Actual US Military casuality numbers since 1980

[Lyion]

Amazingly enough, reason 21412352315 why Iraq is not Vietnam.

Actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you will find quite a few surprises. First of all, let’s compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones).

The military is not the safest of professions, but its interesting when you pull away the spin.

[Minrott]

wtf 10,000 dead under Reagan? I must have forgotten a war or something.

[Phlegm]

Is this from combat or did they also included accidental deaths and other type of deaths?

[Phlegm]

Amazingly enough, reason 21412352315 why Iraq is not Vietnam.

Actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you will find quite a few surprises. First of all, let’s compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones).

The military is not the safest of professions, but its interesting when you pull away the spin.

What happened between 1997 and 2000?

[Lyion]

First of all, let’s compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.

[Arlos]

It doesn't require equal numbers of deaths to be another Vietnam. US enters war on false pretenses, proves its incompetance at being able to keep peace or rebuild a country, propping up a government that is wholly dependent upon us, and keeping a military presence that is despised by a large segment of the civilian population is plenty. As the ex Reagan NSA head in the article I posted said, everyone is arguing right now about the tactical minutia of the war, without ever looking at the original strategic decisions involved, that are what is really fucking us.

-Arlos

[mofish]

Every soldier killed in Iraq has died in vain. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

[Minrott]

that is despised by a large segment of the civilian population

Oh bullshit Arlos. Say what you want and I wish all our troops were home too but you guys can't tell me this for a second, since all 40+ people I know who've come back from there tell me opposite.

[Lyion]

The sectarian violence is to be expected and will be there. It is not a deal breaker, and has always existed in all the middle eastern countries. Its just the media perpetuates bullshit instead of the truth, especially to those who don't understand the region

The situation on the ground has not been nearly as grim as the media and the DNC moonbats like Barbara Boxer and Howard Dean who are morbidly gleeful for failure just for political sake. Amazingly, the unbiased military leadership tells it like it is, but you won't see that on CNN or NBC.

Its too bad the mainstream media is sitting in their hotels not reporting the truth, just the occasional IED explosion and skirmish. Then again, what does one expect from them?

The truth is found by following people like Michael Yon and those who know the real story and are out. Not those in hotels with agendas who solely care about politics.

Iraq is no Vietnam. Al Qaeda is and was in Iraq.

The Hitchens article I posted called it as it is.

Twenty years from now W will be considered an awesome President. Just like Reagan is up there.

[mofish]

Yeah cause Im sure defenseless Iraqi people will tell American soldiers with weapons to their faces they want them to leave.

Enlightened Iraqis want us to stay. the other 80% of the population wants us to leave so the real war can start and a new dictator can take over. I wonder if the new Saddam/Khomenei will thank all the dead American soldiers that made his ascendence possible?

[mofish]

The sectarian violence is to be expected and will be there. It is not a deal breaker, and has always existed in all the middle eastern countries. Its just the media perpetuates bullshit instead of the truth, especially to those who don't understand the region

The situation on the ground has not been nearly as grim as the media and the DNC moonbats like Barbara Boxer and Howard Dean who are morbidly gleeful for failure just for political sake. Amazingly, the unbiased military leadership tells it like it is, but you won't see that on CNN or NBC.

Its too bad the mainstream media is sitting in their hotels not reporting the truth, just the occasional IED explosion and skirmish. Then again, what does one expect from them?

The truth is found by following people like Michael Yon and those who know the real story and are out. Not those in hotels with agendas who solely care about politics.

Iraq is no Vietnam. Al Qaeda is and was in Iraq.

The Hitchens article I posted called it as it is.

Twenty years from now W will be considered an awesome President. Just like Reagan is up there.

Haha. W considered an awesome president? Keep lying to yourself.

And thanks for the classic media-is-to-blame GOP response to criticism of the war. Doesnt it get old parroting the same falsehiood over and over though? Maybe come up with something new?

[Arlos]

To quote from my earlier posting:

[quote]Phase One in Iraq, the run-up to the invasion, looks remarkably similar. Broodings about the “necessityâ€

[Lyion]

Because, you know, an IED is more important than any other news.

Are you saying NBC, CNN, etc do not sit in the green zone and regurgitate Al Jazeera stories versus seeking the truth? Are we really getting the full story in Iraq?

