US Iraq death toll 'hits 3,000' (1 Viewer)

[jujuman13]

Death is death, whether it happens to 3000 US servicemen and women or Saddam Hussein or 600,000 Iraqi civillians and a few Terrorists.
To stop this slaughter, meaningful idea's are needed.
This means that some intelligence has to be brought into being to solve the problem and engage the average Iraqi into recognising that US / Iraqi policy is best.
Link
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | US Iraq death toll 'hits 3,000'

 

[cherokee]

Death is death, whether it happens to 3000 US servicemen and women or Saddam Hussein or 600,000 Iraqi civillians and a few Terrorists.
To stop this slaughter, meaningful idea's are needed.
This means that some intelligence has to be brought into being to solve the problem and engage the average Iraqi into recognising that US / Iraqi policy is best.
Link
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | US Iraq death toll 'hits 3,000'

They are killing themselves right now in the name of allah.
Nothing you say will stop them. Its the way of Islam.

 

[Skip]

They are killing themselves right now in the name of allah.
Nothing you say will stop them. Its the way of Islam.

*Sigh*... It's not the way of Islam. They are radicals, much like those who founded the Jesus Camp. They do not speak for the mainstream religion of Islam.

 

[Cold Dirt]

*Sigh*... It's not the way of Islam. They are radicals, much like those who founded the Jesus Camp. They do not speak for the mainstream religion of Islam.

BS....are you a Moslim? If not, then how the hell do you know for sure.......you think you know their inner beliefs just because maybe you know a couple?

Yes I thought I knew and trusted one once, he tried to lead my squad into an ambush.

Also tell me if its only radical Moslims, then why are there more wars being fought in the name of Islam around the world than in any of religion name? Could it be that the is a majority of believers are radicals that follow the religion? Why are there so many terrorist attacks with Moslims groups claiming responsibility?

You dont know jack **** about Moslims other than its PC to think you do.......

 

[cherokee]

*Sigh*... It's not the way of Islam. They are radicals, much like those who founded the Jesus Camp. They do not speak for the mainstream religion of Islam.

Sorry I don’t see it like that. If as you and others say its a peaceful religion then why do you allow the few...:roll: ...to be the spokesmen for the religion as a whole? Why wont the peaceful Muslims stand against the so called few militants?.. hmmm?
I don’t know much about the “Jesus camp” but I do know if they teach the hate Islam does ALL will stand in public, arm in arm against them.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | US Iraq death toll 'hits 3,000'

Don't let Kidrocks fool you. He will not be celebrating the new year tonight. This news brings him far more joy.

 

[Inuyasha]

They are killing themselves right now in the name of allah.
Nothing you say will stop them. Its the way of Islam.

I don't know if it is the "way of Islam" or not but it certainly is the "way of the Arabs". A couple of months ago I saw after many years "Lawrence of Arabia" again and this fueled me to look a little deeper into the life and writings of T. E. Lawrence. This man was certainly one of the westerners who knew the Arabs better than anyone else including many in the present time. Lawrence had a great respect and a deep understanding of the Arabs and went very deeply into the culture of these people. But we seem to have paid little heed to his observations and his innate knowledge of the different tribes.

Yet for all his admiration for these people he is far more a realist than those who followed him. Throughout his writings while he praises the Arabs highly he mentions more than a few times their inability to unite and function as a single body. He often expresses the idea that this is thier weakest point and this is proved over and over again endless times since Lawrence went there almost 90 years ago. In essence hardly anything has changed as as his correspondence with Prince Feisal indicates even the Arabs themselves realize that they are far more violent and barbaric than other peoples and incapable of any sort of lasting union. Feisal himself laments that the days of ME (Arab?) glory are gone and the Arabs have descended into anarchy because of tribal squabbles and lack of education and discipline.

Saddam is gone but i think it will not be long before other Saddams pop up somewhere in the Arab world. I do not believe that we will ever see anything like democracy in that part of the world. I am speaking of the Arabs not the Iranians, the Turks or the Kurds. They may have thier problems but they are nothing compared to the Arabs IMO. If we are in that part of the world for any practical reason at all it must be for oil or something similar but not with the idea of teaching these people different ways. I believe that that is doomed to failure. I wonder how much the Westerners leading the charge here have studied Lawrence. probably not very much at all. one would think that the Brits had learned something by this time but it appears they have not

Here is an interesting site on TE Lawrence for those who are interested.

telawrence.info home page

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

I'm already noticing some mild name calling and posters not even involved in this thread being brought up. Let's cool it and keep things on topic.

