now, without all the millions dead (not to mention all the areas that were littered with explosives, Agent Orange, etc).

I beleive that in the case of Vietnam, it would have been better off without the war, personally.

But Vietnam in that sense, then, has absolutely NO simularity to Iraq. Iraq is not "fighting for it's Freedom", or the right to rule itself.