U.S. Death Toll hits 4000 in Iraq

[oandapartycock]

What even sucks more is the "casualties" number is about to hit 30,000. That's a helluva lot of therapy that's going to go around.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4508487

US Blames Shiite Extremists for Rocket Attacks; US Death Toll Hits 4,000
By KIM GAMEL
The Associated Press

BAGHDAD

The U.S. military blamed Iranian-backed Shiite militia factions on Monday for a spate of rocket attacks that struck the Green Zone and surrounding areas, a day after the overall U.S. death toll in the five-year conflict rose to 4,000.

The White House called the grim milestone "a sober moment" and said President Bush spends time every day thinking about those who have lost their lives in battle.

"He bears the responsibility for the decisions that he made," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Monday. "He also bears the responsibility to continue to focus on succeeding."

The American deaths came Sunday, the same day rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the rockets fired into the Green Zone, also known as the International Zone, were Iranian-made and supplied by the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

The U.S. military has accused Iran of arming and funding Shiite extremists to fight American forces in Iraq. Iran denies the allegation.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Philip Reeker said two government employees — an American and a Jordanian — were seriously wounded and six other people required medical attention after Sunday's volley of rocket attacks.

Local hospital and police officials said at least 12 Iraqis were killed and 30 more were wounded in rocket or mortar blasts that apparently fell short after being aimed at the Green Zone from scattered areas of eastern Baghdad.

"We have assessed the rockets fired yesterday into the International Zone and those that struck neighborhoods nearby, were the responsibility of Iranian-backed special groups," Smith told The Associated Press in an e-mail.

The military uses the term special groups to refer to Shiite extremists who continue attacks despite a cease-fire order by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to his Mahdi Army militia.

"The attacks show the indiscriminate violence these groups carry out in Iraq as the major loss of life yesterday was to innocent Iraqi men, women and children," Smith said.

The deaths of four U.S. soldiers in a roadside bombing about 10 p.m. Sunday in southern Baghdad pushed to 4,000 the number of American service members killed as the war enters its sixth year. Another soldier was wounded in the attack, the military said.

The AP count of 4,000 deaths is based on U.S. military reports and includes eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense.

"You regret every casualty, every loss," Vice President Dick Cheney said. "The president is the one that has to make that decision to send young men and women into harm's way. It never gets any easier."

An American military official in Baghdad said each U.S. death is "equally tragic" and underscored the need to keep up the fight.

"There have been some significant gains. However, this enemy is resilient and will not give up, nor will we," military spokesman Navy Lt. Patrick Evans said. "There's still a lot of work to be done."

Last year, U.S. military deaths spiked as U.S. troops sought to regain control of Baghdad and surrounding areas. The death toll has seesawed since, with 2007 ending as the deadliest year for American troops at 901 deaths. That was 51 more deaths than 2004, the second deadliest year for U.S. soldiers.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians also have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion on March 20, 2003, although estimates of a specific figure vary widely because of the difficulty in collecting accurate information.

One widely respected tally by Iraq Body Count, which collects figures based mostly on media reports, estimates that 82,349 to 89,867 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in the conflict.

Overall attacks also have decreased against Iraqi civilians but recent weeks have seen several high-profile bombings, highlighting the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups.

The heavily fortified Green Zone has frequently come under fire by Shiite and Sunni extremists, but the attacks have tapered off as violence declined over the past year.

Sunday's attacks followed a series of clashes last week between U.S. and Iraqi forces and factions of the Mahdi Army. The Mahdi Army has come under severe strains in recent weeks as the U.S. and Iraqi forces insist on detaining followers they accuse of belonging to breakaway groups.

Al-Sadr's followers have accused the Shiite-dominated government of exploiting the cease-fire to target the cleric's supporters in advance of provincial elections expected this fall. They have demanded the release of supporters rounded up in recent weeks.

Leaders of the Sadrist movement called on supporters to protest the arrests by closing their shops and businesses.