Amazingly 20 years ago far left wing people proclaimed how bad history would make Reagan look. Except for those who are instep with the revolutionaries who hated George Washington, Reagan is considered one of the greatests presidents ever by most everyone else.

[Arlos]

Nice job ignoring my post, Lyion. I'm not talking about the media, or what NBC, CNN, etc are doing. I'm quoting from a geopolitical expert, who was director of the NSA for your loverboy Reagan, who was a middle-east expert before that, and who was senior staff in the army DURING Vietnam.

And he's saying the Iraq war is exactly paralleling vietnam, and is a foolish waste. Care to respond, and in a logical manner, with actual logic and backing as to why you're right and he's wrong? Skip the 1-liner dismissive Mindia/Harrisonism-type idiocy, please.

BTW, George Washington was the first president because he was the only person with the respect of all sides, and the ability to compromise and build consensus with all parties. That is just about the diametric opposite of President Shrub, wouldn't you say?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Except I was discussing the media with Mofish, and I posted my response to him before your greatest hits of Arlos repost was up.

Washington had a small bloc that despised and hated him, and posted lots of propaganda. In fact, that's just like W.

I personally don't see how a war where we lost 58,000, never had a real on ground tactical advantage, and were in an overall cold war fight to boot can be compared to Iraq, with it's terror war strikes and IED attacks that are not stopping the vast majority of the country from moving towards stability every day.

I am concerned with the governmental issues and the slow march it is taking, but that is a speed bump and not the nuclear bomb it is often represented as.

Based on the nominal level of military casualities, which are a fact of life due to the dangers of being in the military, I'd say its safe to say Iraq is no Vietnam.

Iraqs issues are political and factional. Al Sistani still supports our process and the signs do appear that we will start drawing down later this year. This is much different than Vietnam where we ramped up and were in a staredown with communism and it's vast empire.

As Al Zarqawi is forced to address Israel due to its bigger presence currently in the zealout front, I think this will thin his limited resources and I believe things will look up for our efforts in Iraq over the next year.

[Arlos]

OK, so you're saying you don't understand the guy's arguments? Or that you disagree because it makes you feel better?

Casualties are not the be-all and end-all of strategic realities. Not to mention, I am curious to see 2nd term casualty figures as well, I am guessing you left them off for a reason, probably because they reflect badly on your beloved president Shrub. Who, by the way, has a very LARGE bloc that despises and hates him, and posts less propaganda than he does. Not to mention, at least their propaganda is above board, they don't resort to payola-type payouts to people for fake news stories that pretend to be real.

In any case, you did nothing whatsoever to refute his arguments, except trot out the casualty figures which I already said (and HE said were irrelevant issues when you're considering the stratetic geopolotical realities of the situation). Indeed, you are falling into the very trap he is railing against: arguing the minutae instead of looking at the larger picture.

So again, what evidence, beyond your unflagging optimism, do you have to refute his supported arguments? Cause if you're going to get into a know-peen measuring contest, I am gonna give it to him in a 1 round TKO, given his background compared to yours...

-Arlos

[Lyion]

It doesn't require equal numbers of deaths to be another Vietnam. US enters war on false pretenses

Just to add, recently declassified Iraqi Internal documents prove a direct link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Thats a pretty good and valid pretense to invade, not taking the intelligence that said there were WMDs, that while being inaccurate is hardly deceit as some hypocritically proclaim.

Er, W's second term isn't exactly over, which precludes comparison.

You trying to judge a liberal/moderate discussion is like putting Michael Moore on a political panel and expecting fairness. It aint gonna fly!

[Arlos]

Care to provide a link to a reputable report on said documents? No, postings in blogs don't count, nor does Nazi, I mean Fox News. How about the BBC, then, if you want to claim no US media would print such news. (which is fallacy, but that's neither here nor there.)

I personally believe that if there really WERE such documents, it would be plastered all over the news. Until I see reliable news reporting on same, I will accord such conjectures no weight whatsoever.

The reason that false intelligence on WMD is deceit is that the decision to invade was made irrespective of said documents. This administration had wanted to invade Iraq from the beginning, they merely lacked an excuse. That is the deceit, that they actually needed some other reason to look for war. The whole thing came from Cheney and the other Neo-Con PNAC crowd. They didn't see reports saying "Iraq Has WMD" and use that as a reason to invade, they WANTED to invade, and used said reports as their excuse and window dressing, because they thought it would get the best international play and support as a cause.

