Did anyone really die for us in Iraq?

Now I am not certain about this, but I would guess I am correct...

First off, what is the percentage of US soldiers that died in Iraq since the "war" started? What is the total amount of US soldiers sent there? I know somewhere under 1000 died and there were 100's of thousands sent there.

Now lets consider how many soldiers die IN the US while on base or on leave, etc. My guess is more died that did not even go to Iraq from natural things, drugs, etc.

I understand that the people that did die in Iraq did die for us. I know they did that. What I am saying is, what is the significance of thier deaths. That same percentage would have died on base anyways.

I guess I am just sick of people always saying, "blah blah blah they died for us in Iraq" (thinking they should not have). Well, I got news for you... They would have anyways... Maybe not those people, but thier friends would have from non war things. I mean come on people, we are not talking about vietnam here. If that was the case then things would be different.

we ought to ship you over there and tell you that you aren't appreciatted for what you are doing for our country kill you and see how it feels

From a purely numerical point of view. If you add up all the deaths its nothing. We killed more in the iraq army in a day than they killed of us the entire war. Infact there is no other time we ever fought anyone and lost so few people. Only exception being when you just sit back and bomb them and never bother to take control of anything.

We lost 3 times as many people on 9/11 than we did fighting the war, which says something. If you want to compare it to something about 800 people died over there but in one year 50k people die in car crashes in the US. So is it a small number? Yea it really is, no else could do anything like that with fewer losses.

I do agree with you some what. Some people are just not realistic in what they expect. They live in a fantisy world where you can have a war and no one dies. With that said of course no one wants anyone to die, or count them just as numbers. I don't think he was trying to be mean or anything but just trying to put it into perspective, which a lot of people need.

i dont think you should be worried about a number of the people witch have died for you but that all those solders are all WILLING to die for us at any givin time, just so you can sit at your computer desk and type your opinion on how not enough soilders died to make you happy, you shouldnt be anything but greatfull

I really don't think they would die for us at any time. A lot of them joined the army just for money, now they are at war as if they actually wanted to. Pull the troops out I say!

incubusfunkman is right just cuz very many didn't die doesen't mean they don't deserve recognition for their courage.

I just read this post after being ten days in the field and only one year since I was on the frontlines in Iraq. So forgive me if I come off a bit strong.

Who are you to put a price on life? To say that is it a signifigant percentage. There is no percentage, one life is too much to give. How about go over there and get shot at. Until you have been there you gave no arguement in this topic. I know quite a few people that died, some of them were the infantry guys that I served with, that had to stay there longer.

How dare you capriously down play those men's sacrifice that you can't even begin to understand. I lost friends over there and you want to say that it's nothing because it might have happened by other means here , is flawed. They believed in something bigger than themselves. Until you are willing to make that sacrifice you have little you can say.

Maybe I am not worried about death like you. Maybe I am a bit more open minded. Maybe they are lucky they died so soon. Did you ever look at it that way? If I die then so be it. I am not afraid to die. I am just not going to do something stupid to make it any sooner. It will happen when it happens. And considering the same percentage would have died on base I don't see where the risking of life was? In the american army you don't join to risk your life, you join to go on a freakin vacation.

If you went back in time knowing what you know now would you look at it as risking your life to go there? I highly doubt that. The chances of you getting killed are less likely in Iraq than they are in the united states driving.

I was looking at this situation without involving any emotion which you obviously are unable to do. I was simply looking at the numerical aspects of it like the poster before said. That is exactly how people will be looking at it 50 years from now...

I dont think you join to "go on a vacation", Im not in the army and I dont know what its like. But I think its a very heavy job that takes great strength both of body and mind. I have great respect for the people who are able to join the army, I couldnt.

Quote:

---

Maybe I am not worried about death like you. Maybe I am a bit more open minded. Maybe they are lucky they died so soon. Did you ever look at it that way? [/b]

---

Maybe you don't value life as much as you should, Cruci. Simply not being worried about death is much different than believing in something enough to sacrifice what you value dearly (LIFE) for it - the essence of which is selflessness - whereas the attitude you are expressing is more of a self-centered one. Anyone who signs on to the millitary forces is by default acknowledging that they are willing to die serving their country. Sure there are shallow benefits of joining the military, but dying for something you believe in is a much greater honor than relying on others to do it for you, and then not acknowledge any worth in lives lost.