The call was heeded Monday in at least two predominantly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad. AP Television News video showed a deserted bus stop, shuttered shops and empty streets in normally bustling Amil and Baiyaa.

Police said Mahdi Army militiamen have also issued general strike orders in three other areas of southwestern Baghdad and in Mahmoudiya, some 20 miles south of Baghdad.

"This civil disobedience may be called for in the rest of Baghdad and maybe in southern provinces if the government does not free our detainees," Sadrist lawmaker Ali al-Mayali said after attending a leadership meeting Monday in the holy city of Najaf.

Liwa Smeism, a senior political adviser at al-Sadr's office in Najaf, said the strikes in west Baghdad would continue for up to 48 hours unless the government meets the movement's demands for the release of detainees and a stop to raids against the Sadrists.

Also Monday, Iraqi authorities clamped an indefinite nighttime curfew on the Shiite oil port of Basra as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki traveled to the volatile southern city and ordered a new security plan in a bid to clamp down on violence between rival militia factions.

The move is a sign of growing concern about security in the nation's oil capital since British forces handed over control of the city last year.

Meanwhile, the FBI said it has recovered the remains of two kidnapped U.S. contractors in Iraq.

The agency identified the contractors as Ronald Withrow of Roaring Springs, Texas, and John Roy Young of Kansas City, Mo. Withrow worked for JPI Worldwide when he was kidnapped in January 2007. Young worked for Crescent Security Group when he was kidnapped in November 2006.

The FBI said the investigation into the kidnappings is ongoing.

[DonTheTrucker]

What even sucks more is the "casualties" number is about to hit 30,000. That's a helluva lot of therapy that's going to go around.

Would you rather those people be dead? Medical science is at a point now where people who would have died from the same injuries 10 years ago are now going on to live full lives.

I'm surprised they disguised that "milestone" in a story with another event. I remember the celebration the mainstream media was having when the toll hit 2000. Fucking disgusting vultures.

[stillbornstew]

Would you rather those people be dead? Medical science is at a point now where people who would have died from the same injuries 10 years ago are now going on to live full lives.

I'm surprised they disguised that "milestone" in a story with another event. I remember the celebration the mainstream media was having when the toll hit 2000. Fucking disgusting vultures.
but the psychological toll is unnerving. i have more than a few friends who have come back and been dicharged due to PTSD. they can't be cured and have to try and "learn" to assimilate to functioning in society. they have nightmares all the time, the become angered at the drop of a hat, and there's nothing that can be done. i see headlines in "stars and stripes" (not so often as i did last year) about soldiers commiting suicide. it's sad. and very few combat vets are getting adequate post deployment psychological care.

[LiddyRules]

but the psychological toll is unnerving. i have more than a few friends who have come back and been dicharged due to PTSD. they can't be cured and have to try and "learn" to assimilate to functioning in society. they have nightmares all the time, the become angered at the drop of a hat, and there's nothing that can be done. i see headlines in "stars and stripes" (not so often as i did last year) about soldiers commiting suicide. it's sad. and very few combat vets are getting adequate post deployment psychological care. Good point. Scarring and body damage, amputations and psychological problems aren't just something you can brush off even if they do get to live.

[stillbornstew]

Good point. Scarring and body damage, amputations and psychological problems aren't just something you can brush off even if they do get to live.
my exgirlfriend was in afghanistan in early 2004. honest to god, she's a TOTALLY different woman now. she used to be the biggest sweetheart. now she can be a real cunt on wheels. you really have to watch how you talk to her because she gets pissed at the smallest shit, and she won't let it go. she's on antidepressants/antianxiety meds, she can't sleep w/o the slightest noise waking her up. she's a mess. it's a real shame. and it's all b/c of a year in afghanistan

i mean.......yeah it could be worse, she didn't lose a limb. but's sad to see how she's changed.

