[L.N. Smithee]

This isn't an easy thing to discuss, because while the number of lives lost is relatively low in comparison to other important American operations (ESPECIALLY Vietnam), each loss leaves an void that can't possibly be replaced. Nevertheless, if one is going to tolerate a running tally of American soldiers killed, they should put it in perspective when Vietnam is invoked by the likes of John Murtha.

[RobbyS]

When the average is 2 killed and another 10 or 15 wounded each day, only those blind to history dare to compare Iraq with earlier wars. To me it seems that the Phillipine Insurrection and the later campaigns against the Moros come closest.

[don-o]

Nevertheless, if one is going to tolerate a running tally of American soldiers killed, they should put it in perspective when Vietnam is invoked by the likes of John Murtha.

Yup. But the toothpase is out of the tube. All that can be done is keep telling the truth and giving perspective and context to the pap and spin that the sheeple daily ingest from the MSM.

[Old Student]

"Nevertheless, if one is going to tolerate a running tally of American soldiers killed, they should put it in perspective when Vietnam is invoked by the likes of John Murtha."

And how would you do that? By noting that we lost 58,000 in ten years in 'Nam? How about we point out that we lose that many people each year to auto accidents? BTW, I'm not being sarcastic. I've been using the above figures myself for several years. I'm still trying to find a way to get people to think about what this means, and what we get for what we pay.