Comments on: Iraq War Deaths

by: billgraham

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 05:43:27 +0000

Here I am in 2006, looking back at the comment trail left behind since 2003. While it looks like a statistical comparison between Viet Nam and Iraq alone would lead to flawed conclusions, I thought the charts were nonetheless interesting. Today, I’m writing on a day in 2006 when we’ve had about 2,300 U.S. military casualties and God knows how many innocent Iraqi casualties.

I also write in retrospect of seeing Saddam’s capture and bin Laden’s continued evasion of our supposed manhunt. Does anyone remember George Bush saying that he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive? I wonder if anyone would argue that our current position of capturing bin Laden doesn’t sound like a total flip flop.

I digressed a little, but it’s no worse than what we did with the War on Terror, by going into Iraq so clearly in defiance of the world community. By the way, I’m no fan of Saddam Hussein. I think he would have eventually given everyone a reason to intervene just as Iran is now. I’m also a veteran of the U.S. military, so I was one of those people your stickers tell everyone to support.

Yet, I know that someone out there will happily denigrate my service or call it into question. Please feel free to do that; it’s a free country. I think it’s interesting that the one’s I’ve most often heard trashing peacemakers have never served a day in their lives. Enough said on that.

Now that I’m done with that digression, I’ll say that it’s useless to bash the comparisons with Viet Nam merely because there are differences. We can draw comparisons because people are dying every day and the number now stands in the thousands.

Furthermore, we have a leader that wants to stay the course and is now leaving it to another president down the road to get us out. How many more thousands or perhaps millions of lives will be lost? Is it hyperbole to say that millions of lives could be lost? Perhaps, but I’m not limiting my statistics to U.S. combat fatalities. I’m including innocent bystanders and those why may die in the future because we let the real enemies slip under the radar.

While we’re still nowhere close to the 58,000+ U.S. combat casualties of Viet Nam, I think it now goes without sayinqg that we do not have a good plan on the ground in Iraq. While good things are happening there, it does not mean that we have a clear plan or a win strategy. Is it naive to say that? I hardly think so, but that is my opinion (as is all of this posting). I’m sure someone will disagree.

Finally, I seem to recall that the Viet Nam years represented a constant grinding of statistics. Does anyone remember the military coming out with daily kill statistics? It also reminds me of a soldier I once served with. I remember him saying to me one day that his career goal was to tally up 200 kills. Sounds insane doesn’t it? How is our current grind of statistics any less insane?

Thank you.

Bill Graham

by: bernard via

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:24:19 +0000

God gave us minds to find truth.. let us have the courage to find leaders that have minds so some answers for Iraq will be found. The current mindset is just not cutting it.

by: smilingjack

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:14:10 +0000

I’m curious how religous zealots (American version) ridicule the fighters trying to remove unwanted invaders by blowing themselves up in Iraq but condone the brave act of dropping tonnes of explosives from 3km up in the air from a B52 on kiddies?
To people like Laurence Wagman you didn’t win in Korea or Vietnam and are copping a hiding in Iraq. Your military won’t be invading anyone else anytime soon.
Now let’s see Russia, Iran, China and Nth Korea are all good buddies united by an intense hatred of the worlds biggest users of everything and the biggest polluters. But you are right about one thing - Islam will get nuclear weapons and they will use them and it will be on America.
America has been throwing it’s redneck religous views around for too long and is about to get it back with interest.
Then all those that voted for your current leader will stand there slack jawed asking “why us”?

