Posted on 10/07/2004 11:18:24 AM PDT by JusticeTalion
I got to thinking about the claims of the high casualty rate of “the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place”, as John Kerry is fond of calling it and it lead me to do a bit of digging. I didn’t think I was going bonkers and I was right.
I worked up the chart below using figures as reasonably up-to-date as I could find. The Democrats are using another scare tactic, like saying President Bush will reinstate the draft when in fact the Democrats authored it, that any inquisitive person can discover is a lie. In fact, the war in Iraq has produced the fewest casualties of any major combat operation the United States has every been in going all the way back to 1775.
Even the one month Gulf War had a mortality rate nearly three times what we see today in Iraq. Why? Better intel, better armor, better support and better training. Unfortunately John Kerry voted against two of them (intel and armor) and criticized another (coalition of the “bribed and coerced) even going so far as to call the interim Prime Minister of Iraq a “puppet” of the United States.
I offer this simply for enlightenment and discussion and I mean in no way to diminish the ultimate sacrifice our brave soldiers, and our allies, have made for the cause of freedom.
| Conflict | Duration | Casualties | Deaths/Month |
| Revolutionary War |
80 months |
4,435 |
55 |
| War of 1812 | 30 months |
2,260 |
75 |
| Mexican War | 20 months |
13,283 |
87 |
| War of 1812 | 48 months |
558,052 |
3,846 |
| Spanish-American War | 4 months |
2,446 |
96 |
| World War I | 19 months |
116,708 |
2,816 |
| World War II | 44 months |
407,316 |
6,639 |
| Korean War | 37 months |
33,651 |
909 |
| Vietnam War | 90 months |
58,168 |
526 |
| Gulf War | 1 month |
293* |
148* |
| Iraq War | 20 months |
1,067 |
53 |
*: These numbers don't add up due to the deaths of soldiers not killed during the actual combat operations. They succumbed after combat had officially ceased.
God bless our troops wherever they may be.
Why is the war of 1812 in there twice with different values?
Casualties are not always deaths, and you mislabeled the Civil war as the War of 1812.
half a million casualties in the war of 1812? what's your source? Shouldn't it be 2000?
Question: Two wars of 1812?
I just explain that in approximately 58 years the death toll in Iraq will approach that of Vietnam.
I am sure the second War of 1812 is really the Civil War.
Or should the seconf War of 1812 be the U.S. Civil War?
Hey, if 1100 is no big deal, do you think the same about 3000 - the number on 9-11?
Why is War of 1812 listed twice?
And there were weeks during the Viet Nam war that we had as many as 500 KIA...
Yet, we never lost a battle during the entire war!
A fact that Cronkite on SeeBS and the rest of the lying liberal MSM failed to report...
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Someone with actual research skills needs to verify this and get it to Bush to use as a talking point: "The lowest death rate of any war the U.S. has ever been involved in, and John Kerry wants to surrender?"
There is also something fishy about the Civil War (second War of 1812) and WWII. The numbers just don't ad up.
how about the 500,000 plus from the civil war?
nick
Excellent post. I have at times done it the opposite way and adjusted for population. For the US to have KIA at the rate of some past wars with a population of 290,000,000 would require a huge number of KIA.
KIA are light in the War on Terror so far. The Battle of Iraqi is the heaviest KIA theater of the war right now and KIA are light in it too.
But this this life or death to the current Democrat party and so they want to make it unPC to point out that the KIA number is low. They need to make it so the US can not ever defend itself no matter the provcation or their party will have to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. And if they are successful and win this election, then there will be a price to pay internationally.
Maybe someone with some research skills should first find where Kerry said he wants to surrender.
...and one more thing. If we're so fond of talking up the contributions of our allies, why did you omit the casualty figures for allies?
Full figures (deaths, wounded, US & Allies) is, as of today:
1205 fatalities in 568 days (2.12 per day)
7730 wounded (13.6 per day)
...and one more thing. If we're so fond of talking up the contributions of our allies, why did you omit the casualty figures for allies?
Full figures (deaths, wounded, US & Allies) is, as of today:
1205 fatalities in 568 days (2.12 per day)
7730 wounded (13.6 per day)
There is difference between 1100 combat casualties and 3000 civilian casualties. I hope I don't have to explain that to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.