http://www.rense.com/general71/sevenmore.htm
I don't know. It seems to me that the reporting of US dead in Iraq has become so normal I feel people don't really take any notice about it anymore. I know I certainly don't feel much anymore when I read about some GI's who got killed in Iraq. To me, the longer they stay there, the longer they have to understand that they are not there for the reasons they were told they were going there for. I've read that 85% of GI's actually believe Iraq had something to do with the 911 operation! Personally, I think it's hard to conjure up true heartfelt sympathy for the ones who die so young and so ignorant. Their families of course, but the dead themselves? Sadly, rarely. My question for debate is this:
When you hear about the latest American deaths in Iraq, currently around 2600 or so, do you feel the same feeling about it inside as you did at the beginning when the death toll was under 100?
And out of morbid curiosity, what death toll number would have to be reached until you start wondering whether or not it's not worth it?


Moved to Casual Conversation because questions can't be debated in a constructive (ie using sources) fashion.

Is this for real? So you only mourn intelligent soldiers? Personally I have always thought the numbers were low. It's tragic anytime someone is killed in action, but we have been "at war" now for almost five years.

If you would have told me 9/12/01 that we would occupy both Afghanistan and Iraq in 5 years and our KIA would be less that 3000 I would have been astounded. So would have everyone else.

The number of murders in the US every year is a sad number as well, but most people do not pay attention to that. The same could be said for automobile fatalities.

I'm not sure of that was a Freudian slip, but you probably answered the question why people have pretty much become oblivious to war casualties. Nobody feels sorry for occupation forces.

But I think it's clear people in the anti-Iraq War crowd like me do care or we wouldn't be complaining so much and demanding a change in policy. I believe it's the pro-Iraq war crowd that really doesn't mind because it's a trivial payoff (as this post exemplifies) for all the excuses the government has used to justify the occupation.

How can you put a value on life?

Why is an American soldiers life worth more than any one else's life?

The death toll, regardless of who is dying is a tragedy.

The difference between a four week old Iraqi girl killed in an explosion and the coalition soldier who was carrying her to safety when they were both killed is that the coalition soldier volunteered.

So it is with the Danish soldiers. They are all volunteers who have chosen to stand and fight for their country. Every single death is a tragedy but we live in tragic times.
Having survived the cold war we are now faced with another tyrannical threat and we can either face it or run away from it. Either way we are going to see a lot more tragic deaths before we die because you can't prevent death.
Its a fact of life.

The only clear choice you have in life is what you stand for.

When you hear about the latest American deaths in Iraq, currently around 2600 or so, do you feel the same feeling about it inside as you did at the beginning when the death toll was under 100?
I feel it more everyday. I have a daughter and son-in-law that are on leave from Iraq right now. They will be returning in another week and I worry about them every day.

And out of morbid curiosity, what death toll number would have to be reached until you start wondering whether or not it's not worth it?
I was against sending troops into Iraq just I was against using ground troops to defend Saudi Arabia.

A tactical nuc on Baghdad would have been the right amount of force.

Ok Nemov:

Of course this is for real I don't gloss anything over and deal with things in a realistic manner. Maybe it was a bit over your head so I'll rephrase it. I mourn soldiers more when they question the motives behind their having being sent there to die and nothing more. If a soldier is gung ho about killing the Iraqis whom they mistakenly believe (because they were told) were involved with 911, then I sympathize less. And you, Nemov, find the number of dead to be for too low to be intolerable. Pardon my intrusive question, but how old are you and why are you not in Iraq right now? I mention it because I noticed you said "we" have been at war for the past five years, and I question what your input has been to your country in this time of war. I welcome being made to look silly if you show you've been there and are a fighting man by the way. No silly lower-level mindless shenanigans on this end of the spectrum let me tell you.
I personally don't like it when men or kids talk tough about the "we are at war" aspect when in fact it's not "we" at all but really "they", because, truth be told, simply saying "we" does not make you on par and a welcome breath of fresh air to the men and women dying in Iraq. Honestly, I believe they would be screaming out loud saying "for God's sake put your damn keyboard down and help me return this hostile fire already!". No kidding. Blindly saying "we" is an injustice to those with the nerve to spend a year in the scariest most dangerous country and city on this entire planet. We. Hardly. I could never say that. To presume I'm on the team because I happen to say so. Uh-uh. I've read enough about the human psyche and the toll war takes on a man's mind to know I would and could never be so presumptuous and to do so would be a hard slap in the face to the real men and women in the death zone. Think about that word. Death zone. Death. Hardly something requiring cheerleaders am I not correct? Hardly something to be taken so lightly am I not correct? Imagine the feeling they would get. They're in a firefight involving treacherous door to door fighting with a hidden enemy who lurks everywhere. They see men killed and themselves kill men and sometimes children. They get an ounce of sleep for every ten pounds of firetime, eat what little they can in as little time as they can, listening to the loud screams of heavy weaponry and the sometimes louder screams of the wounded...and here's someone on a keyboard in the US pronouncing themselves to be on the team...they'd bust your head if you didn't follow up by helping them to their feet and picking up a fallen soldier's weapon. Right?

I am an American citizen so when the US is at war I use the word "we." Just like I used the word "we" during the Bosnian conflict. I do not check my citizenship in every time I don't like the President. If being involved in fighting in Iraq is the only way I can have an opinion on the subject, I guess we can't debate politics here because no one here is a high ranking politician. I was against the war on the onset, but given what I know now I am okay with where we are today. Given your logic I guess if I did go to Iraq and tragically died I am not intelligent enough for you to care.