by: CD

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:02:55 +0000

Enough is enough. Forget about the Vietnam War. This is a totally different situation we are facing. Lets for a moment forget about the facts and figures. Regardless of what is happening, the Bush Administration are masters of manipulating and deception and I will later elaborate on that. The truth is there is an invisible line right down the middle of America right now that most of us try to ignore. There are those that sit in the “I know what’s really going on but afraid to say” side, and those who love what the President stands for. “Good Ole Boy, We are the best, How Dare they attack U.S. on our soil, Arrogance”. “Oh yeah by the way, thanks for the Tax cut”. “Everything is fine on our neck of the woods”. There are still Patriots in this nation who will fight to defend our sovereignty. Truth is most of those serving, serve because there are not many options for them, or no options at all, and they want to create a chance for prosperity or something new in their lives. Why do you think there are so many minorities willing to swear their life away for a country whose most of the majority still looks down upon? Or immigrants who can’t even vote, or own land but are willing to fight. How many rich boys in the service? Not many. How many of our leaders have a son or daughter in the service? I served the military proudly hoping I would never face an enemy. But I knew the possibility was there. And I’ve never been a chump so I don’t think I would have been a coward. But I was fortunate to never have to find out. I did benefit from being in the service and that is what I intended for. A lot more than any of you who talk and never had the gonads gamble. I SALUTE any fellow service members for putting their life on the line like I did. Bush is either the damn good Liar, or a damn puppet for that society many of us don’t know about. Neither would we want for a President. He uses his esoteric message to communicate one thing to those in his society and a whole different message to the rest of the naive flock who believe his crap. Uses keywords like “forces of evil” to emotionally draw a nation into thinking that with his judgment we will overcome these terrorist. “We will attack because of weapons of Mass Destruction”. “Oh we found none, now let’s relieve Iraq from dictatorship by capturing Sadaam”. Oh wow we got Sadaam a lot easier than I thought”. Now what are we going to tell the Nation. Oh yes the original reason why we wanted to go into Iraq. We must fight terrorism although very few terrorist cells are actually in Iraq. Even the blind right says “The war is over”. Those are insurgents. So who are we protecting the Iraqis from then? Not terrorists obviously. We are not defending our freedom, we are if anything enlisting our men to fight for Iraq, if Bush is in fact honest of his motives. Look at it how you want. We should not be there. If the war were here many of us would not just sit down and let another nation tell us how we should live or who we should worship or what government to follow. If that were to happen we would fight back and call ourselves PATRIOTS. Wake up Sheep, this whole conflict is about Power and economics. Without the resources we receive from the Middle East, our nation’s way of living would not survive unless we made changes to our energy situation. But wait a minute. “Why would I promote water when I am in the business of selling milk”. Exactly, no one is going to say it. That’s what it all comes down to. Some Ideology isn’t it. If we really care about helping the people of the world why don’t we help the millions of people starving and living in Political tyranny in Africa or right here in the U.S.? No Bush wants to push Iraq around who we know we can beat to gain popularity among his supporters. Korea straight out said yes we have nuclear weapons. Did Bush attack them? No. We know better. That would be too much of an equal fight. This is too much of a risk with too little payoff. Yes you can say what I have said is a little extreme and may enrage many of you Bush fanatics. Your mind is made up. For you to agree I am right would mean you are wrong. You can’t do that can you? Neither can the President when the truth is there. If a common man deceives the government its fraud. If Bush deceives the people he changes the reason. You can ignore all you want. Many of us know what America really stands for. Some think they know. This is the “Land of the Free”. Not land of the free to do whatever the hell I want, wherever the hell I want. By know means do I think we should lie down and let the terrorist have their way. We have to change our approach. We don’t put our force in a foreign land in the middle hell. When we as Americans start giving our rights away to ensure our safety, we are in fact giving in to what these terrorists want. Terrorists want to disrupt our lives and have us in fear. We should never react by giving up our freedom for security. Think about it. The Patriot Act is only the beginning unless we the people stand up for what America is not how it is being presented by our President and our government. Would you give away your freedom to help another Nation? This is being a Patriot according to the Government. Bush promises we will win this war on terror. If in fact terror is the real reason we are there, how will we know we won. Will we sit back twenty, thirty years from know talking about the war on terror like we do about WWI, WWII, Korean, or Vietnam War. The truth is we won’t until we either have no freedom, or get to heaven.

by: jbc

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:39:26 +0000

Thanks for your insightful comment. While I disagree with your overall characterization of what I’m doing with these graphs, I think you make some interesting points.

Covering your numbered comments:

Points 1 and 2: As I’ve said a number of times, I’m not trying to construct a deaths-per-unit-of-troop-strength comparison. I’m primarily interested here in the political dimension of the two conflicts. Given that, I chose as the starting point for the Vietnam graph the death that Lyndon Johnson later identified publicly as having been the first US death in defense of Vietnamese freedom.

You can shift the starting point of the Iraq graph left or right with respect to the Vietnam graph however you want. I’m not really comparing events at time X in Iraq to the corresponding time Y in Vietnam in any rigorous sense. I’m really just interested in the overall profile of the two conflicts, as measured by US deaths, and how that profile affects the US political reality.

