Help with an arguement.

[DeepRed]

Does anyone have a link to an article showing how the Iraqi War actualy has a lower US body count than other wars for freedom?

A Libersal friend thinks that 1700+ lives are to high a price to pay for freedom & security. An op-ed would do nicely.

Thanks in advance.

[cripplecreek]

Here's a site that lists American war dead through history to 2001.


http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm

[The_Victor]

Casualties for all US wars

http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf

from this website http://www.dior.whs.mil

[DeepRed]

Don't get me wrong, that's a good link. But I'm looking for someone who understands that the fatalities in Iraq are worth the cost.

I don't know if there is a "cost-benefit" analyis of the Iraqi war that's been done yet. For example: How many people would have died in the USA of we didn't take the war to the terrorists in Iraq?

I know that's probalby an unanswerable question, that's why I was looking for an op-ed or blog entry that would explain how the deaths in Iraq are worth the sacrifice better than I could.

[Tijeras_Slim]

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. -Thomas Paine-

I think this puts your "friends" mindset in perspective. He gained his birthright on the cheap.

[Congressman Billybob]

Put it in plain terms. If casualty levels like the current war (eleventh in the eleven major wars the US has fought) had always been "too high," we would be singing "God Save the Queen" at the beginning of ball games. Also, ask this lunkhead whether he will give up his car because the death rate is "too high." Automobiles take the lives of about 35,000 Americans per year -- and that's down substantially from a decade ago.

Your liberal associate is historically illiterate. And he will probably become hostile when you attempt to insert some facts into his brain.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "South Pacific" Lesson about Muslims

[DeepRed]

I think we both agree that freedom is worth fighting for. It's just that she isn't convinced that fighting in IRAQ is worth fighting for. She doesn't even think that the war in Iraq is about our own freedom from terrorism.

I'd like something that connects the sacrifices in Iraq with our own freedom. It doens't have to be "Just the facts"... but something that would sound more elequent that I could say it.

Google has a very Liberal bias against the Iraqi war and I can't find what I'm looking for. (By the way, has Googles bias been discussed on FR before? I didn't notice it until recently.)

I do love that quote 'tho. :D

[DeepRed]

That should do niocely! Do you have that posted anywhere else besides FR? I think more people should read it.

[Congressman Billybob]

My article on this precise subject, relative casualties in all of America's wars, was posted on FreeRepublic. It also was published on www.ChronWatch.com And it had a couple of obscure print media outlets.

John

[lOKKI]

is a "cost-benefit" analysis of the Iraqi war that's been done yet. For example: How many people would have died in the USA of we didn't take the war to the terrorists in Iraq?

What price freedom?

What was the cost-benefit analysis of World War I for the United States?

However, if you really want something with numbers- let's say that the United States had no business in the middle east and that the first Gulf war wasn't fought.

Saddam now controls all the oil from Kuwait as well as Iraq. Remove that amount of oil from the markets (if Saddam so chose) and figure the impact on the American economy.

Alternately, assume that America backed down at the UN and we did not invade Iraq the second time only.

Your alternative scenarios: a. Saddam does nothing and nothing changes. Plausible? Likely?

b. Saddam chooses to act as an (uninspected now) replacement for the Taliban and Al Quaeda forced out of Afghanistan. Plausible? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I suspect that Saddam wouldn't mind sheltering someone who tweaks the beard of his enemy the U.S. Do more attacks on the U.S. homeland follow?

c. Uninspected, and now unchallenged by the U.S who withdrew, Saddam might choose to rebuild his weapons program. At some point, he may become a threat to Kuwait, Israel, Iran, your choice. Is there a possible expense to the U.S. if the middle east breaks into a war in any of these areas? Will the flow of oil be interrupted?

d. Libya, and North Korea do not feel threatened. Libya does not disarm. North Korea does not come to the bargaining table. Iraq remains a negative influence in the middle east. Syria is not chastened by the threat of U.S. action

No one, now, can tell what might have happened if the U.S. had not invaded. Any of these scenarios might have occurred, or none. Combinations of them....

I'd ask your friend to give you his scenarios as to what he thinks would be happening now if the invasion hadn't occurred.

[GoldCountryRedneck]

Hmmmmmm... if Sept 11th, 2001 is taken as the start of the baseline, ZERO troops had died, but 3,000 US civilians had, right?

So, it could be said that, each troop death saves 3,000 more US civilians, no?

Thus, 1,700(Troop deaths)x 3,000(Potential US civilian victims) = 5,100,000 Potential US civilians saved!

And then there's those 50,000,000 Iraq/Afgan citizens liberated...