As for the part about as many dying "naturally" as there have in combat in Iraq That's like saying their lives were not worth their weight in dog manure. what a degrading thing to say
Maybe you should save this stuff for a forum more specific towards Iraqi-war nay-sayers since it has nothing to do with lucid dreaming.

I think your risking a lot less people by sending troops over there than sitting around waiting for people to attack us. Terrorist would kill a ton more unsuspecting civilians than they do trained and armed troops.

With that said they are doing important work and should get some respect. They are basicliy saying they are willing to die if they can save others. Yea some do it for money or other things but they signed up and if they are told to go over there, they do it even if they don't want to. Its not like we have a ton of people going awol because a war started. I think they are the ones who really thought it would be a vacation.

Thats why are country needs a better defense for terrorist attacks.

Quote:

---

I understand that the people that did die in Iraq did die for us.[/b]

---

What do you mean they did for 'us', what was it that made them so special from saving 'us' sounds like some patriotic bs to me (plz don't be offended just saying as I see it) I just hope you all know that when I die, im going to die for everyone on the planet (see how illogical it sounds?!). Its only an excuse to make their death sound slightly significant for the point of the american army disrupting a countries politics with stupidily unneccesary deaths. The only thing I see the soldiers died for was so soccer moms can get cheaper gas to run their suburbean offroaders. So much for claiming world peace but stopping the weapons of mass destruction, even if iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, take a look in your own backyard; IRAQ is not a threat to the world, America is. If anybody at all is stupid enough to sacrifice themselves for such a purposeless war, does not deserve recognision. Just remember all goverments are murderers and liars, anybody fighting in the war is fighting for bush's war.

One of my favourite quotes, 'Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defences each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.' - Bill Hicks

I sense a lot of friction here... I thought it might get rough when I first saw Crucible create the thread.. :-

My question in relation to this topic is: What are they fighting for exactly anyway..?

People die for you and you don't know who they are... that's respectable.. I suppose, if only we knew why. Somehow I'm reminded of Vietnam; america's sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Originally trying to take away the "deadly weapons" that america themselves sold the Iraqi's... while bombing hospitals and schools..

It's all questionable, and anyone who tries (even myself) to back up anything with any source of media, still has no sound "evidence" to their theories..

The fact is, I don't understand what they are fighting for. When I ask if it's for oil, I am typically ridiculed (namely by americans). When I am told it's in defense, so I ask what anyone from Iraq has done in the past to america, I get ridiculed. When I am told that they are symapthisers of "terrorist" groups and I ask if Canadian "friendly-fire" (friendly fire isn't friendly, by the way) is taken into any toll, or if the thousands of collateral damage, significantly outweighing "terrorist deaths", is worth eradicating "symapthisers", I still get ridiculed.

I live in Canada right now, and what I know is that I receive much oppression from several different groups of people for my views and opinions on political decisions and war.

There's no need to team up on Crucible - it's what he believes in.

Edit Note: I wrote this after being awake for almost 60 hours.. I'm not sure if I even understand what I wrote..

Well I would say yes it is for defense and iraq has done stuff in the past. They are also tied in with the terrorist. I would say your wrong on the other part of that though. I don't know about canada but the US causes little to no "collateral damage". So it really isn't a factor in anything, though I am not sure what you meant by the symapthisers thing.

Look at it this way. If you join the american army do you really think it is likely you will die? How are you willing to die for your country if chances are very likely you will not die?

I have thought about joining the army just for the money for college, health care, etc. If I join I know that chances are more likely I would die in a car accident here than in the army. I would actually feel safer there. This is not vietnam, world war 2, or the like. I know I won't die. Even if there was a world war, I would go anyways because of the selective service. So please, if this is the case where is the willingness to die for the country in joining up?