Point 3: I’m not sure what you’re looking at. The spreadsheet data that the chart was built from has 64 deaths as the number of US dead in Vietnam for December, 1964. That data point appears as the peak just to the right of the tick mark between years “3″ and “4″ on the second graph. The months surrounding that point have data as follows:

Sep-64 11
Oct-64 28
Nov-64 19
Dec-64 36
Jan-65 18
Feb-65 54
Mar-65 22
Apr-65 60

That might make it easier to figure out what the graph is actually showing.

Points 4 and 5: Actually, I’m not sure what your point is here.

“Propagandize” is, of course, a loaded term. Equally value-laden is your characterization of my “admitting” that I “want to see dead Americans.” As the one who made that admission, I don’t think you’ve accurately portrayed it.

The information I present in these charts has no ideology. Showing the number of US servicemen and women who died in Vietnam, and who now are dying in Iraq, may argue one way or the other as to the wisdom of Bush’s war, but at least in the graphs themselves, I’m not making that argument. I’m just presenting the numbers in as objective a form as I can. US soldiers died in the Vietnam war. US soldiers are dying in this war. I was curious how the number of deaths over time for the two conflicts compared to each other.

As I keep saying, you’re free to draw whatever conclusions you want about what those charts show. What you’re not free to do, but what some of Bush’s supporters seem to want very much to do, is to make the numbers go away. It doesn’t work that way.

by: Brutus

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:02:54 +0000

I think your numbers are a bit skewed to favor your position. By taking 1961 as the starting point for the war in Vietnam and March 2003 for Iraq, you have created a false analogy.

The differences as I see them:
1. In 1961 JFK ordered 3,000 advisors to Vietnam (This is certainly not war. By using this as the point of origination, one could reasonably argue that the Iraqi conflict began again after the cessation of the Gulf War with the administration of the No-Fly Zone, Oil for Food, etc.)

2. August 7, 1964 saw the passing of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In 1964, there were only 23,300 American troops in Vietnam. That is up from the 3,205 in 1961. From Sept.-Dec. 1964, 94 Soldiers were killed. 36 in the month of December. That would be more than the deaths for month four of the current conflict if we started the graph at the passage of the aforementioned resolution. Now, to be honest, the first four months of Iraq saw 205 deaths, with about 145,000 troops present. So, we are comparing Vietnam’s 1:247 (1 death to 247 soldiers present) to Iraq’s 1:707.

3. Your graph of the green line over the course of years does not seem exactly (visually) accurate. As I mentioned, there were 36 deaths in Dec 1964, more than 1/3 of 100. However, your graph makes it look more like 20 or so.

4. In 24 months of combat, from March 2003 until Feb 2004, there have been 1,469 casualties in Iraq. In 1965 (only 12 months), Vietnam saw 1,930. Totals for ‘65 and ‘66 were 8,274.

5. If we care to begin the Vietnam war at a later point, such as 1965 when the US showed an actual commitment to the cause by inserting over 184,000 troops in the theatre, our numbers would reflect even greater differences.

I do not begrudge you the right to propagandize this war any way that you see fit. I even applaud your honesty in admitting that you want to see dead Americans. Without them, you cannot thumb your nose at others while singing “I told you so.”

What I find sad is that while you wish to deride Bush for being a “Liar”, you employ the very tactics for which you deplore him.

by: Mr. Anonymous

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:26:28 +0000

I wish people could stop looking at the world in “Black and White”
simplisity. There are obviously positive and negative results to the Iraq war. Saddam is gone…this is very good. Anywhere from 15,000 to 100,000 innocent Iraqi’s are dead and almost 1,500 American soldiers…..that is very very bad. The task for us is to determine what cost we are willing to pay to eliminate a dictator and murderer.
I think that becoming more like him, using torture, murder, and intimidation….holding an election after creating or in this case continuing such practices, and calling the election fair is no way to “defend freedom” or to spread it.
The American people who support and execute this war are only adding more pain to the lives of the people in Iraq….rather that is thier motive or not.
PEACE NOW

by: Manuel Derieux

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:06:24 +0000

I think the Iraqi’s would be better off living in a democracy, regardless of what happens around them in that area of the world.