[UCFGavin]

my exgirlfriend was in afghanistan in early 2004. honest to god, she's a TOTALLY different woman now. she used to be the biggest sweetheart. now she can be a real cunt on wheels. you really have to watch how you talk to her because she gets pissed at the smallest shit, and she won't let it go. she's on antidepressants/antianxiety meds, she can't sleep w/o the slightest noise waking her up. she's a mess. it's a real shame. and it's all b/c of a year in afghanistan

i mean.......yeah it could be worse, she didn't lose a limb. but's sad to see how she's changed.

so sad to hear things like this and know that there are a lot of people out there that continue to support officials that have no problem keeping them all in harms way :(

[Vyce]

I'm surprised they disguised that "milestone" in a story with another event. I remember the celebration the mainstream media was having when the toll hit 2000. Fucking disgusting vultures.

As I've documented in other threads recently, things are vastly different now in Iraq. The Iraqis have largely been rejecting the jihad, violence and casualties are way down, most Americans in this country now believe that we can succeed in accomplishing our goals in that country.

So, Don, this is all that the media has left. In the face of so much otherwise-good news on Iraq, this is all that they have left to trash a war that is no longer going poorly, much to their dismay. Last ditch hail mary pass.

[oandapartycock]

Would you rather those people be dead? Medical science is at a point now where people who would have died from the same injuries 10 years ago are now going on to live full lives.

I'm surprised they disguised that "milestone" in a story with another event. I remember the celebration the mainstream media was having when the toll hit 2000. Fucking disgusting vultures.

Of course I wouldn't want them dead. I was trying to make a point about how being in a war fucks up your head, as others "in the know" have pointed out.

And that 30,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. You don't even need to be on the casualty list to be affected psychologically by this war.

Here's an update to the story. And I swear the highlighted part is not my error, I'm just wondering if the reporter interviewed any illiterate black women...

That being said, he actually makes a couple of good points.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4490655&page=1

The Uncertain Meaning of 4,000 American Military Dead in Iraq
Amid Presidential Race and Ongoing War Debate, Will News of 4,000 Dead Make Impact?
ANALYSIS
By ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN

March 22, 2008 —

The 4,000-dead mark will symbolize the real cost of the UP.S. participation in the war in Iraq, and the courage and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. It will also inevitably trigger another wave of polarized debate. Those who oppose the war will see the 4,000 dead as further reason to end it. Those who support the war will point to military progress and say that future casualties will be much lower.

There is likely to be something of a saturation effect in this debate. There already are a host of Iraq-related issues to deal with. We will reach the 4,000 mark at a time when the fifth anniversary has already triggered a new wave of debate on its own, and Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's testimony before Congress on Iraq progress will come in early April. It will interact with the $3 trillion war cost debate, the bitter exchanges between Democratic Party candidates, Iraqi debates over political accommodation, and al Qaeda's ongoing suicide attacks and atrocities.

This makes it likely that the level of debate over just how much a round number of killed matters may be less intense than it might be otherwise. No one will be able to avoid mentioning the number, but it will be one statistic among many.

As for its real world significance, the 4,000 figure is obviously a symbol. The grim fact is that 4,000 killed is really no different from 3,999 or 4,001. There are, however, several points that do deserve consideration when we reach this figure.

The wounded figure since March 19, 2003, is now well above 29,000. It is far, far higher than the number killed, and often has a more lasting impact on those who sacrifice as a human tragedy and in terms of costs. If one counts the number of men and women whose lives have been virtually destroyed by critical combat wounds and adds that total to the number killed, we reached 4,000 long ago. Far too much media coverage focuses only on "killed." There needs to be balance in counting all of the wounded, and far more attention paid to the number of critical physical and psychological wounds and disability cases. In many ways, news reporting on the "stats" of the fighting now covers only half the sacrifice of those who serve in uniform.