 

[Gibberish]

BS....are you a Moslim? If not, then how the hell do you know for sure.......you think you know their inner beliefs just because maybe you know a couple?

You think they have some secret teachings that no one in the world knows about but Muslims? Read a book, you don't need to be Muslim to know every aspect of the Muslim religion.

Yes I thought I knew and trusted one once, he tried to lead my squad into an ambush.

BS on so many levels.

Also tell me if its only radical Moslims, then why are there more wars being fought in the name of Islam around the world than in any of religion name? Could it be that the is a majority of believers are radicals that follow the religion? Why are there so many terrorist attacks with Moslims groups claiming responsibility?

Are you trying to say that 1.3 billion Muslims in the world want everyone to die? Do you have any proof other then the actions of a few thousand?

You dont know jack **** about Moslims other than its PC to think you do.......

Try learning more about Muslims other then what Pat Robertson tells you.

 

[Cold Dirt]

You think they have some secret teachings that no one in the world knows about but Muslims? Read a book, you don't need to be Muslim to know every aspect of the Muslim religion.


BS on so many levels.


Are you trying to say that 1.3 billion Muslims in the world want everyone to die? Do you have any proof other then the actions of a few thousand?


Try learning more about Muslims other then what Pat Robertson tells you.

I see, because you don't know jack about Muslims you are going to attack my military service? Typical liberal........

Buddy, I have spent 26 months dealing with Muslims in Iraq from all walks of life.....to be honest, many are just normal people trying to live their life's, but I have also seen and heard how they talk to each other when they don't think we can understand what is being said.......so until you have lived, ate and slept with these people and not just something you have read in a book...you don't know jack **** other than what someone has spoon fed you.......

 

[Inuyasha]

Again I refer to the observations of Lawrence and submit that it is more of an Arab thing than a "Muslim" thing and for the reasons that Lawrence lays of with clarity. The proof of this to me is the fact that Iraq is not really a nation but an invention of the British and other European powers. Afghanistan is a similar case with loyalties going to tribal chieftains rather than to a "nation". Two perfect examples of the failure at "nation building" as conceived by the western powers. We (the US) are in a sense victims of something that while it is not our doing we follow with out thinking of the consequences or paying any attention to history.

 

[Gibberish]

I see, because you don't know jack about Muslims you are going to attack my military service? Typical liberal........

I attack the thought that someone agreed to openly follow a unknown person and potential enemy into an ambush. I would hope our military intelligence is better then to lead into those types of scenarios. If hoping our military has actual intelligence and is not trying to openly send soldiers to a potential slaughter makes me a liberal then I would hate what a conservative thinks, run in guns blazing?

Buddy, I have spent 26 months dealing with Muslims in Iraq from all walks of life.....to be honest, many are just normal people trying to live their life's, but I have also seen and heard how they talk to each other when they don't think we can understand what is being said.......so until you have lived, ate and slept with these people and not just something you have read in a book...you don't know jack **** other than what someone has spoon fed you.......

You are an inspiration. You have no idea who or what I am but you somehow know exactly what kind of education I have on Islam?

Let's see. I have been to Israel twice and Iraq once. I am a student of theology and one of my closest friends (who is Muslim) fled from Iraq in the middle of the night with his family (who happen to be my neighbors now) back in the mid 90's. So talking with them and hearing their stories over the past 8 years I think I have been "spoon fed" from a variety of sources.

It is pointless arguing on who knows what and who's experience's are the true ones. In the end we simply have different experiences. I meet Muslims in normal friendly environments and you meet them in war zones when they are either radicals and shooting at you or like most Muslims and cleaning up their house that just blew up from the latest bombing. It's no surprise on which situation will lead to a more civilized and friendly meeting.

 

[Caine]

BS....are you a Moslim? If not, then how the hell do you know for sure.......you think you know their inner beliefs just because maybe you know a couple?

And... what exactly makes you an expert on this subject????!?!?!?!?!?

Yes I thought I knew and trusted one once, he tried to lead my squad into an ambush.

That is your problem right there. You were in the heart of the radical side of Islam.

Also tell me if its only radical Moslims, then why are there more wars being fought in the name of Islam around the world than in any of religion name? Could it be that the is a majority of believers are radicals that follow the religion? Why are there so many terrorist attacks with Moslims groups claiming responsibility?

