It's only 1,000, hell, we lost 58,000 in Vietnam, so stop being negative

[mopaul]

we're at war, we were attacked, saddam was a threat and he did 9-11, and we've brought freedom to iraq and afghanistan, so let's not go all negative and spineless and lose our resolve after only a measly 1,000 dead g.i.'s.

what's a thousand dead soldiers more or less on the road to glory and global freedom and dominance? it's only numbers people, let's not be ghoulish and make a big deal about a mere 1,000 dead sons and daughters, who died in vain.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. they are avoiding nam, now they are

talking of the 10,000 in one day at Normandy

[LynnTheDem]

2. That's what the bunch of RWWs

on another board are yapping on about now.

Just like they yap on about Clinton.

RWWs can't seem to get their selves into the present.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. I wonder if those 1,000 soldiers

and the 7,000 plus missing their eyesight, arms, legs, feel "safer" shrubya. I wonder if their wives and husbands feel safer having to raise their children alone.. if their parents understand just how badly these guys twisted data to get their dirty little war. Sad to say, we now have criminals running the whitehouse. Many know it, few can vocalize it.

On November 3rd, when Dick and George are wondering what happened that they lost so badly, I will laugh a little. I will laugh because even though many people may attend shrub's little speeches... and nod their heads... in their hearts many of them know better... and will show this to be the case on election day.

[Jacobin]

4. Yes. and only 1,100 wounded in August

That ain't nuthin!!

Hell, I'm not over there anyway and neither are my kids.

Who cares if they git killed or maimed.

(I believe this is what Rush Limpballs and his cohorts suggest is the correct way to view the slaughter of American soldiers sent to a senseless and illegal war)

[Joanne98]

5. The death count is lower because of improved medical care......

What about the 6,000 wounded? Thirty five yrs ago 3,000 of them would have died. Give it 9 more yrs and factor in X lives saved do to modern medicine and bingo. It isn't all that different. Never forget, Republicans LIE about NUMBERS.

[JanMichael]

6. The first few years of Vietnam had reletively few fatalities, didn't they?

IIRC The Iraq quagmire is actually progressing at a faster rate, mortality wise, than Vietnam. And the Vietnamese had some 20 years of warfare behind them as well as the USSR, so if I were a defender of this shite I think I'd just shut my pie-hole.

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. You are correct. This first year of war is a hundred fold worse than the

first five years of Vietnam. We must keep this in mind. :hi:

[Wilber_Stool]

7. 300 dead school children in Russia.

Do you know how many school children there are in Russia? A drop in the bucket.

[Kanary]

8. I saw Arizona's Senator Kyl on C-Span2

before realizing what drivel he was getting into, and was appalled to hear him stress over and over how the families and military personnel had to be reassured that their "sacrifices" were for a good cause.

I can't even type more of it...... so disgusting that we have so many in this country who can care so little about human life.

Kanary

[jumpstart33]

9. Don't forget: At one time there were only 1,000 dead in Viet Nam.

this is a real tragedy.

[Dem2theMax]

13. Amen.

Powerful words - "Don't forget: At one time there were only 1,000 dead in Viet Nam."

[BootinUp]

10. Pass out the purple bandaids, we don't know what real war is.

[candy]

11. The death rate in Korea was worse. Why is Vietnam mentioned-

when Korea rarely is?

About 53,000 died in Korea and the fighting went on for about 3 years.

[mopaul]

12. world wars 1 & 2, korea, and countless other wars of imperialism

the death toll adds up into the millions. i picked vietnam because it's the war we all seem to be focusing on in this election, and the most recent and painful in our minds. korea is worth mentioning.

[oneighty]

14. Korea war was long ago, so yesterday

We are old and gray and fading away. Not much attention is ever paid to "The Forgotten War".

180 Korean war vet.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

15. My dad is a Korean War Vet too-so many forgotten soldiers

:-(

Many of his war buddies think Iraq was a HUGE mistake.

[oneighty]

19. I think

his buddies are right RationalRose.

180

[candy]

26. I won' t forget Korea,that's my generation.

A neighbor died in Korea and yet,as you say,it's a forgotten war. It boggles my mind.

There is constant,unending publicity about WWII and Vietnam and virtually nothing on Korea.

[Dangerman]

16. You meant that as sarcasm, aren't you?

(meant your very first post, mopaul)

As if 11,000 innocent Iraqis Bush murdered were "sacrificing themselves to be free from Saddam's tyranny."

[Scottie72]

18. Well lets compare a bit more fairly shall we

Vietnam started off as a small conflict much like Iraq is now but on a month to month comparison Iraq has more deaths hands down than vietnam. Just imagine 4 more years of the chimp in charge!



<http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-and-iraq-by-month/>

[UpsideDownFlag]

20. i was worried there for a second. nt

[Djinn]

21. I actually don't like the emphasis on US casualties

although I can understand it - but apart from it being a really dodgy figure (doesn't include "accidental" deaths, or many deaths occuring later in army hospitals elsewhere or deaths of "contractors") it also ignores the fact that it's not just US soldiers that have been dragged into an illegitimate war and it seems to gloss over the tens of thousands of Iraqi's who have died. If "we" stay in Iraq for as long as Saddam did "our" body count will be higher than his.

Like I said I understand the emphasis but I'm just not really comfortabel with it.

[Lisa]

22. plus those wimpy Europeans ...

Why wouldn't they want their troops in combat -- after all, they've lost far more (more than million, in a single WWI battle). Surely, the prospect of a mere handful of dead or injured troops each week should be relatively trivial, n'est ce pas?

George W. should get on the phone to Tony Blair and remind him that it could be worse, as in more than 19,000 dead in a single day. Tell them to stiffen their upper lips and all that, eh what?


p.s. the earlier question about how far into the Vietnam War a thousand soldiers had died -- the stats at this site suggest it would have been midway through 1965.

http://thewall-usa.com/stats/index.html
1957 -- 1 -- cumulative total 1
1958 -- 0 -- cumulative total 1
1959 -- 2 -- cumulative total 3
1960 -- 5 -- cumulative total 8
1961 -- 16 -- cumulative total 24
1962 -- 53 -- cumulative total 77
1963 -- 118 -- cumulative total 195
1964 -- 206 -- cumulative total 401
1965 -- 1863 -- cumulative total 2264

[Art_from_Ark]

25. A little perspective on those figures

In 1963, President Kennedy was considering withdrawing those advisors from Viet Nam. Apparently, he was becoming uncormfortable with the casualty figure. Then the next year, after Kennedy was... no longer on the scene... we got the phony Gulf of Tonkin "incident" and 98 Senators signed on to the resolution of the same name in August, granting now President Johnson greater power to wage war in the region. Then voila! instant escalation.

[Red Fox]

23. WTF do you mean Saddam "did 9-11"?

And if you're going to put it that way, 3k civis is nothing compared to 58k deaths in Vietnam, either. So why are people making a fuss about it anyway?

When 3k civis die in USA it means war, when 11k civis die in Iraq by direct kills nobody gives a f-ck. The hypocrisy of some people is just not funny.

[H2O Man]

24. Don't forget Grenada!

We may not like to think about it much these days, but Grenada was going to build an airport the same size as that which serves a village of 3800 people near me. We couldn't have that in our hemisphere. More, Maurice Bishop smoked pot with Eric Clapton when he was a student in England. And we ALL hate England .... no, wait! it's the French we're instructed to hate. It's one of the "old European" countries. Well, back to the killing of the nutmeg threat from Grenada: is there any SANE person who would argue that we are NOT better off now? Sure, no WMDs were in Grenada. But they hated freedom more than life itself. We had to kill them.