Tragic as this situation is, the actual casualty rate has been incredibly low by historical standards relative to Vietnam, Korea and previous wars. Far fewer have been killed and far fewer wounded. For all the debates over MRAPs and body armor, the United States has been able to sharply reduce the human cost of war. Those who have done so much to reduce casualty rates also deserve recognition. In practice, they often seem to receive virtually nothing but media and congressional criticism.

No one can really predict at this time whether we will be able to sharply reduce the future rate of casualties during 2009-2010, and move to "strategic overwatch" and reliance on the ISF for almost all the fighting. We could see a failure of political conciliation lead to more intense U.S. fighting and a new rise in casualty rates or even to U.S. withdrawal. The odds of success in Iraq now seem higher than those of defeat, and events seem more likely to steadily reduce U.S. casualties, but there are no certainties.

As for the present, all the same data that show a major decline in U.S. and Iraqi casualties since last summer also show that the reduction of casualties has now plateaued and may be rising. Al Qaeda and the extreme elements of the JAM have every incentive to find ways to raise the U.S. casualties between now and November, and will be seeking ways to use bombings to raise the rate and number. These attacks may be far more important over the months to come than the 4,000 figure.

There is a great deal of talk about the ultimate future dollar cost of the war if we stay. Much of this discussion somewhat unrealistically assumes that the dollar cost of fighting and aid remains relatively constant. In practice, success in moving to strategic overwatch and shifting the burden to the ISF and Iraqi government expenditures would actually sharply reduce the out year dollar costs. The same is true of the longer term trends in killing and wounded.

But, if we are in Iraq through the end of the next administration, the real benchmark may still be more than 5,000 killed and 15,000-20,000 more wounded before the costs in blood are over.

In short, there is no easy way to describe the meaning of 4,000 dead. We cannot credibly yet predict the future, or talk of whether or not their sacrifice will have strategic meaning. We cannot divorce that sacrifice from the sacrifice of the living, and we cannot predict the future cost in blood any more than we can predict the cost in dollars. About all we can be certain of is that the kinds of clear cut predictions that emerge from the polarized political debate over the war describe both a defeat and a victory that do not yet exist.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Glenn Dandy]

easiest war eva!

[THE FEZ MAN]

a good freind of mine's wife is a doctor in the army, her opinon is that a lot of these guys would be better off dead than how some of them are coming back "alive"
i know a bunch of combat vets, not one of them is "right" a good freind of mine is a combat vet from Gulf war 1, he tells me he has night mares all the time. my father was in Nam, NEVER sneak up on him, my grandfather was wounded in anzio, he drank himself to death.

war is hell and the war in Iraq was not worth it.

[Voss's Tumor]

As I've documented in other threads recently, things are vastly different now in Iraq. The Iraqis have largely been rejecting the jihad, violence and casualties are way down, most Americans in this country now believe that we can succeed in accomplishing our goals in that country.

Most Americans in this country also prefer Rock of Love to CNN. Please don't use public opinion in this country of morons to justify this bullshit war, it's just condescending and justifies nothing.

[Glenn Dandy]

there is no dough that much good came from this war.... mayby not good for America...but, I would figure this war brought those savages 200 years of evolution in a few short years...the ones there with brains will always remember the American soldier that gave them food, help, and protected them.

[MrBogey]

A war is as righteous on day one as it is on the final day. Numbers and casualties are only something for historians and families.

[DonTheTrucker]

The focus on more wounded is an effort to make an otherwise improving (shitty, but less shitty) situation look worse.

Good news doesn't sell, especially when the good news doesn't support the line of thought that the media is trying to push on us.

Ask an Iraqi or a soldier how things are going. Not Keith Olberman.

[Voss's Tumor]

The focus on more wounded is an effort to make an otherwise improving (shitty, but less shitty) situation look worse.

Good news doesn't sell, especially when the good news doesn't support the line of thought that the media is trying to push on us.

Ask an Iraqi or a soldier how things are going. Not Keith Olberman.

Gas prices are threatening your way of life.