Going to the UN to gain a consensus probably gave Saddam enough time to effectively hide, or, disperse the weapons he had, some of which he previously used.

About Vietnam, weren’t we asked to send advisors there by the GOSV in 1954?

by: chimpy

Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:30:21 +0000

We were supposed to be saving the world from WMD (none found) and we were told we’d be welcomed as saviors from Saddam (didn’t happen). What, then, has NOT been a lie from the Bush government?

Why is the resistance growing in popular support among both Shiite and Sunni Muslims everywhere? Because of the stupid policies of George W. Bush, that’s why. Can anyone think of a way to make more enemies? Short of attacking additional innocent countries, we can’t.

by: your mom

Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:59:42 +0000

THIS SITE SUCKS
gaaaaaaarrr

by: burningbush

Sat, 08 Jan 2005 19:17:28 +0000

Referring to the campaign to stabilize Iraq, Mr. Bush said: “I know it’s hard, but it’s hard for a reason. And the reason it’s hard is because there are a handful of folks who fear freedom.”

What an ass we have for president. He alone should be able to clear Iraq of a handful of insurgents

by: Mr. Anonmous

Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:31:59 +0000

LOL

Bush is an idiot. PERIOD.

just read all of “his” speaches. He stumbles over every word he speaks.

crapping in his “gold plated underwear is exactly what Bush has done his entire life, most of all when others were being sent to die half way around the world….kinda like now.

This country will also “crumble within” because I will not stand idle watching Bush become the next HITLER. Thats right I think he resembles Hitler far more then he resembles Churchill. Bush sanctions torture and the invasion of countries that are NO THREAT to the United states. It is Bush and people like the one above who “breed terrorism”

Yes the people of the world are all sick of dictators, homegrown or ones who come from Texas who pretend that they care about freedom and democracy. Bush was not elected his first term and he didn’t care then. People lost jobs and were attacked for speaking out against his regime, and he just stands up there with his stupid little smirk thinking that god tells him to torture his enemies and bomb cities killing THOUSANDS of women and children.

Bush is a war criminal and he should be impeached and tried for his crimes like our constitution says.

And all of you who support him are like headed down the same slippery slope that the german people slid off in the early thirties BEFORE the murder of 9,000,000+ people.

Bush is no Hitler, thank whatever god you believe in, but he has moved this country closer to Hitlers Germany then he has to a just and peace seaking society.

I will NOT allow arrogant right wing religious fanatics take over OUR country…..The eagle cannot and will not fly with just the right wing.

PEACE
Impeaching Bush would be the best first step in fighting terrorism.

oh and happy new year to you misguided pawn of Haliburton.

by: Laurence Wagman

Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:22:20 +0000

So what, Bush invades other countries. Look we have come to the proverbial fork in the road:

1. We can either kill all the people who reside in countries that sponsor/support/or breed terrorism (this would include Saudia Arabia)

2. We can change them and introduce freedom

3. We can capitulate to the United Nations and the Euro-socialist/communists until these radical islamo-facists become nuclear powers, and really screw things up.

Personally an invasion of Iran would be a great next step (with us stepping on Syria) along the way. What is more likely to happen is that Syria and Iran will crumble within. The silent (based on self-preservation motives) majority want freedom. The citizens of these countries are sick and tired of the dictatorships, with a successful Iraq they will be emboldened, as their leaders will be crapping in their gold plated underwear.

Thank god for President Bush and his leadership. Those on the left who call Bush an idiot, cannot stand that this “idiot” is really Churchill in 1933, solving the problems of the world before they bite us in the ass!

Happy new year to all including the misguided liberals on this web blog!

by: Gary Johnson

Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:12:31 +0000

If Bush does succeed in Iraq, it won’t be over, he’ll be invading countries until he’s out of office.
Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam, and the US gave him the technology to make the chemical and biological weapons. The US gave him our blessings when he “asked” if he could invade Iran, and we also turned a blind eye when he first went into Kuwait. Daddy Bush was aware of the weaponry we were selling him, even into daddy Bush’s presidency, but somewhere in there, daddy Bush must have had one of those same visions George has, because that’s when the Gulf War started.
And a little more dirt of the Bush family, they have been in the oil business with the Saudi Royal family, and the bin Laden family for more than twenty years. Also included was the Carlyle Group that daddy Bush headed for a period of time, but Carlyle was handling the financial affairs of the SBL Corporation.(a joint venture between the Saudi Royal and bin Laden families.)
That sure makes me wonder why a plane was allowed to leave the US on 9/12/2001 (when all flights were grounded) with more than 24 Saudis and members of the bin Laden family when our FBI wanted to ask a few questions. George Bush Jr. authorized the flight waving the FBI off.
Then, the hunt for Osama bin Laden fades to the background as Bush insists that his high level cabinet finds a reason to go after Iraq. The next thing we know is WMD. Hmmmmmmmm????

