Comments:United States military death toll in Iraq reaches 4,000

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Why

Why is the U.S. still over there? Fephisto - (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't have gone in to begin with, but they should finish what they started. It would be even more wrong to go in, destroy the preexisting power dynamic and infrastructure, and leave, citing 'civil war', which they were instrumental in facilitating. Iraq wasn't the United States' responsibility before, but it sure as hell is now. -Etafly - (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The violence in Iraq would probably stop if the US (ant the UK) would just leave Iraq. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 15:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how much I wish that where true.

As for the comment below, Bush is a Harvard alumni (he must of cheated). Like many Texans who are or where involved in running industry (though arguably W's experience in industry was essentially like an accredited school of hard knocks), he has no problem using and is not embarrassed by local vernacular. That is my problem with the current crop of candidate. So far as I can tell none of them had much involvement or employment in the private sector-- with the remote exception of Hillary Clinton and her former relationship with Wal-Mart. However she rather not have that brought up.

That aside there is a reason why Barack Obama, the only candidate who has committed to a date for withdrawal, has set said date to over two years from now. To loosely quote an evil "news commentator", Democrats will not hang defeat around their necks. It would be political suicide to allow Iraq to become another terrorist stronghold.

Now we did screw up in Iraq. That is the reason we are still there five years after the fact. But the screw up is not what many believe it is. You see, like many totalitarian regimes, Iraq was originally a democracy. It was allowed by the people to slowly erode away. The military in place was essentially a hierarchy composed of guns held against the heads of loved ones by superiors. Instead of restoring what was already in place, the decision was made to rebuild the nation from scratch. (168.28.43.202 18:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Was there as much violence before the US invaded Iraq? No! --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well no...unless you don't consider gassing thousands of your own people violence. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but there are considerably more deaths. In addition you need to remember that Iraq has a free government there, so what have you got against leaving now DragonFire.--Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Acutally, Bush is a Yale alumni. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Have any of you guys heard of Space Aliens From Luxembourg? Fephisto - (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux can go to hell. --SVTCobra 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

wow

every day you liberals surprise me by showing your more retarded then President Bush him self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

However, the liberals amongst us at least learned how to spell and make competent use of the English language. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

retarded - great use of the english language. liberal - great use of the electoral system.

Truth VS Media interpretation. The public is entitled to the truth.

Military Death Numbers compiled by a friend from DOD reports.

Below is some very interesting data reference deaths in the military. I guarantee you will not read this in your local newspaper nor will you see it on the daily news broadcast. I pray this will help you to enlighten folks around you to the brave and courageous young people serving in our military.

Deaths in the Military

1980 .......... 2,392

1981 .......... 2,380

1982 ......... 2,318

1983 .......... 2,465

1984 .......... 1,999

1985 .......... 2,252

1986 .......... 1,984

1987 .......... 1,983

1988 ......... 1,819

1989 .......... 1,636

1990 .......... 1,508

1991 .......... 1,787

1992 .......... 1,293

1993 .......... 1,213

1994 ......... 1,075

1995 .......... 1,040

1996 .......... 974

1997 .......... 817

1998 .......... 826

1999 .......... 795

2000 ......... 774

2001 .......... 890

2002 .......... 1,007

2003 .......... 1,410 [534*]

2004 .......... 1,887 [900*]

2005 .......... [919*]

2006 .......... [920*]

Figures so noted with an asterisk (*) indicates deaths as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

You may initially feel confused when you look at these figures - especially when you see that in 1980, during the term of President Jimmy Carter,there were 2,392 US military fatalities. What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose and tend to present only those facts that support their agenda driven reporting.

Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities.

Wrong again.

The latest census shows the following:

European descent (white).........69.12%

Hispanic.........................12.5%

African American.................12.3%

Asian.............................3.7%

Native American...................1.0%

Other.............................2.6%

The fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:

European descent (white)........ 74.31%

Hispanic.........................10.74%

African American..................9.67%

Asian.............................1.81%

Native American...................1.09%

Other.............................2.33%

Source:

These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.7.151 (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Of the 2,392 who died in 1980 1,556 were accidental, 174 were homicide, 419 were illness, and 231 were self inflicted. Leaving a total of 12 who died for either undermined reasons or as a result of terrorism. Zero were due to hostile action. Somewhat disingenuous to blame Carter methinks. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus the army in 1980 was far larger than it is now, which accounts for the larger noncombat death toll. Spacehusky - (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I commend you for doing the research; however, how can you call a number you agree with a lie? I am not looking at the breakdown just at the TOTAL number of our military who died. Just one loss is a shame but to report the number 4000 to the general public at the onset of 4 deaths is just short of slanderous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.7.151 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call it a lie, I called it a statistic. Are you unfamiliar with the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" truism? The table you have in the linked to PDF only covers the last two years of Carter's presidency when a total of 4,772 members of the armed services died. As stated, none due to hostile action. To try and make a comparison you can take the last two years of Reagan's first term when 4,462 died. Not a huge difference until you look at the fact that that figure includes 19 killed due to hostile action and 269 due to terrorist attacks.

The total figures steadily drop as you move towards the present day, as suggested above this is partly due to a reduction in the size of the U.S. forces, I'd also like to hope that it is also a sign that commanders have come to the conclusion the death toll due to accident was unacceptable and forces needed to be more professional.

Moving on to the current occupant of the White House, a total of 3,102 died in service during the last two years of his first term. Of those, 1,083 were due to hostile action. As Commander-in-Chief he bears the responsibility for putting troops in the position where they could die due to hostile action. Although any conclusion you can draw from this is somewhat speculative it does not seem much of a stretch to conclude that Republican presidents are warmongers.

As to the press reporting on the 4,000 mark - if they adopted an "oh, it's just another four, it's just another four, ..." attitude they would be failing the public they serve as the fourth estate. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)