U.S. Troops Dying at Rate of Over 1 a Day

Star-Telegram ^ | Tue, Feb. 03, 2004 | ROBERT BURNS

[Prodigal Son]

And 14,000 French 'persons' died last August from heat exhaustion.

Reportedly. This is the key word. It was also reported recently in Britain that 2,000 died during a cold snap. My wife is in the medical industry here and had a chance to question some of those numbers and the authors of the report admitted that almost all had died of something like heart attack or old age but they died during the cold week so the cold got tagged as an attibuting cause.

I don't believe for a minute that 14,000 people died because of the heat in France. The numbers were politically useful to Chirac to put pressure on the short work week and liberal vacation policies of the French health system. Without the 'disaster' it would be very hard to convince anyone to change what is- from their perspective- a good deal.

Americans readily believe the numbers because they hate the French. This is my opinion.

[Fledermaus]

Hey Mr. Burns...war is hell and freedom isn't free.

Get over it.

[Natural Law]

This is still below the number of police and emergency personnel killed daily here at home by domestic trash...... , excuse me, "victims of society".

[optik_b]

"Would the United States be able to make that level of sacrifice in this era? I wonder..."

I have more faith in our country than you do. If we were attacked I have no doubt the American people would fight back.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Good question since 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia including Osama Bin Laden and the Saudi government has helped fund extremist Islamic schools with further anti-USA propaganada.

Indeed. Which means that the "just sloppily blockade Iraq and meanwhile protect the Saudi regime" option has had its cost as well. Included in that cost, at least partially, are the 3000 murder victims of 9/11/2001, as well as the economic damage to this country which resulted. I have to wonder why the anti-finishing-Iraq-war people seem so willing to pay that cost, year in and year out. Was making sure that the Hussein dynasty stays in power over Iraq that important?

[ZULU]

Two Americans are murder every day in NEW YORK CITY alone!!

Everything must be looked at in perspective, but DemocRats have no perspective but their own, self-centered, lying agenda.

[PISANO]

By ANY known standard. Any WAR that claims ONLY about a death a day to hostile/non-hostile action truly amazing. Our troops deserve our praise, admiration and our HONOR, not our whimpering about something that on it's face is a modern war miracle.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Why should even one American have to die to free even one individual in Iraq?

Because the alternative (keeping Saddam Hussein in power, and protecting the Saudi regime from him) also, if somewhat indirectly, resulted in Americans dying. "No Americans dying as a direct or indirect result of the Iraq situation" was not an option on the table. Would that it had been.

Since the Iraquis were not willing to die to secure freedom for themselves, why should any American have to die to secure it for them?

Because keeping Hussein in power (which is the approach we were taking) was causing us problems, and was going to cause us much worse problems in the near future, when the political will to keep up even the facade of a blockade eventually collapsed, as it was going to.

In a sense I agree with you, I could give a rat's ass about the freedom of Iraqian people if that's all there had been to it. But I don't believe that it was. Best,

[Dr. Frank fan]

how about this? They figure it out for themselves.

Personally I hope we don't let them do this. They might "figure out" something which will only cause us more problems down the road, and I certainly hope we don't let them.

We are not going to change an entire mindset rooted in centuries of belief just because, Gosh, we want to.

We did in Japan by the way. Best,

[milemark]

We were attacked, and we are fighting back.

What I wonder is if there were articles like this during WWII.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are not traffic fatalities to be trivialized or marginalized by politicians or their lackies.

I agree. Let me know who's trivializing or marginalizing deaths/casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I can get properly mad at them.

For starters I suppose I'll nominate all the people who are trivializing the deaths by saying that they were needless and have accomplished and will accomplish absolutely nothing. What an insult to them and their families.

I will also nominate the people who trivialize these deaths by reducing them to number-bombs to throw at George Bush in the hopes of getting a (D) elected. I agree that military deaths should not be used in such trivial ways, as crass political footballs.

If you have any more examples, let me know. Best,

[CalKat]

Wouldn't those figures be for active warfare? I thought major operations in Iraq had ceased.

[Peach]

You obviously don't understand your history.

Post WWII, Hitler sympathizers continued to kill allied and US soldiers. They used to string wire across the road and decapitate our soldiers as they drove past.

The History Channel did a show on this very matter a few months ago.

Your sarcastic "I thought major operations in Iraq had ceased" sounds just like the leftist you are.

[Petronski]

These leftist vultures deeply regret they don't have much higher numbers to exploit.

[CalKat]

You are obsessed.

[Peach]

Not obsessed, CalKat.

I just won't ever forget that you were PLEASED that Russia gave UN banned military equipment to Iraq so that their soldiers would have a little easier chance against our soldiers and it would "level the playing field."

I've heard some Freepers make some wacko statements; I've never heard a freeper advocate the enemy being supplied with illegal gear so they could kill more of our soldiers.

I will NEVER forget you said that and if it makes me obsessed, so be it. You are a leftist troll.

[CalKat]

Again, you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said that. But then again, you're the one who insisted that Bush wasn't offering amnesty to illegals because they weren't getting citizenship.

[Peach]

You and I have never had an amnesty or immigration discussion because I don't comment on those threads. So you are a liar as well as a leftist troll.

[Peach]

You most certainly did say that:

Didn't the US forces have night vision goggles and radar jamming equipment, too? Why shouldn't the Iraqis have them? It still wouldn't have been even close to an equal fight.

28 posted on 01/10/2004 3:47:26 PM EST by CalKat
I also feel that the Iraqis never had a chance -- they were going up against Abrams tanks on foot. They had nothing but a gun and they were fighting our soldiers who were carrying 80 lbs. of the most advanced war material ever seen on earth. I'm not saying I wished they had a chance. But so many people I know who've been over there feel even sorry for the army they fought, because they were so outmatched.

In my town we are close to a lot of marine installations and they make no bones about the fact that they thought it was a slaugherhouse, and that wasn't what they wanted. Many people are a little torn up about it.


34 posted on 01/10/2004 8:25:46 PM EST by CalKat

[Peach]

I'm waiting for the link to that post I "SUPPOSEDLY" made about amnesty...tap, tap, tap

Didn't think so. We never had any such conversation.