by: Anonymous

Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:33:01 +0000

Liberal press? LOL
Who convinced you of that, I hear it all the time on TELEVISION.
LOL
The press calls our soldiers heroes and the insurgents TERRORISTS.
They say they are defending freedom……They are fighting a war that was based and is based on LIES.

Where are the weapons?
Where are the tears for the INNOCENT Iraqi’s who are dying
in our “liberation”?
Where is the coverage of the INNOCENT DEATHS IN IRAQ?
Where is the talk of possible fraud in this election?
Why would a “LIBERAL” press make Regan look like “one of the greatest leaders of our time”?

Mr. Anonymous

by: Anonymous

Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:23:25 +0000

So I spelled piece wrong.
Second of all I did not say that Republicans are for killing innocent people for oil. Though I will say that some ARE and have told me they are.
I do not believe that Liberals should take “full frame” and I am only saying that if the right keeps going in the direction that they are going “THE PEOPLE” will wake up and take this country back from the RICH ELITE.
I said I like guns….I don’t! What I meant was that I am for our right to have them and if the people are no longer represented by our government, WE THE PEOPLE have the right to CHANGE IT. That is what the second amendment is for…..NOT HUNTING. I mention that I am a Liberal and that I “like guns” because I am sick of people thinking that all Liberals are against the second amendment and/or are unwilling to fight for our FREEDOM.
My name might be John, Bob, Sue, Fred, or “Mark Twain” I could lie and you would never know, so what is the point of me typing my name here.
If the FBI or any common hacker wanted to find out who I am they could track my IP address and figure it out easy enough.

Mr. Anonymous, that works for me because thats what everyone on here is to me.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Oh and if it “really doesn’t matter what I say” why did you respond to me and why are you reading this now.

by: Rebekah A.

Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:00:13 +0000

Mr. Anonymous,

First of all you spelled piece wrong. Second of all you are a fool to think that Republicans support the killing of innocent people for oil. Third as far as I know we are not involved in another civil war, so there is no way that the Liberals can rise again if there is no rising to be done. This is a democratic republic and if the liberals rise and take full frame, then the founding fathers ideals are bashed. I like guns too but what the hell does that matter. And by the way if you can’t put your name behind what you say then it really doesn’t matter what you say.

by: Anonymous

Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:23:13 +0000

Courtney,
Have you ever been to the moon?
Do you know anything about it?

Why do people always become arrogant and claim that unless you have been through something means you can’t understand it?

I have never lost a parent though i KNOW what it would feel like.

War means death and destruction. I have seen what death looks like.
Not in a war but it is sad all the same. The horrible thing about death in war is that it is MURDER. It is chosen by some people and imposed on others.

Bush is a peice of shit!
I did not vote for Kerry either. Both Democrats and Republicans have their heads up their ass.

I do not yet know if Bush won the election. I will withold my opinion until i have researched the results.

I think he did win the popular vote this time which only makes me ashamed of my country.

AMERICANS are SHEEP

I am a LIBERAL who likes guns.
Liberals fought and won the first revolution and we will rise again.
You people on the right who think that all Liberals who are against this war are out of fear are badly mistaken.
I do not believe in killing for oil. The soldiers in Iraq are not dying for their country they are killing for the countries elite.

PEACE AND FREEDOM
or NIETHER

by: Fred

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:18:26 +0000

Great debate everyone. I know many here concentrate on Vietnam comparisons, but for sake of not always looking at American history to teach us I will throw this nugget to nibble on.

Algeria and the FLN insurgency against France.

by: Courtney

Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:23:54 +0000

ummmmm……are any of you people in the military???? i’m guessing that you’re all political science majors that think you know something about war….until you’ve been there, you have no room to talk. AND…..if you’re a civilian trying to make some extra money over there you shouldn’t be there!