As for casualty figures, how does the first 1.5 years of SHrub's 2nd term stack up against similar time frames for Clinton & Reagan, or hell, how does it stack up against their 4 year totals? Betting even if you did that comparison, it'd still look bad for Shrub.

As for the competition judgement, did you just call General Odom a liberal? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, he's not a liberal, you insufferable fool. You merely wish to paint him as one because it reinforces your smug belief that only liberals are against the war, regardless of the realities of the situation.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Care to provide a link to a reputable report on said documents? No, postings in blogs don't count, nor does Nazi, I mean Fox News. How about the BBC, then, if you want to claim no US media would print such news. (which is fallacy, but that's neither here nor there.)

http://70.169.163.24/

The Government FMSO Documents

I personally believe that if there really WERE such documents, it would be plastered all over the news. Until I see reliable news reporting on same, I will accord such conjectures no weight whatsoever

.

What you believe is irrelevent. The documents are there.

The reason that false intelligence on WMD is deceit is that the decision to invade was made irrespective of said documents.

Proof for this? The documents and Intel do not agree with you, and Congress had access to the same information. On one hand you refuse to believe facts presented, but wholeheartedly support far left unsupported hearsay.

This administration had wanted to invade Iraq from the beginning, they merely lacked an excuse.

Again, pure speculative opinion. Are we arguing facts or DailyKos talking points?

That is the deceit, that they actually needed some other reason to look for war. The whole thing came from Cheney and the other Neo-Con PNAC crowd. They didn't see reports saying "Iraq Has WMD" and use that as a reason to invade, they WANTED to invade, and used said reports as their excuse and window dressing, because they thought it would get the best international play and support as a cause.

You've given no proof. There are no deceits. You just throw out far left bomb throwing rhetoric with no validity.

As for casualty figures, how does the first 1.5 years of SHrub's 2nd term stack up against similar time frames for Clinton & Reagan, or hell, how does it stack up against their 4 year totals? Betting even if you did that comparison, it'd still look bad for Shrub.

Given casualties in Iraq have fallen to their lowest point, probably fairly good. I don't have the info, but I'd bet they were similar.

Since I trust your ESP less than I trust blog sites, lets stick to the facts. You have presented none and merely relied on what you think the administration 'wanted' to do which is preposterous.

Zarqawi was in Iraq. Fact.

Every government thought Iraq had WMDs. Fact.

There is verified links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Fact.

Now, you can argue the implementation of the war, and the huge amount of mistakes, but the true deceit is the propaganda like what you are saying being falsely represented as fact. It ain't.

[Arlos]

From the FSMO website:

The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.

Since the government itself won't call the documents it's posting valid, you'll forgive me if I don't spring up singing hosannahs to you and the validity of your argument. I repeat, show me where a respectable news agency, ANYWHERE has reported on such documents. Name one.

Take a look now at some of the documents from PNAC themselves. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq_pdf_01.pdf is a good example. There are numerous other documents in their online archives that are all advocating the US going to war in Iraq and removing Saddam from power, going back to the mid-90s. Now, go look at http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm and see who the signatories are. They include: Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld, and even the president's brother, Jeb Bush. So lets see, we have people of major power and influence within the administration who have been calling for a war with Iraq for years before they came into power, and who then proceeded to do exactly that at the earliest possible moment at which they had an excuse... I dunno about you, but I can add 1 + 1 and get 2 just fine. Oh, and my opinion is backed up by O'Neill AND by Clarke. Clarke even said directly that the adminsitration was fitting intelligence to predetermined decisions.

As to your "facts"

On Zarqawi: Again, point me at reliable news organizations that claim this. Blogs and the Washington Times (which is run by the Moonies, actually) don't count.

On foreign governments and WMDs: Some believed he had WMDs, sure. Many others were unsure and didn't know, and demanded more time for inspectsion to occur, and actually believed the inspectors when they came back and said "We didn't find anything".

We already covered the non-links between Iraq and Al-Qaida earlier in this post.

And GUESS WHAT: You *STILL* haven't disputed a single one of the man's points, nor have you even *ADDRESSED* them. *THAT* is what I am asking you to do, and which you consistently dodge away from doing so, in an extraordinarily Mindia-esque manner.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Facts are still facts. Opinions are still opinion. Valid Intel is a bit different than pure speculation on what you feel our President or Vice President might have been thinking. A big difference.