This affects gas prices.

We're spending too much money as a country. Truckers are about to be out of business and we're all going to suffer. The economy doesn't have anywhere else to flex. You guys brag about maintaining the grass roots of this economy... I was a finance guy. I see that there's no more money to go around. It's coming your way. It's the way it's always happened.

Does it mean more than rhetoric and shit to argue about over the internet now?

Edit: And Don, understand that when my father wasn't a Snap-On dealer he drove for Consolidated Freightways before Corn Flakes kicked the bucket. I know how this works from both ends. Dude, the message here is, quite literally, Doomed, Mother Fucking Doomed.

[LiddyRules]

Ask an Iraqi or a soldier how things are going. Not Keith Olberman. I'm sorry to ask this but how much do the soldiers actually know? You say "ask a soldier" or "ask an Iraqi" but when it comes to the grand plans and the grand scheme of the war, how in the loop are they? I'm not saying Olberman knows, I doubt it, but I don't really know if a soldier's singular view of his part of the war is the right answer either. It is such a stock answer but I don't know how much faith I put in it.

EDIT: Generic disclaimer about how I don't hate the troops.

[BIV]

Gas prices are threatening your way of life.

This affects gas prices.

We're spending too much money as a country. Truckers are about to be out of business and we're all going to suffer. The economy doesn't have anywhere else to flex. You guys brag about maintaining the grass roots of this economy... I was a finance guy. I see that there's no more money to go around. It's coming your way. It's the way it's always happened.

Does it mean more than rhetoric and shit to argue about over the internet now?

Stop with the "financial cost of war" bullshit. Who gives a flying fuck. Winning the war is more important than an affordably priced espresso.

And if you used to be a financial guy, you must have not been a very good one or you would know that war always puts more into the economy than it takes out. Especially now when military manufacturing is the only industry that is still primarily done in the U.S.

I know you hate the fact that things are actually getting better over there, but just once could you look at a situation without your doom-colored glasses on?

Jesus you are in desperate need of some joy.

[Glenn Dandy]

I'm sorry to ask this but how much do the soldiers actually know? You say "ask a soldier" or "ask an Iraqi" but when it comes to the grand plans and the grand scheme of the war, how in the loop are they? I'm not saying Olberman knows, I doubt it, but I don't really know if a soldier's singular view of his part of the war is the right answer either. It is such a stock answer but I don't know how much faith I put in it.

EDIT: Generic disclaimer about how I don't hate the troops.

the smiles sir... the smiles.


good natured American kindness in a place that has only known evil .

food,schools,hope.

[blazin]

my exgirlfriend was in afghanistan in early 2004. honest to god, she's a TOTALLY different woman now. she used to be the biggest sweetheart. now she can be a real cunt on wheels. you really have to watch how you talk to her because she gets pissed at the smallest shit, and she won't let it go. she's on antidepressants/antianxiety meds, she can't sleep w/o the slightest noise waking her up. she's a mess.


Same thing happened to my ex-girlfriend. Except she went to law school.

[BIV]

This seems relevant to this conversation:

Metro News Source:
>>Army To Spend Four-Million-Dollars Investigating Alternative PTSD Therapies

(Undated) -- Apparently the mindset the military wants for its soldiers and alternative therapies like yoga can co-exist. "Wired" magazine reports the U.S. Army plans to give out four-million-dollars worth of grants to investigate new ways of treating post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury in returning troops. The Army hopes the grants will help produce preliminary data on the effectiveness of approaches that could include anything from yoga to bioenergy therapies like Reiki [[ RAY-kee ]], acupuncture, meditation and spiritual ministry. About 17-percent of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have come home with PTSD, with another 33-hundred soldiers suffering from traumatic brain injury.