Also, tell me if its only radical Christians, then why were there more wars being fought and territory being claimed and people being enslaved in the name of Jesus Christ around the world than in any other religion's name in the period of 500ad-1700ad???? Could it be that the majority of believers were radicals that followed the religion? Why were there so many christian conquistadors ready to convert others or kill them off in the name of Jesus Christ?

You dont know jack **** about Moslims other than its PC to think you do.......

And what exactly do you know about them Mr. Guts and Danger?

 

[Misfit]

Well, all I can say is one death without justification is one too many.

 

[Goobieman]

Death is death, whether it happens to 3000 US servicemen and women or Saddam Hussein or 600,000 Iraqi civillians and a few Terrorists.

2467 combat deaths. Non-coimbat deaths are lower than they were before the war.

To stop this slaughter, meaningful idea's are needed.

2467 KIA
1385 days
1.8 KIA/day
Slaughter?

 

[Gibberish]

2467 KIA
1385 days
1.8 KIA/day
Slaughter?

That's a nice way to scew the numbers in a positive light.

3253 Military dead in Iraq (All allied forces)
52473 Iraqi civilian deaths
1385 days
40 deaths per day.
Slaughter?

Oh and roughly 46,880 wounded.

An acquaintance of mine got back from Iraq two weeks ago. He died three days ago from a rare blood disease he got in Iraq after becoming wounded in action. When they found out he had the disease he was sent back home for tests. I doubt he's considered KIA.

 

[Goobieman]

That's a nice way to scew the numbers in a positive light.

Excuse me -- what's the title of the topic?
US Iraq death toll 'hits 3,000'
Given that, what relevance is there in the other deaths?

3253 Military dead in Iraq (All allied forces)
52473 Iraqi civilian deaths
1385 days
40 deaths per day.
Slaughter?

I see you lack perspective.

Battle of the Bulge
16 DEC 1944 - 25 JAN 19445
40 days
19000 KIA (US) 16343 KIA (German)
475 KIA/day (US) 409 KIA/Day (German)
883 KIA/day total

Compared to that, even with your numbers, what you characterize as a 'slaughter" is actually a miniscule backwater sideshow.

An acquaintance of mine got back from Iraq two weeks ago. He died three days ago from a rare blood disease he got in Iraq after becoming wounded in action. When they found out he had the disease he was sent back home for tests. I doubt he's considered KIA.

Presuming for the moment that your wild speculation here is right and that he wasnt lised as KIA - its because he -wasnt- killed in action.

 

[Gibberish]

Excuse me -- what's the title of the topic?
US Iraq death toll 'hits 3,000'
Given that, what relevance is there in the other deaths?

I didn't see only KIA in the title either.

I see you lack perspective.

Battle of the Bulge
16 DEC 1944 - 25 JAN 19445
40 days
19000 KIA (US) 16343 KIA (German)
475 KIA/day (US) 409 KIA/Day (German)
883 KIA/day total

Compared to that, even with your numbers, what you characterize as a 'slaughter" is actually a miniscule backwater sideshow.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know we were comparing death tolls to one of the worst battles in history. Well hell, let's step up the killing then we are not even close to competing.

Hell why we are at it Iraq civilian deaths aren't even close to the few million jewish civilians that died in WW2 so we should be able to kill at least a few more hundred thousand before we start feeling bad.

Thats because he -wasnt- killed in action.

No he wasn't. So it would seem, according to you, that his death is not worth listing since he happened to die later instead of at the exact moment of being wounded.

 

[Goobieman]

I didn't see KIA in the title either.

Non-combat deaths cannot be directly attributed to our presence in Iraq -- military people die in accidents all the time, and the non-combat death rate in Iraq (0.38/day) is considerably lower than the stateside non-combat death rate in the US before the war (1.65/day 1990-1999).

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know we were comparing death tolls to one of the worst battles in history. Well hell, let's step up the killing then we are not even close to competing.

Given that you're trying to portray Iraq as a slauhgter, I thought I'd just lend some persepctive to your hyperbolic melodrama. You dont need to like it, but there it is.

If Iraq is a slaughter, how then would you describe the Battle of the Bulge?

No he wasn't.

Hmm. In your fist post, you said you "doubt" that he was listed as KIA.
Now, you're certain of it?

So it would seem, according to you, that his death is not worth listing

Its pretty sad when you can only make your point by putting words in my mouth.

...since he happened to die later instead of at the exact moment of being wounded.

He wasnt KIA because, accrding to the story you laid out, he didn't die of his wounds but because of a complication that was not a direct result of said wounds -- the implication on your story, had there been no such complication, he would have survived. Again, you don't have to like it, but if the story you present is true, then he was not KIA.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Well, all I can say is one death without justification is one too many.

