2,460th U.S. Soldier Killed in Iraq

Meanwhile, California homicides continue
double that of US Military deaths in Iraq.

See also this thread:


California homicides more than Iraq deaths

 

Both are tragic. Just because one is more does not lessen the tragic loss of one of our troops. I also fail to see how this kind of twisted logic is suppose to make anything better.

 

These numbers for FOUR YEARS of war in Iraq
compare to the
death toll among unborn Americans.
The comparison is:
18 hours of 'free love' carange among
unborn Americans to four years
of US soldiers in Iraq.

This country finds it alright to sacrifice
half a million unborn babies a year
on the alter of Moloch but wrong
to let a handful of soldiers die to
help a now friendly country.

At the first sound of the Last Trumpet
of the Church Age - i'm outta here

 

It is not alright to sacrifice any life that is preventable at the hands of the irresponsible whether that life is the life of an unborn child or the life of a soldier why would one want to lay lives at the alter of any false god but that is exactly what we are doing in both cases and how can one condone either one?
Only some in this country think it is O.K. to continue with abortion and some think it is O.K. to continue laying our troops lives on the line with out end and both are wrong but those who have a moral conscience are right to destest both.Amen!

 

Boggles the mind how few are being killed.

 

If we used this logic, we need to ask why we are at war with terrorists in the first place. After all only about 3,000 people died on 9/11. This is just a fraction of the people who die each year in automobile accidents. In fact, if you consider the number of people who have died on the roads since the war in Iraq has begun, the people who died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are almost insignificant.

 

or, to turn this around a bit, who are the armed n uniformed foreign militants who've been terrorising the Iraqis n refusing to leave since the fall of Saddam's regime?

 

You want to elaborate and clarify this remark?

 

"2,460th U.S. Soldier Killed in Iraq"

Even though US casualty rates have dropped dramatically, Iraq is still a dangerous place.

 

The purpose of an army is to kill people and break things.

 

Still safer than most large American cities.

 

That's like comparing grapes and watermelons - if you eat 6 grapes and he eats 3 watermelons, who has eaten more pieces of fruit and who has eaten more fruit?

As I said there:

I guess it's a matter of perspective and skewed statistics. The raw numbers say that California is more dangerous. However, Los Angelos alone has something like 8 million people while US and British personnel are what? Under two hundred thousand? According to the US 2000 Census(linkie) California has more than thirty-three million people.

That's 2,394 out of 33,871,648 (0.00706%) compared to 905 out of 200,000 (0.45250%). California is safer.

 

How many US servicemen were killed in Los Angelos, Detroit and Washington DC combined?

 

How many US Servicemen are normally killed in Peacetime in training accidents?

Or, auto accidents driving to and from their home bases?

Over a four year period?

And, don't forget the ones murdered in "friendly" countries...

OK You don't think we should be there...

Alright, fine. I'll give you that...

And, even though I am highly irritated that we went to such lengths to be Politically Correct and not 'occupy'...

I don't think you can find any other 4 year period of conflict where the losses have been this low...

WE have a noble goal and a vested self interest...

WE have some of the most highly trained and motivated troops ever...

It's a painful process. But, I believe neccesary.

SMM

 

How are you defining "occupy"?

What about the ten years of the Northwest Indian War? Or the seven years of the Second Seminole War? Or the fourteen years of the Philippine-American War? The current war in Afghanistan?

 

If we used this logic, we need to ask why we are at war with terrorists in the first place. After all only about 3,000 people died on 9/11. This is just a fraction of the people who die each year in automobile accidents. In fact, if you consider the number of people who have died on the roads since the war in Iraq has begun, the people who died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are almost insignificant. </font>[/QUOTE]Your same logic applies and even more so to WW2. Only a few thousand people died at Pearl Harbor... no big deal. Maybe we should have played nice and let it go. After all, almost 300,000 American servicemen died in WW2 to defeat a maniacal ideology premised on a particular racial/ethnic/religious RIGHT to dominate the rest of the world... a philosophy which found its clearest expression in hatred for the Jews.

The Islamofascists and their terrorists spawn parallel the Nazis in ideology, aim, and practice. They are just as evil and threatening if not more so.

 

How are you defining "occupy"?

What about the ten years of the Northwest Indian War? Or the seven years of the Second Seminole War? Or the fourteen years of the Philippine-American War? The current war in Afghanistan? </font>[/QUOTE]Apply your own logic that proved that California is safer than Iraq. None of these approached the troop levels we have/need in Iraq. None of these enemies was as organized or sophisticated as those we face in Iraq.

 

OK, I'll give you a point or two for digging up conflicts that didn't have modern weapons.

IMHO, Afghanistan, is a part of the war on terror...

But, even WW1 and WW2 had a higher casualty rate...

Now, how many people died as a direct result of our inaction in a single decade or two while we allowed Hitler and Stalin to go unchallenged?

We know there were around 6 million Jews alone while we tried to stay out of the conflict...

There were Generals who felt we shouldn't trust Stalin and Lenin.

But, the Russians were allies (like France and Germany?), and it wasn't politically correct to question them.

How many died in the Russian Purges? 20 million if that few?

So, please don't tell me that having and acting on a noble cause isn't worth some sacrifice.

Especially seeing, as poor a proponent as we are, as we are about the only Super Power that seems to care at all about Freedoms of any kind...

Edmond Burke said something along the lines of:
'All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

SMM