US Nears 4,000 Dead in Iraq

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by High EGT

The the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-boat were 1195 people died, including 128 Americans was the catalyst for Americas involvement. Sounds familiar as to why we went into Afghanistan. Anyway, as with all wars there’s reasons Politically, Economically, and Ideology that countries jump in. The world in 1914 was itching for a War.

WikiAnswers - How and why did the US get involved in World War 1

...accurate at all. National defense plans were such that certain things had to happen at certain times or all would be lost. A domino effect took off and blew up the most peaceful and prosperous and cooperative time Europe had known to date. Had diplomats used the telegraphs, which was considered totally unacceptable for such high level communications which were done by custom and tradition only in person or had the Austrians simply gone in and smacked down Serb separatists on their own without getting Germany involved, the domino's may never have been touched.

Further, the Lusitania, and I'm pretty sure all US shipping, had been warned out of certain areas. We stuck our nose out.

[chernmax]

To put things into perspective

These are stats based on when the US entered into these wars:

- US Civil War lasted 4 years - US deaths over 618,000 - Average 154,500 per year

- WWI lasted 1 year 7 months – US deaths 53,500 – Average 37,700 per yeaar

- WWII lasted 4 years - US deaths over 290,000 - Average 72,500 per year

- Korean War lasted 3 years - US deaths over 54,000 - Average 18,000 per year

- Vietnam War lasted 8 years - US deaths over 58,000 - Average 7,250 per year

- Desert Storm lasted not ever 2 months - US deaths 407 – Projected average 2442 per year (if the war had gone on for more than a year)

- Iraq War so far lasts 5 years - US deaths 3990 - Average 798 per year

-Washington DC so far last 5 years - US Deaths 1,553 -

Notice a trend?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

We viewed Germany as the enemy near the end when it was over and one of our worst presidents wanted to get in on the spoils.

The numbers, deaths, must be viewed through a moral compass. They are the only thing that gives a war meaning; the cost paid and was it worth fighting and dying for? WWI was NOT.

Prior to the sinking of the Lusitania the US was neutral regarding the war. We had a policy of neutrality and isolation. Even though it took the US 2 years to enter into the war after the sinking, that one incident defined our enemy. The 2 years can be explained by the Germans lifting their “sink on sight” policy. This lasted for 2 years at which time the Germans resumed sinking by sight again. As a point in fact, the US (prior to entering the war) tried to broker peace between the two sides. The US felt it was time to get involved to free up the waterways of the German U-boat. Regardless of who was supplying whom, there were sides to take. Germany was sinking ships all over the Atlantic. They were aimed at dominance in the region.

The Germans were pushed back in the Forest of Villers-Cotterêts; this was possible with American forces (54,000 men). One month later we had 1.5 million men in France. Germany could barely muster a quarter of that. America and our allies were planning a major attack on Germany which Germany knew they couldn’t win. This led to the ceasefire then the Treaty of Versailles. So, in fact, the war was not near the end except that our superior military numbers defined the end.

Our involvement was quite moral. With Germany threatening the waters off the coasts of Britain and France our free passage through those waters was also threatened. And just as our superior military capabilities led to the end of WWII, so did it in WWI.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by nhboy

Sorry about that, I didn't understand how those statistics would enhance my understanding of the article.

The article was not about the numbers. It was not about how technology has reduced casualties over the years. It provided sufficient statistics concerning previous wars.

In my view the article tried to bring out that the numbers don't greatly concern the majority of Americans as they are not personally affected by the deaths.

"Soldiers and analysts alike say the impact of the deaths in Iraq has been largely lost on many Americans who have no personal connection to the war."

"It's still a war that hasn't involved a draft or an increase in taxes," said Jon Alterman, who heads the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "This is a war that most Americans continue to feel they don't have to make sacrifices for."

And that three things; "the confluence of 4,000 slain troops, the fifth anniversary and the crucial Pennsylvania Democratic primary could push the war back to the forefront."

I think the war deserves to be in the forefront.

What is a personal connection to a war? And, it's not really a valid war unless we have a draft or raise taxes? Are you really this desparate to bring the war back to the forefront?

I never really expected the numbers to enhance your understanding of anything. I was trying to put a more accurate representation on the numbers in terms of success. You know SUCCESS? Win? Is this in your dictionary?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Prior to the sinking of the Lusitania the US was neutral regarding the war. We had a policy of neutrality and isolation. Even though it took the US 2 years to enter into the war after the sinking, that one incident defined our enemy. The 2 years can be explained by the Germans lifting their “sink on sight” policy. This lasted for 2 years at which time the Germans resumed sinking by sight again. As a point in fact, the US (prior to entering the war) tried to broker peace between the two sides. The US felt it was time to get involved to free up the waterways of the German U-boat. Regardless of who was supplying whom, there were sides to take. Germany was sinking ships all over the Atlantic. They were aimed at dominance in the region.