Just cuz the chances are slim doesn't mean they weren't willing to die to protect lives.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Evanescent
Just cuz the chances are slim doesn't mean they weren't willing to die to protect lives.

---

I think what he's trying to say is we have a higher risk of dying working in a construction crew, or a higher risk of being robbed and shot working at a quick stop, then the consequences of joining the army.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alric
Well I would say yes it is for defense and iraq has done stuff in the past. They are also tied in with the terrorist. I would say your wrong on the other part of that though. I don't know about canada but the US causes little to no \"collateral damage\". So it really isn't a factor in anything, though I am not sure what you meant by the symapthisers thing.

---

No collateral damage?!?!! :happyhappy:

The thought that a war, and bombings (some of the largest carpet bombings too) could have no collateral damage, is just hillarious.

Sympathisers are people whom are associated with a group, or believe in a group, etc. Examples: the US population are sympathisers of Christianity (on the mass scale) or, sympathisers of the US government anyway. Other examples used throughout the media: "terrorist schools" sympathise with Al-Qaeda (what is a terrorist school? To me, this sounds like the de-humanisation of an elementary school).

We dont carpet bomb anyone. US is very good at that. We can hit tanks sitting UNDER a bridge without damaging the bridge. Even now we go way out of our way not to hit anything but the people we want to kill. Some people even say we are to careful and because we put troops in danger, because instead of leveling a block we kill the people and leave everything around it standing.

So when I say there is none, I am 100% serious. We don't hit anything unless we want to.

I know what a Sympathisers is, what I am not sure about is you talking about is eradicating them. If you meant normal people who don't think they are that bad then we dont eradicat anyone. If your talking about other terrorist, well then yea, we have to take care of them one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alric
We dont carpet bomb anyone. US is very good at that. We can hit tanks sitting UNDER a bridge without damaging the bridge. Even now we go way out of our way not to hit anything but the people we want to kill. Some people even say we are to careful and because we put troops in danger, because instead of leveling a block we kill the people and leave everything around it standing.

So when I say there is none, I am 100% serious. We don't hit anything unless we want to.

I know what a Sympathisers is, what I am not sure about is you talking about is eradicating them. If you meant normal people who don't think they are that bad then we dont eradicat anyone. If your talking about other terrorist, well then yea, we have to take care of them one way or another.

---

You're telling me the Kuwait bombing didn't kill any innocent civillians?

last count of recorded civilian death in iraq was 692 ("recorded" meaning they have the names of said civilians). the estimated civilian death count is in excess of 10,000.

i'm not for the war, in so many words. i know there is a time and place for war and i know it's ugly but i think this one could and should have been avoided.

to say that, numerically, the soldiers who died in iraq were inconsequential is stupid. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." -twain. they died... for what cause is up to them but they died in action and you can't negate that.

We are talking about iraq not kuwait. I would say most the people who died are from the other side blowing them up themself and doing things like using them as shields or hiding in hospitals and stuff.

692 verified civilians died due to america's military intervention in iraq... somewhere around 620 american soldiers died in combat.

and we did carpet bomb. we carpet bombed baghdad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alric
We dont carpet bomb anyone

---

I get the patriotic vibe from you, and I respect that passion, but every country will kill bystanders in bombings and war - it's inevitable. But that doesn't make it a good thing at all.

Yet still, de-humanising those that are killed (even if they are deemed "terrorists") is still completely disrespectful.

I saw on the news the other day how the bombings created shelter and homes for those who had none before, and that they can re-build their homes from shrapnel. That had to have been the sickest and most disgusting media manipulation of war I have personally seen. How can you rationalize bombing?

End point: the US has bombed more countries and people than any other country, ever. The US has also created over hundreds of more miltiary dictatorships than any other country, ever (even combined, if my sources and memory are correct).

I would give numbers and sources, but I believe that they are just as believable as my 8 year old cousin.

I am not saying no one died, or we havn't carpet bombed people other times. What I am saying is that this war in iraq, we have been VERY careful and it shows. Would only take one of our bigger bombs to hit the wrong place and you could get like 1/3 of that count. 5 million people live in baghdad, theres no way you can say we randomly bombed it. There would be like 10,000s dead in a night.

