Casualty lists are inflated by media..

[Gixer]

Muckmaw,

I think your the one missing the point. Do you really think for a moment that the family of that soilder care whether he was killed in a accident or to enemy action? To them he/she died in combat in a theatre of operations. That's why they count towards KIA figures. Don't try and seperate it to try and make the casualty numbers look lower.

Either way it's just as tragic. Worse thing I've seen regarding casualty figures is when they don't include the dead and wounded from the original invasion. Only since the occupation. To make the numers look lower then the Iraq war has truly cost.

I think that's a outrage to those that have fallen prior to the occupation.




...-Gixer

[stratman]

No Sir the real outrage is that any of them have had to die at all!

[Holden McGroin]

Worse thing I've seen regarding casualty figures is when they don't include the dead and wounded from the original invasion. Only since the occupation. To make the numers look lower then the Iraq war has truly cost.

04-2004 :  143  
03-2004  : 52
02-2004 :  23
01-2004 :  52  
12-2003 :  48  
11-2003 :  110  
10-2003 :  45  
09-2003 :  33
08-2003 ;  43  
07-2003 :  48  
06-2003 :  36
05-2003 :  41  
04-2003 :  79  
03-2003 :  92  
Total       : 845

845 includes before occupation, as 03 and 04-2003 was the invasion time frame.  I have never seen a news story where they do not include 03/2003.

It is not my intent to be callous here, and to a mother or a brother I am wrong, but this is extremely light casualties when taken in an historical perspective.  During the January '68 tet offensive, US, Korea, and Austrailian forces lost 1,536.  The battle of Iwo jima (Feb 19-Mar 26) cost 7,000 lives.  Gettysburg lost 60,000 in three days, an average of over 833 an hour.

[Fishu]

and there was a wee bit more men involved in these fights and fightning against rather equally armed enemies.

Can't compare "actual" war losses to iraq "war" losses.

Bad thing is this: Bush says Iraq will have it's own goverment in place during this year and there are still areas which are very volatile.
Major operations caused less losses than the aftermath they're undergoing.

Thats something to worry.
If US leaves Iraq too soon, it'll be an another afganistan.  Hello Taliban.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Fishu
...Major operations caused less losses than the aftermath they're undergoing....

Not to get bogged down in statistics, but we lost over 7 per day during 3/03, the invasion.

During April 04, we lost over 4 per day.  The reason we lost fewer during the invasion, is that it lasted only a few weeks, where the occupation has lasted a year.

We have lost more to indirect causes, i.e. traffic and other accidents, in the year than we lost in combat during the invasion.

We do need to wrap it up, but we need to finish the job first.

[stratman]

Yeah LOL but Bush is putting some of saddumbs ex generals incharge of fallujah LOL.
Hows that for CRAZY!!