1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

US Military Dead

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by clv101, Jan 18, 2006.

  1. clv101

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 9,894

    Location: Bristol

    I drew this graph around 8 months ago, here's an update. Click for a larger version.

    [​IMG]

    It seems to me as if the current situation is untenable. Where's it leading? How long will the American public tolerate such losses (and financial expense) for a cause many see as questionable at best? How long does this number carry on increasing (at increasing rates) before something changes. The total dead is now over 2,300.

    The current situation can't carry on forever, what will change it. A breakout of peace across the country? The Americans packing up at going home? The Americans (and others) with assistance from the Iraqi police/army creating security conditions that prevent successful attacks?

    Where's it going?
     
  2. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: May 3, 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    That's quite a telling graph, three years after the war US army is still suffering from the same steady flow of casaulties. IT would also be interesting to know about the injured, as I believe these are in the 10's of thousands.

    Once the US army bases have been fully setup, I believe the US will just try and sit back and use ariel submission i.e. bomb the crap out of everyone, thus limiting their own casualties and making the crowd back home a little happier.

    But overall, it all looks to have gone poo as there is a very real danger of the Shi'ite majority in Iraq, who live in the oilfields, "teaming up" with Iran. This will have the further effect of enticing the Shi'te population in northern SA, which, once again is where all the oil is, into some sort of partnership.

    And there is no way that the US would allow this.....So expect plenty more bloodshed.
     
  3. clv101

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 9,894

    Location: Bristol

    Put faces to the numbers here: Gallery.
    What a waste. :(
     
  4. Sanzy

    Banned

    Joined: Mar 12, 2005

    Posts: 1,117

    Location: Forget About It

    dont want to Sound Harsh but is a war ..... soliders join the army to fight ..
     
  5. Ricochet J

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 29, 2004

    Posts: 12,880

    I disagree.
    Soldiers join the army for defence. To protect thier country from threats and help others. A soldier can be a mechanic and a chef if i'm not mistaken?


    With regards to the deaths, I don't believe the British army follow the same trend do they? Although death is not a great thing, I am going to be crude and say only been a 100 deaths I believe.
     
  6. neoboy

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 16, 2004

    Posts: 11,658

    Location: UK

    British casualties are lower and some people say it's due to our different approach but some say we're just in low risk areas as opposed to Americans.
     
  7. Ricochet J

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 29, 2004

    Posts: 12,880


    Low risk areas? Thats BS, in my opinion. Iraq with respect has insurgents running everywhere attacking people in uniform. Doesn't matter if they're in Basra or Baghdad.
     
  8. Scania

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 25, 2004

    Posts: 23,541

    Location: On the road....

    Imagine a similar gallery from WW2 !
     
  9. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,400

    Location: UK

    Its true...

    The Americans have been facing the ex republican guard guys up in the north..along with the most hardened foreign fighters..Basra and southern Iraq is a secondary front for them...

    Although I do agree that our differing approach does work well.
     
  10. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Yes, while numbers sound bad in themselves, seeing the faces of the dead always has more of an impact :(

    And let's not forget the gallery of the dead Iraqis would be ten times the size at least, and contain numerous women and children. In fact I could post a link but it is actual dead bodies, not their sanitised mugshots, so I'm not going to.
     
  11. Nat

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 1,174

    Location: On holiday in Cambodia

    What the hell are they doing in Iraq, then!? ;)
     
  12. RaohNS

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 23, 2004

    Posts: 8,410

    Location: In the Gym

    i must admit when you look at all those faces, and think of the families they've left behind it really does shock you, behind every face is a family, wife, child for many. In one way looking at that and based on those figures they should seriously start getting a tougher approach to dealing with foreign terrorists that come in, up the anti, have spy planes up 24/7 along the Iranian border, then have a few Apaches on standby ready to lay waste to them imo

    Better to save the sons and daughters of our own

    >| Raoh |<
     
  13. FTM

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 10, 2003

    Posts: 6,021

    Location: South Shields


    how many civilians have been killed by 'insurgents' now though...civilian deaths since the end of actual combat operations must still be climbing as well...and they are indiscriminate as well especially in their bombings..market places or open areas..funerals, mosques..nothing is sacred for them.

    piles of bodies regularly turn up where they have marched them out of their homes and gunned them down somewhere..for what crime? being the wrong religious group, taking a job to feed your family, or helping the the country get back on its feet by doing some construction work


    if the iraqi people were allowed to build things or repair pylons or pipes without fear of them and their families being killed their infrastructure would improve a lot quicker and conditions would improve for everybody.....the country is being held back and will never improve..how is that helping the Iraqi people?
     
  14. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Quite a few I imagine.

    Yes, it's being held back by the insurgents admittedly, but it's the invading forces that knocked it back seriously in the first place.

    I'm not condoning anything though, my point really (and in keeping with the thread) was that we shouldn't forget the Iraqi victims when remembering the American dead - especially given that the Iraqis are the ones being invaded after all.
     
  15. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    But they presumably do so in the hope and expectation that, if required to fight, it is for a good reason......
     
  16. RaohNS

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 23, 2004

    Posts: 8,410

    Location: In the Gym

    Its over ten times the amount of US Dead.

    I seriously dont get a lot of posters here. They all seem to make out that Iraq was this place of virtue, purity and good will, with a brilliant infrastructure, solid society with no problems at all. Iraq was far from it before at least you can do something as simple as play radio now.

    People look after their own first.

    >| Raoh |<
     
  17. aztechnology

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 12, 2004

    Posts: 2,503

    Location: Oop North

    Can I ask how you can actually back up this opinion, as this statement sounds like reactionary rubbish.

    I'm not saying that the reason the British are not taking the same losses is because we are all in the naffy swigging tea in a safe zone, there are probably loads of reasons, type of missions undertaken, areas patrolled, number of forces, likelyhood of being a target due to country of origin....
     
  18. aztechnology

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 12, 2004

    Posts: 2,503

    Location: Oop North


    I think statement is false, apart from in times of notable national peril (WWI WWII etc) people don't join the army to fight, they do so because the "military lifestyle" and career apeals to them for one reason or another. I'm sure that if at basic training someone said 1 in 20 of you won't make it back and 2 more will loose a limb, we'd see a lot more recruits pack it in.
     
  19. jumpy

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 6, 2004

    Posts: 2,629

    Location: BOOMTIMES

    Slightly shocked, though not really supprised, to see that eleven of them were women. Seeing faces makes it less disjointed for someone who is only reading about it.
    Personally I find there is something deeply disturbing about women serving in the armed forces; not that they shouldn't be allowed per say for any reasons of 'discrimination' or whatever, just that (in an old-fashioned kind of way) it seems wrong to use those, who give birth to life, in such a way.
    Reading that back it sounds kindof silly and terribly moralistic, but it just occured to me whilst looking through those pictures- 'total war' where the entire nation is envolved is perhaps easier to get to grips with where both sexes are fighting and dying- though why this should seem so I don't know.
    I'm not a religious person or a believer in 'a womans place' or any of that rubbish, but "war is a young mans game". I suppose the meatgrinder has no scruples over gender, should we?
     
  20. Rich_L

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,170

    Location: Santa Barbara, Californee

    It sounds a lot but to put it into perspective, in Vietnam the US suffered 58,000 soldier deaths over 13 years, in the Korean War there were 33,000 killed in 3 years.

    I think the US are in it for a long time yet, where are all the big anti-war protests now?