The Germans were pushed back in the Forest of Villers-Cotterêts; this was possible with American forces (54,000 men). One month later we had 1.5 million men in France. Germany could barely muster a quarter of that. America and our allies were planning a major attack on Germany which Germany knew they couldn’t win. This led to the ceasefire then the Treaty of Versailles. So, in fact, the war was not near the end except that our superior military numbers defined the end.

Our involvement was quite moral. With Germany threatening the waters off the coasts of Britain and France our free passage through those waters was also threatened. And just as our superior military capabilities led to the end of WWII, so did it in WWI.

...was nearing and end due to exhaustion of all sides. We tipped the scales in favor of England and Britain. One can argue whether this was 'moral' or not but that we decided the winner is not debatable AND as such we bore a huge responsibility for how the winners behaved at Versailles.

And the only significant military superiority we added to WWI was flesh and blood.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

The war (to end all wars) was nearing and end due to exhaustion of all sides. We tipped the scales in favor of England and Britain. One can argue whether this was 'moral' or not but that we decided the winner is not debatable AND as such we bore a huge responsibility for how the winners behaved at Versailles.

And the only significant military superiority we added to WWI was flesh and blood.

That last sentence is obvious as is with any war. The only side that wasn't exhausted was the US. We made a marked difference in ending the war and further loss of life. I think history has answered to the morality of it as it (along with WWII) has led to a more prosperous Europe than may have been seen otherwise. But who really knows the outcome of the unknowns. Perhaps many folks don't see the prosperity and thriving freedom Europeans experience as a morally right thing. I would argue that this just isn't so.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

That last sentence is obvious as is with any war. The only side that wasn't exhausted was the US. We made a marked difference in ending the war and further loss of life. I think history has answered to the morality of it as it (along with WWII) has led to a more prosperous Europe than may have been seen otherwise. But who really knows the outcome of the unknowns. Perhaps many folks don't see the prosperity and thriving freedom Europeans experience as a morally right thing. I would argue that this just isn't so.

...so. France was about bled out and considering suing for peace. England was crying and wanted peace having not one enemy boot set upon her shores while losing her best and brightest in horrific battles and Germany was starving to death at home, but with her army pretty much still functional though she'd lost so, so terribly as well. Russia had collapsed. They had all just about decided to give it up and just call it a day.

And here comes the US to ENSURE that more blood must spill as now England and France can see hope and Germany damn sure not wanting to be defeated being marginally ahead on the field.

Europe was prospering and peaceful and cooperative and the accident of WWI destroyed that.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

That last sentence is obvious as is with any war.

...being that in II we sent steel and rubber and held off as best we could on the blood. In one, all we had was bodies.

[nhboy (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

What is a personal connection to a war? And, it's not really a valid war unless we have a draft or raise taxes? Are you really this desparate to bring the war back to the forefront?

I never really expected the numbers to enhance your understanding of anything. I was trying to put a more accurate representation on the numbers in terms of success. You know SUCCESS? Win? Is this in your dictionary?

Oh, The article was about success? Winning? Who knew. I'm glad I succeeded in bringing one of the present wars to the forefront for you.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Not so. France was about bled out and considering suing for peace. England was crying and wanted peace having not one enemy boot set upon her shores while losing her best and brightest in horrific battles and Germany was starving to death at home, but with her army pretty much still functional though she'd lost so, so terribly as well. Russia had collapsed. They had all just about decided to give it up and just call it a day.

And here comes the US to ENSURE that more blood must spill as now England and France can see hope and Germany damn sure not wanting to be defeated being marginally ahead on the field.

Europe was prospering and peaceful and cooperative and the accident of WWI destroyed that.

Marginally ahead is still ahead. Germany had resumed their U-boat assaults at sea. They were on the verge of occupying France. The US was not going to see this new enemy in a position that would eventually threaten the US and our ability to trade with Britain. The US was aimed at ending it once and for all. Britain is ever so thankful for our sacrifice; France is another story, but should be.

I will agree with you that WWI was (as all wars are) an "accident" (not sure if that's the term you want to use, but I'll go along with it). But it sure wasn't the US's accident. Germany shed first blood. It was no accident that the US ended that war. THAT (devoid of any other moral definition) was the morally right thing to do.