As for de-humanising terrorist, the point is to kill them. I am not saying they are not people but killing our enemies is the point of the war, so its not a "bad" thing if they die.

Another thing, why don't the soldiers that died(or the ones who didn't) deserve recognition. Just cause more die over here(for natural or unavoidable reasons) than in Iraq doesn't mean they didn't die for us.

"we carpet bombed baghdad."

Right...

Now where are you getting these civillian death counts? And are you aware that the majority of civy casualties aren't even caused by the US? They are caused by the insurgents who either hide in the population, or don't aim very well. And there seems to be a nasty tendancy in the middle east for civies to run TOWARD the fight instead of away from it. It's like it's a spectator sport. (Somalia was especially bad).

"You're telling me the Kuwait bombing didn't kill any innocent civillians?"

The Iraqi occupation [of Kuwait] killed more.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mopey
\"we carpet bombed baghdad.\"

Right...

Now where are you getting these civillian death counts? And are you aware that the majority of civy casualties aren't even caused by the US? They are caused by the insurgents who either hide in the population, or don't aim very well. And there seems to be a nasty tendancy in the middle east for civies to run TOWARD the fight instead of away from it. It's like it's a spectator sport. (Somalia was especially bad).

---

692 verified civilians died [u][b]due to america's military intervention in iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mopey
\"You're telling me the Kuwait bombing didn't kill any innocent civillians?\"

The Iraqi occupation [of Kuwait] killed more.

---

more reason to stop it...

"due to" isn't the same as "caused by". If you shoot a rocket into a house and kill someone then you caused it to happen by shooting. If you get into a fight with someone across a street and they shoot a rocket at you but it flys way over your head and hits the house behind you then it happened due to you but it clearly not your fault, its theirs.

Its a war, we tried our hardest to keep the civilians out of it and I would say we have done a VERY good job at keeping them safe, however you can't save everyone.

I remeber before there was a story that the iraq army just started shooting into a crowd of civilians to try and kill as many as they could because they knew we would try to help the civilians(which we did). Its hard to have 0 deaths when the otherside uses people as human shields and could care less if half their country is burned to the ground as long as they get their way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mopey

\"You're telling me the Kuwait bombing didn't kill any innocent civillians?\"

The Iraqi occupation [of Kuwait] killed more.

---

So? The fact is; a lot still died.

...competition for death counts is gross..

The whole point I was trying to make was Alric said that the US doesn't kill any innocent bystanders and that their bombings are 100% accurate to kill their specified targets - which is obviously argueable.

It is impossible to fight a war without killing innocent lives. Alric, I know we have accurate weapons and we take precautions but it is still impossible.

I never said it was 100%. I said we kill very few people and when people do die its normally because of the people we are fighting. What I did say was we don't carpet bomb anyone, and when I said that I meant anyone in iraq, which we have not done.

K i was mixed up. Well your right

Did anyone really die for us in Iraq? Us Americans? Technically... yes.

You see, if those people who went to Iraq and died never existed, those who never got called into Iraq would have went and many of those individuals would have themselves perished.

But, I know what you mean. Those who died in Iraq, did their sacrifice make America safer? Did they make this nation safer for the rest of us -- for out future?

My opinion? No.

I believe the war in Iraq was not necessary. The takeover of a single nation in the middle east will not make America safer, since terrorism is an idea and not a sovereign nation.

The arguement was that Iraq was an immediate threat. Now, Iraq was not an immediate threat. There were claims that Iraq definetely had WMD -- that was of course nothing more than speculation, although I myself did believe they did possess them.

We've already spent enough money for homeland security, and we're only going to spend alot more.

The U.S. still occupies two nations in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it seems, after doing some research and watching a documentary on Discovery Times, that much of the funds and effort is going towards rooting out Al Quieda in caves instead of effectively reconstructing the ravaged nations.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alric
I think your risking a lot less people by sending troops over there than sitting around waiting for people to attack us. Terrorist would kill a ton more unsuspecting civilians than they do trained and armed troops.

