24 March 2008

4,000


Just sayin'

(Image credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

10 comments:

  1. Quite impressively low, by historical standards. And over 1000 less soldiers than were lost during the first five years of the Clinton presidency, somehow.

    Just saying, perspective is important.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You mean fewer deaths than at Antietam? Oh, well, that's OK then. Never mind.

    Also, you are either mindlessly parroting a talking point without reviewing the data, or you are shamelessly equating deaths from "accident, illness, homicide, and self-inflicted causes" with combat deaths. That's fucking reprehensible and you should be ashamed.

    Yes, the 4,000 figure is an arbitrary milestone and includes some deaths from accidents, too -- but to minimize those deaths of US servicemen and women really is shameful. Why don't you point out that more Americans die of suicide, too, while you're at it? I mean, perspective is important, right?

    Beneath contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not minimizing their deaths. You are USING their deaths for some sort of wishful political gain.

    That is contemptible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 4000 deaths is nothing .Anyway you slice it (yes including those at 9/11) . On the other hand 500 000 to 1 000 000+ of civilian iraqis death is very high . Not saying that it is all directly inflicted by US forces, but it is ALL a direct result of the invasion and instability caused by it.

    Now I know that conservatives do not consider any iraqi death worth discussing, but think about it when you call Hussein a bloody tyran .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Was it worth it to invade Iraq? The cost keeps going up, while the alleged benefits keep not materializing. Even with revised goals. I think that is the point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Read: http://aaronbuzzard.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/week-13-and-14-words-cant-describe/

    Or if you're short on time just read this excerpt:
    This is what these 3 men that died and the thousands
    of other are fighting to prevent. This is what the
    faces of the other 3 men who watched the bodies of
    their fellow soldiers being wheeled away were saying.
    If these guys can keep going back out there each day
    knowing and seeing what can happen to them, the least
    we can do for them is to give them what they need.
    And what they need from us is support and a unified
    America to do it. We can not give up, we can not
    quit, we must finish this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. FuturePA --

    Thanks for the link. It was a wrenching read, and very moving.

    I respectfully disagree with the conclusion the author reaches. He writes, "This enemy is the purest
    form of evil and must be stopped at all cost ... That means hunting them down and stopping them no matter how long it takes."

    While no rational person would disagree with "stopping them," the best method of doing so is at least unclear. Many people, myself included, believe that it is not possible to "hunt them all down." There is not a fixed pool of evil bad guys out there, and our presence and persistent combat operations attracts and creates more violence and more perpetrators of violence than there would otherwise be. I respect and greatly admire the dedication and perseverance of our fighting men and women; their commitment to the mission should not preclude our policymakers from reconsidering the strategic goals and methods of that mission.

    I can also tell you that I have some personal friends who served as ER docs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I will not try to speak for them but there is significant diversity of opinion among them as to whether this mission makes sense and has clear and achievable objectives.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for entertaining the thoughts of Dr. Buzzard.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here’s a useful test to determine if you are truly anti-war or just a shallow, cynical poser:

    If you were silent while tens of thousands of innocent Serbs and Kosovars were being incinerated by Slick Willie and General “collateral damage” Clark, you are not anti-war. You are, instead, someone whose "principles" change depending on political fashion, and you do not deserve to be taken seriously as a thinking person.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Catron,

    Once again you offer a false choice. I am not and have never claimed to be a Quaker or any other absolute pacifist. In fact, I supported going into Afghanistan.

    I'm not bellicose, but I'm not completely against war. I'm just against dumb wars with no strategic benefit.

    ReplyDelete