Death toll in Iraq now at 3602

[Rupturedduck]

but 'dubya' waiting for it to reach 5000 and then maybe he will do something.

[Jim]

Death toll for your brain cells - several billion.

[ZOOMBAG]

but 'dubya' waiting for it to reach 5000 and then maybe he will do something.



Still over 2500 away from equaling the casualties on a single DAY on D-Day. And that was a bad MONTH in Vietnam...

[Yoda]

So what's your point, Zoomie?

The dead are just as dead. Their families are in just as much pain. The decisions that caused these deaths are no better because the number of deaths are less.

I just don't see what the point of your comparison is. What point, exactly, are you trying to make or prove?

Yoda out...

[VandalBasher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_Creed

Our famililes are fully aware of the dangers which exist in our day to day work. My favorite running song (cadence) was a song called "Don't cry me no tears". So, quit acting like you give a care about our soldiers. And that goes for those who support this war and those who don't.

We have a job to do. If something goes bad, I am a big enough boy to have known about my RISKS prior to any operation. We mitigate risk in every area prior to conducting our missions.

If anyone really cared about our losses, they would do something about it. Posting insults and jokes on a college football forum does not constitute a protest. The young men and women of the 60's are embarrassed for you. And for those who support this war, let us take our gloves off. Please! Both sides of the aisle are sitting on their hands.

The shame of this war isn't the number of Friendly KIA. We fully know about this. But, it is the number of troops who are coming home injured. With injuries beyond imagination. Let us finish this now so the troops can come home.


Go Vandals!

[HoyaSooner]

So what's your point, Zoomie?

The dead are just as dead. Their families are in just as much pain. The decisions that caused these deaths are no better because the number of deaths are less.

I just don't see what the point of your comparison is. What point, exactly, are you trying to make or prove?

Yoda out...

If you are too dumb to understand the point, then why should he explain it to you?

If only ONE man dies, then his family is in just as much pain. The decisions which led to the death of only one man is no better just because the number of deaths are less.

The point is, Rupturedduck speaks as though 3602 deaths are a lot in war. He acts as though the number of deaths somehow prove that the Iraq war was a mistake, as though the number speaks for itself. Well, the number does speak for itself - it shows an incredibly light number of deaths considering the length of time we've been over there.

To give you an example of scale, it's like complaining that a gallon of gas costs a quarter. A whole quarter! Whatever shall we do? Obviously, this president's energy policy is failing when a full tank of gas costs more than a Happy Meal! I doubt you'll find many people willing to listen to such a brain-dead argument.

[Blue Hen]

I share your sensitivity, Yoda.

Every painful, brutal death and maiming is just such 'personal' horror if you've seen it up close and personal......just so much more than relatively small casualty 'numbers'.

I don't know.....but it just bothers me that 'chicken hawks' can put on these wars ......sometimes without a, seemingly, legitimate cause or based on a clear cut national defense issue. Dying for our country is honerable, I guess, but is that really the case in this invasion/occupation ? Like I said.....there so much I don't know. If Iraq wasn't setting over one of the planet's biggest oil reserves would we be wasting these kids ? Honest question. I admit, I'm not acutely informed on our foreign policy matters.

[Yoda]

If you are too dumb to understand the point, then why should he explain it to you?

...The point is, Rupturedduck speaks as though 3602 deaths are a lot in war. He acts as though the number of deaths somehow prove that the Iraq war was a mistake, as though the number speaks for itself. Well, the number does speak for itself - it shows an incredibly light number of deaths considering the length of time we've been over there.


Rupturedduck made no comparisons between the death toll in this war vs. the death toll in some other war. He noted the fatalities in this war and suggested that the President seemed unwilling to make changes in his policies until such time as it goes higher. Period. End of story.

To be sure, Zoomie pointed out that the number was small compared to other incidents. But I think you are putting words in his mouth when you say that his point was that Rupturedduck "speaks as though" or "acts as though". I'm not certain that Zoomie had a point beyond putting Rupturedduck's number in perspective.

Fact is, neither the justification for a war, nor the lack of justification for a war, is a function of the death toll of that war. Either you have the moral and political justification for going to war or you don’t. If you don't have that justification, then one death is one too many. And if you do have that justification, then an unimaginably high death toll may be acceptable. The problem with this war is that the moral and political justification is suspect -- at least according to most of the world (including more than 70% of Americans).

And as for being too dumb to understand, well, my IQ can beat up your IQ.

Yoda out...

[BigTiger72]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Shawn Smut]

this is like vietnam, it's an un-winable war. however, it would be foolish to pull out at this point.

[HoyaSooner]

Rupturedduck made no comparisons between the death toll in this war vs. the death toll in some other war. He noted the fatalities in this war and suggested that the President seemed unwilling to make changes in his policies until such time as it goes higher. Period. End of story.

To be sure, Zoomie pointed out that the number was small compared to other incidents. But I think you are putting words in his mouth when you say that his point was that Rupturedduck "speaks as though" or "acts as though". I'm not certain that Zoomie had a point beyond putting Rupturedduck's number in perspective.

Fact is, neither the justification for a war, nor the lack of justification for a war, is a function of the death toll of that war. Either you have the moral and political justification for going to war or you don’t. If you don't have that justification, then one death is one too many. And if you do have that justification, then an unimaginably high death toll may be acceptable. The problem with this war is that the moral and political justification is suspect -- at least according to most of the world (including more than 70% of Americans).

And as for being too dumb to understand, well, my IQ can beat up your IQ.

Yoda out...

You are absolutely right that the death toll has no bearing on the moral justification (or the lack of moral justification) of this war. We could lose half a million soldiers, but if the cause is just, then the cause is just.

The problem in this thread is two-fold. First, there is debate as to the justification of the war. I don't care if the world is against it - just as moral justification is not determined by the number of deaths, it is also not determined by popular vote. 70% of this country is now against it because they are tired of hearing about it - I'm sure 70% of all football fans hate Notre Dame, as well. The second part of the problem is that Rupturedduck has been posting this same thread, under different screen names, for the past 4 years. So you'll understand if none of us give a damn anymore when he posts some new, marginally higher number as if it was proof from God that George W Bush is a fire-breathing demon.