[DonTheTrucker]

I'm sorry to ask this but how much do the soldiers actually know? You say "ask a soldier" or "ask an Iraqi" but when it comes to the grand plans and the grand scheme of the war, how in the loop are they? I'm not saying Olberman knows, I doubt it, but I don't really know if a soldier's singular view of his part of the war is the right answer either. It is such a stock answer but I don't know how much faith I put in it.

EDIT: Generic disclaimer about how I don't hate the troops.

Well, asking the average soldier or Iraqi would get a better view of what the average people on the street think. I think in the end that's more important. Sooner or later the average Iraqi is going to see us as the good guy and all of the savages using dogs and retards to blow up their bus stops as the bad guys. Then they'll fight back on their own and we can leave.

So it may not be a scientific method, but I think it may be more accurate.

Asking a politician isn't good because they're liars. Asking a general isn't good because they're politicians. Asking a reporter is the worst becuase they're liars of the worst sort.

[Vyce]

Most Americans in this country also prefer Rock of Love to CNN. Please don't use public opinion in this country of morons to justify this bullshit war, it's just condescending and justifies nothing.

But, of course, while they think we can win the war, still, most Americans don't approve of the war, though.

But that's good, for me, because now that I am forced to apply your "public opinion isn't worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass with" standard, I can disregard that previous respect I had for those people's opinions (no mater if I disagreed with them), and now comfortably shit on their - and your - point of view, to my heart's content.

Because it's all just public opinion! They're probably just too stupid to understand these things anyway.

[ArthurT.Opless]

I'm sorry to ask this but how much do the soldiers actually know? You say "ask a soldier" or "ask an Iraqi" but when it comes to the grand plans and the grand scheme of the war, how in the loop are they? I'm not saying Olberman knows, I doubt it, but I don't really know if a soldier's singular view of his part of the war is the right answer either. It is such a stock answer but I don't know how much faith I put in it.

EDIT: Generic disclaimer about how I don't hate the troops.

I am a Desert Storm vet. I can tell you that I was pretty sick for about four years after. I'm still a little jumpy around loud noises and my kids can tell you that I do have a pretty short fuse sometimes.

As far as what a soldier knows question, soldiers understand mission objectives. We were always kept abreast of ongoing operations to include any adjustments the enemy made and our counter tactics. War "evolves" I guess. The toughest job for a modern soldier is the use of restraint.

As far as 4000 deaths, to put it in perspective, over 4000 men were lost in the battle of Iwo Jima alone. Modern war fighting practices Risk management. I know that loosing one soldier is one too many but to loose 4000 n a 5 year war is beyond phenomenal. It is probably more dangerous to walk through Camden NJ than Bagdad. We loose five times that many lives do to traffic accidents yearly.

Anyway, just my opinion.

[Glenn Dandy]

I am a Desert Storm vet. I can tell you that I was pretty sick for about four years after. I'm still a little jumpy around loud noises and my kids can tell you that I do have a pretty short fuse sometimes.

As far as what a soldier knows question, soldiers understand mission objectives. We were always kept abreast of ongoing operations to include any adjustments the enemy made and our counter tactics. War "evolves" I guess. The toughest job for a modern soldier is the use of restraint.

As far as 4000 deaths, to put it in perspective, over 4000 men were lost in the battle of Iwo Jima alone. Modern war fighting practices Risk management. I know that loosing one soldier is one too many but to loose 4000 n a 5 year war is beyond phenomenal. It is probably more dangerous to walk through Camden NJ than Bagdad. We loose five times that many lives do to traffic accidents yearly.

Anyway, just my opinion.

exactly.....the democrates are acting like all these poor soldiers... bring em home.

its like he said 4 thou in 5 years is fucking phenom for a fucking war.

almost that many were killed in a few hours 9/11 babys, woman and anything else in the sickos way. these middle eastern countrys need to be inihilated.. and re vamped...

its simple as my Indian gas guy told me.... ten tears India has been good, westernized...but Pakistan... NO GOOD,All they want to do is fight, fight , fight. there modern day bullies and in the day of technology... that can be a dangerous prospect...


one terrorist act kiled as many civilians as this whole war damned near...

what will the costs be for the next successful one.