How very noble, thought-provoking and new age of you. Time to go study history now. War stinks but has always been necessary.

 

[Gibberish]

Given that you're trying to portray Iraq as a slauhgter, I thought I'd just lend some persepctive to your hyperbolic melodrama. You dont need to like it, but there it is.

If Iraq is a slaughter, how then would you describe the Battle of the Bulge?

When did I say Iraq was a slaughter? I was merely commenting on the convenience of you picking and choosing what adds to 'US Iraq death toll' and what does not. I was stating all US military deaths, no matter if KIA or not should be counted.

Hmm. In your fist post, you said you "doubt" that he was listed as KIA. Now, you're certain of it?

I of course do not know for certain but given that he died due to complications from his wounds received in battle I would assume that does not qualify as "Killed in Action" but more as a mortally wounded in action. Which you obviously do not see fit to list as a "US Iraq death" according to your previous post.

He wasnt KIA because, accrding to the story you laid out, he didn't die of his wounds but because of a complication that was not a direct result of said wounds -- the implication on your story, had there been no such complication, he would have survived. Again, you don't have to like it, but if the story you present is true, then he was not KIA.

I never said he should be labeled KIA. He obviously wasn't killed in action since he died in a hospital in San Diego. No need to elaborate on something I already agree with.

 

[Goobieman]

When did I say Iraq was a slaughter?

If you can't be honest with me, at least try to be honest with yourself.
What, if not that Iraq -is- a slaughter, were you trying to argue when you posted:

3253 Military dead in Iraq (All allied forces)
52473 Iraqi civilian deaths
1385 days
40 deaths per day.
Slaughter?

And again: if Iraq is a slaughter, what then was the Battle of the Bulge?

I of course do not know for certain

I see. Going back to your original level of certitude... :roll:

but given that he due to complications from his wounds received in battle I would assume that does not qualify as "Killed in action" but more as a mortally wounded in battle.

The latter category does not exist.
KIA is a death due to the direct result of hostile action. His death was not a direct result of hostile action, and as such, does not qualify as KIA.

Which you obviously do not see fit to list as a "US Iraq death" according to your previous post.

For the perfectly legitimate reasons previously mentioned.

 

[Gibberish]

If you can't be honest with me, at least try to be honest with yourself.
What, if not that Iraq -is- a slaughter, were you trying to argue when you posted:

The slaughter part had nothing to do with my post. What has to do with my post was exactly what I said originally "That's a nice way to scew the numbers in a positive light.", which obviously was directed at you picking and choosing what qualifies as a "US death in Iraq". My initial response was in remark of you cherry picking what US deaths in Iraq qualify as a US death in Iraq.

And again: if Iraq is a slaughter, what then was the Battle of the Bulge?

and again with trying to make it seem as if I said Iraq was a slaughter. Can't you focus on what I'm actually arguing and stop making things up?

I see. Going back to your original level of certitude... :roll:

No I just don't claim to be an expert on official military death categorizing. I have no problem admitting when I am making assumptions or expressing opinion. I understand that everything I think is not blatant fact, and everyone else must obviously be wrong.

The latter category does not exist.
KIA is a death due to the direct result of hostile action. His death was not a direct result of hostile action, and as such, does not qualify as KIA.

Again with the definition. Let me clarify for the third time in hopes you will understand, HE WAS NOT KIA. His death was due to complications from wounds received during a hostile action.

I take a US military death as a US military death. If a US soldier dies due to wounds received in battle then I say just that. I don't say he is "uncategorized" and should not be listed in the US death toll simply because he happened to not die IN the battle.

 

[Goobieman]

The slaughter part had nothing to do with my post.

And it had everything to do with mine.
Why are you trying to change the subject?
Is Iraq a "slaughter" or not?

My initial response was in remark of you cherry picking what US deaths in Iraq qualify as a US death in Iraq.

And I explained to you why my chosen terminology and the figures derived from them is correct and relevant.

 

[Gibberish]

And it had everything to do with mine.
Why are you trying to change the subject?
Is Iraq a "slaughter" or not?

As you have pointed out when compared to violent historical battles, it is not.

And I explained to you why my chosen terminology and the figures derived from them is correct and relevant.

Correct, relevant, and incomplete. The thread is for "Us Iraq death toll" not "US Iraq military KIA deaths".

I find it rather disappointing that you freely throw aside all those soldiers who have died due to their service in this war and categorize them as less important as their compatriots who happen to die during a specific battle.