Why would I respond to an editorialized opinion that is not really relevant to my original point? Sorry if you feel it's mindia-esque, but I find your tangent a bit Michael Mooreish.

[Arlos]

Your initial claim was the following:

Amazingly enough, reason 21412352315 why Iraq is not Vietnam.

I am refuting your assertion, and saying that Iraq *IS* like vietnam. I gave my reasons. You didn't want to believe my arguments.

So, I went and got arguments from a bonifide expert in the field, who was a middle east expert, NSA Director under your fav. Reagan, AND was senior military staff during Vietnam who *ALSO* says that Iraq IS like Vietnam.

Ergo, I have provided expert testimonial argument that further refutes your position.

Furthermore, you have utterly failed to provide any substantiation for the items you have declared to be "Facts". Sorry, but I do not take your word with no evidentiary backing that any of those things are in any way facts. I have repeatedly asked for proof of your assertions, you have repeatedly failed to provide any, while at the same time denigrating me for doing exactly what you are doing, which is most hypocritical and definitely Mindia-level argumentation tactics. Yet, I *HAVE* provided evidentiary backing for my assertions. (PNAC statements, membership lists, and 2 expert witnesses who support my position in the persons of O'Neill and Clarke)

You, on the other hand, have provided a link to a website that claims that the files it is posting have every chance to be fake or forged, and 2 "bloggers", which are in NO way acceptible backup, unless, possibly, one is an expert to the level of General Odom, in which case I'll read them, but I doubt significantly if they are.

So, how, exactly, do you still claim a leg to stand on for your initial assertion, if you have provided zero evidence, and done nothing to refute the statements of the expert who is refuting YOU?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

The simple truth is my point was about a comparison of military casualities. You simply brought up a completely different argument stating that casualties are really not a big part of war comparison, and then launched into the diatribe of 'fake war', 'Bush Lied', and everything else without a single strong fact to support your position, as I believe I have shown, even if you refuse to see any of my points.

Your article is an editorial without facts. It certainly is not a good comparison when looking at the casualties and the truth inside Iraq. 'Expert Opinions' are still just opinions. Biased documents remain so, and are not facts or a basis for argument or wnning a debate.

Since you seem to like this guy, I'll answer his editorial points which you have brought up against a simple factual truth,

Actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you will find quite a few surprises. First of all, let’s compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

That is pretty cut and dried.

Your boys post is not. Matter of fact, I don't see one fact or figure.

However, lets break down this, shall we?

[quote]Phase One in Iraq, the run-up to the invasion, looks remarkably similar. Broodings about the “necessityâ€

[kaharthemad]

here is a interesting game. I am going to give you 5 quotes I would like you to pin what leader said it and when.

1. "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."


2. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."


3. "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."


4. "Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

5. "No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."


Now here we go on names and dates.



















"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002


"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998


"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998








My main question for those that are opposed to this war is:
If your leaders supported this as far back as 98 what has changed since then?

Bush was not responsible for the CIA information that made it a pressing issue back then. The information that we had forced us into a war. When we found out that the WMD's had been moved(thats right moved since the SAREN gas that was found did not just magicaly appear on the streets of Baghdad) it was already too late, Saddahm was deposed. Leaving at that time would have created a power Vaccuum. You really think it would have been a idea to walk out where there was a possibility of Iran grabbing the country? You think death tolls of soldiers are bad the ethnic cleansing that would have taken place if Iran would have taken over would have made the 150,000 dead in Bosnia look like the Jonestown Massacre in comparison.


Would you consider a loss of 12000 troops, 2000 planes, and over 300 Naval ships during the start of a war, defeat? How about when i tell you the other side only lost 3500 soldiers, 900 planes, and 100 Naval ships?

Lets put you and the media we have today in this context, broadcasting from a hotel room.






Before you turn on the mic and satelite cellphone there Wolf Blitzer, this happened. It was the start of the US side of the German war. The Storming of Normandy. Had the current media been there and dumbshits like Ted Kennedy we would most likely would have heard a slanted side of the war where our troops were dying in the thousands to take 1500 yards of land.

[Ouchyfish]

/yawn

Lyion...go up to a stray dog, tell this stuff to it, and then you will have actually gotten somewhere. At least farther than you will EVER get with these "I hate dubya-I dont care how much good he can do, I hate him I HATE HIM I HATE HIM!!!!" folks here.