---

In Iraq we are fighting the Iraqi regime and terrorists who probably would be poor farmers or workers had we not gone in there and stirred them up. Saddam's Iraq posed less of a threat to American life than it does now. Saddam knew that the moment he attacked the U.S., or aggrivated them significantly, he would be out of power and hiding in a rat hole.

When we deposed Saddam we let loose the islamic radicals within the country, who Saddam kept in controll.

As for Iraqi lives, I have no doubt the end result of Saddam's rule would leave more Iraqis dead.


"A single death is a tradgedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
-Joseph Stalin

We cannot underappreciate the sacrifice these men have given us, but we also have to look at it from a physical point of view. The number of casualties in the War on Iraq have an insignificant impact on the abilities of U.S. millitary forces. However there is a significant impact on moral.

The question which we must ultimately ask ourselves when evaluating the War on Iraq is whether the role of U.S. Armed Forces is to protect America and American lives, or to provide security for the world.

From an economic and physical standpoint, rather than an emotional one, it would be much better to choose the former.

The point was to keep iraq from being an immediate threat. No one wanted to wait untill it was to late so we acted sooner rather than later. I wouldn't say Saddam had control over any terrorist there. Yea they didn't run around iraq blowing stuff but they were still there getting money and planning attacks in other parts of the world.

The problem with your last point is both could be the same. So its not really black and white unless you want to like avoid everything in the world but that can cause some big problems with the economy and stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alric
The point was to keep iraq from being an immediate threat. No one wanted to wait untill it was to late so we acted sooner rather than later. I wouldn't say Saddam had control over any terrorist there. Yea they didn't run around iraq blowing stuff but they were still there getting money and planning attacks in other parts of the world.

The problem with your last point is both could be the same. So its not really black and white unless you want to like avoid everything in the world but that can cause some big problems with the economy and stuff.

---

Saddam wouldn't be a threat with nuclear weapons:

1. Israel would disarm him.

2. He doesn't have the political will to use them. They would make it very difficult to attack Saddam, because as an animal backed into a corner he could use one.

In reference to your second point, they can coincide, but I meant going beyond national security and into global security. One solid example of this would be the Kosovo debacle Clinton got us into.

I don't think anyone(who is informed?) was really to worried of him using nuclear weapons. If he had them he might sell one but he would never use one, not that I think he was any where near making one. It was more stuff like chemical weapons(to give or sell) and him hiding and giving aid to tarrorists, plus him being a huge pain by not follow the rules he agreed to from the last war and killing his own people(a ton!) and such. The last part is not as much of a defense thing but still valid reasons to attack.

I now step across the argument line and willing stand behind Alric.

The big problem I get, is that people acted like I had a chose to go over there. Whether I wanted to or not, I was given an order. Some of you believe that joining the military is a vacation and you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident. There was twenty infrantry guys with my battery in Iraq. Three are dead and five are serious injured. That's almost half you want your statistic. I am injured from Iraq, I've lost my full range of motion on my left side. Am I looking for simpathy? No. Respect, yes.

As far as the comment about me being afraid of death, hardly. Somedays I'd welcome it, but that doesn't dominish my respect for life.

A lot of you are passing judgement on the soldiers when it's not their decision to be some where. They follow orders, and that is all they can do.

My cousin is in the marines. He drives a hummer with a gun on top. And i think the gunner got shot. But he didn't move anywhere because he had orders. If you don't respect that then you are a souless selfish evil person.

Wait im confused about what you said, the gunner was shot but didn't move, or the gunner was shot and the driver didn't drive away?

The gunner was shot but my cousin followed orders.

SO there was a guy on top of the car who was shot (dead?) and your cousin did nothing to help? Now what was so important that he didn't help that guy?

There were three guys in the hummer the gunner(who was shot), the driver(my cousin), and a passenger(who helped the guy).You see the passenger helped the guy, my cousing had orders to stay.He was being shot at and he sat there because he had orders.