[Voss's Tumor]

But, of course, while they think we can win the war, still, most Americans don't approve of the war, though.

But that's good, for me, because now that I am forced to apply your "public opinion isn't worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass with" standard, I can disregard that previous respect I had for those people's opinions (no mater if I disagreed with them), and now comfortably shit on their - and your - point of view, to my heart's content.

Because it's all just public opinion! They're probably just too stupid to understand these things anyway.

Electing an official = Public Opinion

Military strategy = No relevance.

The public should have a voice when it comes to whether or not we should go to war or end a war. The opinions of the people don't matter for shit whether or not "they think we can win"... We've been there for 5 years and I heard a stat that said something like only 4% of the News Cycle last week even had anything to do with Iraq. Expecting people's opinions to reflect anything intelligent about what's going on on the ground half a world a way is just absurd and you know it.

[Begbie]

I am a Desert Storm vet. I can tell you that I was pretty sick for about four years after. I'm still a little jumpy around loud noises and my kids can tell you that I do have a pretty short fuse sometimes.

As far as what a soldier knows question, soldiers understand mission objectives. We were always kept abreast of ongoing operations to include any adjustments the enemy made and our counter tactics. War "evolves" I guess. The toughest job for a modern soldier is the use of restraint.

As far as 4000 deaths, to put it in perspective, over 4000 men were lost in the battle of Iwo Jima alone. Modern war fighting practices Risk management. I know that loosing one soldier is one too many but to loose 4000 n a 5 year war is beyond phenomenal. It is probably more dangerous to walk through Camden NJ than Bagdad. We loose five times that many lives do to traffic accidents yearly.

Anyway, just my opinion.

And a good one at that.

I forget who it was...Kennedy or Sharpton I think...began the comparison between this war and Vietnam to try and tug at the heart strings of the public that is too stupid and too lazy to know any differently. We lost nearly 60K soldiers in Vietnam with over 1.1 million casualties altogether. I just find it ridiculous how the media and opponents of this war can pick these milestones apart and not put things into perspective on actually how worse it could have been. Any soldier's death during a war like this is tragic. I lost a friend of mine in 2004. Do I need the media to flash a big 4,000 up on the screen and keep reminding me to better their own ratings? Or do I need political "anti-war faggots" to keep reminding me that my friend died over oil or for no reason at all? No, fuck'em. Iraq was run by a bunch of savages that have very little respect for the west, especially the US. And the thought was that they had WMD's, which they don't...or at least, don't "anymore".

Just wait til 5,000 deaths, if it happens. NBC, FOX, ABC, CNN will all be cutting onions in the newsrooms to generate some fake emotion...I'm sure their already designing the 5,000 graphic.

[DonTheTrucker]

But, of course, while they think we can win the war, still, most Americans don't approve of the war, though.

But that's good, for me, because now that I am forced to apply your "public opinion isn't worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass with" standard, I can disregard that previous respect I had for those people's opinions (no mater if I disagreed with them), and now comfortably shit on their - and your - point of view, to my heart's content.

Because it's all just public opinion! They're probably just too stupid to understand these things anyway.

Well I wouldn't "shit" on someone's opinion of the whole war thing. While I may not agree with them, there are a few valid points some of the anti-war people bring up. If they're smart and don't try the whole "it's a war for oil maaaaaan" I usually give them a listen. While I still support the effort, a lot of mistakes have been made and the whole sales pitch was a fucking disaster.

[Vyce]

I was being facetious, Don, and pointing out VT's own inherent hypocrisy here.

[Voss's Tumor]

I don't see how pointing out how the opinions of the people should apply when going to war, but don't matter when building military strategy makes me a hypocrite.

[CougarHunter]

All this talk of PTSD nonsense.......Patton knew how to take care of those non hackers.