More than 2,000 dead --- worth the cost???

[gophergas]

I'm getting a little tired (okay, I actually got tired a long time ago) of people making such a huge deal over the US death toll reaching the 2,000 mark. All around, we're hearing, "It's not worth the cost! It's not worth the cost!"

Well, frankly, I think freedom IS worth the cost. And I think it demeans the sacrifices of our troops to suggest otherwise.

To that end, I think it would be neat to start a campaign showing some of the benefits to the war in Iraq. I'm including a "starter" image to get things rolling...

[A message]

bttt

[x1stcav]

Outstanding!

[Steve0113]

Wow.

[bassmaner]

Excellent - thanks for posting this.

[Lancey Howard]

Two-thousand dead is brutal, and each one is a tragedy, but I was watching the military channel on TV a couple of days ago and they were showing WWI footage and talking about that many soldiers being killed in an hour in some of the battles. Hundreds of thousands dead in a few days! It is unimaginable.

[spintreebob]

Since 911 over 100,000 people have died on our highways.
It's not worth the cost. Close down the highways. Those taxpayer funded highways are nothing more than a conspiracy of the oil companies to make obscne profits.

[Brooklyn Kid]

I think it would be more effective if the picture showed hundreds of little girls

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

2,000 dead would have got you about ten minutes into D-Day.

Amazing how hypersensitive the Western world has become.

[A message]

Yea, 10,000 mowed down in an hour at the start of Haig's first "Big Push."

[OldFriend]

Guess the leftist liars in the msm forget that 40,000 died in three years in Korea.

[Black Tooth]

Well, frankly, I think freedom IS worth the cost.

Too bad every single Iraqi don't feel the same way. If this were the case, they would have never allowed some two bit dictator to take power in the first place.

I'm still waiting to see daily video of Iraqis draging the bad guys, (who live among them) into the streets and hanging them for all to see.

[DannyTN]

How many bombings on our on soil were avoided because we went to war? How many lives were saved?

How many Israeli's lives were saved, because we shut down the suicide vest factories in Iraq? And stopped Saddam's open and blatant funding of the terrorists?

Nobody wants to lose 2000 lives, but you have to realistically look at the cost of not doing anything. And that cost can be really high.

[finnman69]

Let's put these casualties in perspective:


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

Search: Infoplease Info search tips

Search: Biographies Bio search tips

United States—Military Affairs—American Wars

America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans

American Revolution (1775–1783)
Total servicemembers	217,000
Battle deaths	4,435
Nonmortal woundings	6,188
War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Total servicemembers	286,730
Battle deaths	2,260
Nonmortal woundings	4,505
Indian Wars (approx. 1817–1898)
Total servicemembers	106,0001
Battle deaths	1,0001
Mexican War (1846–1848)
Total servicemembers	78,718
Battle deaths	1,733
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	11,550
Nonmortal woundings	4,152
Civil War (1861–1865)
Total servicemembers (Union)	2,213,363
Battle deaths (Union)	140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union)	224,097
Nonmortal woundings (Union)	281,881
Total servicemembers (Conf.)	1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.)	74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.)	59,2972
Nonmortal woundings (Conf.)	unknown
Spanish-American War (1898–1902)
Total servicemembers	306,760
Battle deaths	385
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	2,061
Nonmortal woundings	1,662
World War I (1917–1918)3
Total servicemembers	4,734,991
Battle deaths	53,402
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	63,114
Nonmortal woundings	204,002
Living veterans	fewer than 500
World War II (1940–1945)3
Total servicemembers	16,112,566
Battle deaths	291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	113,842
Nonmortal woundings	671,846
Living veterans	4,762,0001
Korean War (1950–1953)
Total servicemembers	5,720,000
Serving in-theater	1,789,000
Battle deaths	33,741
Other deaths in service (theater)	2,827
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	17,730
Nonmortal woundings	103,284
Living veterans	3,734,0001
Vietnam War (1964–1975)
Total servicemembers	8,744,000
Serving in-theater	3,403,000
Battle deaths	47,410
Other deaths in service (theater)	10,789
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	32,000
Nonmortal woundings	153,303
Living veterans	8,295,0001
Gulf War (1990–1991)
Total servicemembers	2,225,000
Serving in-theater	665,476
Battle deaths	147
Other deaths in service (theater)	382
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	1,565
Nonmortal woundings	467
Living veterans	1,852,0001
America's Wars Total
Military service during war	42,348,460
Battle deaths	651,008
Other deaths in service (theater)	13,998
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	525,256
Nonmortal woundings	1,431,290
Living war veterans	17,578,5004
Living veterans	25,038,459

1. Veterans Administration estimate as of Sept. 30, 2002.

2. Estimated figure. Does not include 26,000–31,000 who died in Union prisons.

3. Years of U.S. involvement in war.

4. Approximately 1,065,000 veterans had service in multiple conflicts. They are counted under each conflict, but only once in the total.

Source: Department of Defense and Veterans Administration.

[DustyMoment]

"It's not worth the cost! It's not worth the cost!"

The question is, "It's not worth the cost"of what? Before giving credance to idiots who run around spewing such idiocy, make them be specific, what isn't worth the cost?

Then ask them was it worth the cost our ancestors paid at Bunker Hill, Lexington and Valley Forge? Or would they prefer to still be British Subjects, paying British taxes and enjoying being jailed for protecting themselves, their lives and their property against thugs, robbers and murderers?

Until they define what it is that isn't worth the cost, they are only spouting pointless words.

[conservative physics]

I don't think it's worth the cost, since if we had merely dropped nukes from 30,000 feet it wouldn't have cost us a single soldiers life, and the war would be over.

But for some reason it's not fair to fight a battle in such a way as to take no casualties.

[GloriaJane]

I got sick of it too. That's why I wrote "Who's Foolin Who"

I was hoping to make people think. Make them realize that the media and the anit-American haters like sheehan have been trying to play us for fools.

[Paradox]

I did a quick calculation that shows that total military deaths as compared to active military personal, and the figures for the past three years, while higher than in non-war times, is lower than that for several occupations, like deep sea fisherman, certain types of farming, and a couple others.

Of course, PETA would use the above for their own purposes I suppose.

[advance_copy]

Saddam Hussein's Vice Chairman of his Revolutionary Council, the number two man in the regime, Izzat Ibrahim Al Douri hosted a Baghdad conference in January 2003. He urged over one thousand Islamists to "conduct holy jihad against the United States".

Hussein had chemical and biological weapons. We know that because he has used them. What did he do with them? We don't know because Hussein did not honor the agreement he made at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Hussein, in order to save his skin, agreed to account for the disposal of all his chemical and biological weapons.

Abdul Rhaman Yasin was a key player in the first WTC bombing. On the day of the attack, Yasin flew from New York City to Baghdad, where Hussein's regime gave him free housing and a monthly payment.

Ab Musab Al Zarqawi was one of Osama bin Laden's minions who fought against the United States in Afghanistan. When he got his leg blown up by U.S. forces, he went to Baghdad where Hussein's regime gave him medical assistance.

Other reasons for the war against Hussein's Iraq include the fact that his army was shooting at American and British planes in the no-fly zones, Hussein plotted to kill the 41st President of the United States, Hussein cheated the UN's oil-for-food program (with full compliance of the crooks at the UN), and Hussein was paying terrorists to kill Israelis.

So, after September 11th, Americans are fighting terrorists. And Saddam Hussein's government was a terrorist regime. Was it worth the cost? Yes.

[roaddog727]

That works!

Send it to FOX News!