Well i think you answered your own question when asking if anyone cared about US dead anymore. You say yourself that you care little for those whom you consider "ignorant" in your egocentric view of world affairs.


Our soldiers fight so that "we" do not have to. They fight so that "we" can have this very discussion on an internet forum. They were not forced into said situation, they volunteered fully knowing the risks and sacrifices that had to be made. Thats why we remember them and thats why they are revered. These young men and women are putting their lives on the line for their country and they're doing it in a manner that should make this country proud. To quote General George S. Patton "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who have died, rather we should thank God that such men lived."

Calm down Nemov just calm down. I said nothing of the sort. My comment was only in reference to your use of thew word "we" when applied to matters of state which involve the large number of deaths of a particular class, this time it being the military. Have all the opinions you want. Just don't equate the pain and suffering and death they, the real fighters of American freedom, themselves suffer. You make it sound as though patriotism gives someone a blank check to mock others over the hard work they did. I've never served in the military let alone in actual combat, but I feel I know enough to know that my patting them on their backs telling them "good job dude" and "way to go tiger" and such....that would anger them and make them indignant at my leisurely casual pace of conversation. No, Nemov, when it comes to killing and being killed, sides can only be chosen by actions and personal determinations. In other words, if I don't help out in an equal setting, there is no reason to regard my relationship with the military as anything more than simple outright (and safe) cheerleading. You are shielded from the carnage the policies you support create. That's not equal.

Its not Nemov who needs to calm down.

Your argument sounds like a pedantic storm in a tea cup to me. So what if he used the word 'we'?
That doesn't mean he is saying he is a fighter. It merely means he identifies himself as being of the same nationality as the soldiers.

So do I and I'm not even American!

I have served in the military and I would have joined up to go to Iraq if I'd been in the right age group. As it is I'm too old and passed it now, but that doesn't mean I don't feel the old kampgeist. I feel a bond with our troops, whether they are Danish, British or American. Which ever. They are all fighting for our collective freedom. Hence the 'we'.

And besides which. No war is fought in the trenches alone. We ARE all in this together. We are tied to our soldiers in many ways, and the death of a loved one, a friend or just a fellow Dane/Brit/American affects all of us who live on.

When some one says 'we', they are acknowledging the bond of kinship with the soldiers. They are not saying, 'I am facing the same danger as a soldier'.

Any death of a brother in arms is just as hurtful today as is was in 2003...or before. Multiple groups and political parties use the deaths of soldiers in their own way, and when used for any reason other than honoring their sacrifice, it disgusts me.

The lecturing in this thread by the author simply makes me shake my head. I have never believed myself to be on the rah-rah Bush bandwagon, or to blindly believe allegiance to a cause, movement or party, when it is opposed to reason and logic. But the line 'Personally, I think it's hard to conjure up true heartfelt sympathy for the ones who die so young and so ignorant' smacks of equal ignorance. A sizable segment of servicemembers who have died were older, seasoned and mature professionals. Professionals who have dedicated their lives and efforts to serving their country, no matter under whose administration. Soldiers who actually believe in the sanctity of living Duty, Honor, Country. Soldiers who believe in what they are doing, to the chagrin of their detractors.

Any quoting of a Rense.com article immediately makes me skeptical given their track record of reporting facts. And speaking from close, first hand experience, I also question a number of 85% believing Iraq was involved in 9-11.
I honestly doubt that you would actually take the word of a fighting man, Truthmarch. Perhaps I'm wrong.


Imagine that same soldier's reaction to someone sitting at a keyboard in the comfort of their home and writing: I know I certainly don't feel much anymore when I read about some GI's who got killed in Iraq..........I think it's hard to conjure up true heartfelt sympathy for the ones who die so young and so ignorant.

Most soldiers do not crave the gratitude and attention that is sometimes showered upon them, just as they don't wish to have to answer for decisions of politicians, to those that jeer them.
Most of us simply feel that we are doing our job, and serving a noble cause....... because while often underreported, the daily acts of humanity and compassion far outnumber the acts of aggression in the combat zone.
I wish every death would be mourned with honor and respect, but I don't fault civilians when it doesn't happen. We don't enter into this profession for glory or pay.

I have lost brothers in this fight, and I wish like hell it never had to happen....but I would ask that you spare the lecturing. We know the score, and we know the price.

Since this is casual conversation, I’ll digress a bit.

Yes, I think most people do care about the number of dead and wounded, and some worry about Iraqi casulties. My friend nighttimer updates his signature frequently to list the number of dead and wounded.



While we care about the dead, the stark reality is that (unless you believe prayer for the dead accomplishes something) they are beyond help.

Two lines from a song by Flatt & Scruggs go like this:



http://www.luma-electronic.cz/lp/f/Flatt/f...ongsofglory.htm

So while the deaths are tragic, I think more emphasis should be placed on those who returned wounded in body and mind or just return.

Unlike most of you, I was an adult during the Vietnam era. I opposed the war in Vietnam, particularly in the latter years. I remember Woodstock. I think Country Joe best captured the mood of the throngs gathered in New York:



http://www.well.com/~cjfish/game.htm#cheer

Although I was opposed to the war in Vietnam, I was equally opposed to the rude, uncaring environment Vietnam vets faced on return. Illnesses—both mental and physical—unemployment and protestors who equated soldiers with the war they fought. As now, the politicians, not the soldiers were/are the “enemy.”

I’m encouraged. After three years of listening to Nashville nitwits like Toby Keith, Darryl Worley and Lee Greenwood, act as the “cheerleaders” TruthMarch alluded to, Neil Young has a new CD called Living with War. Lines from the title song express what we face.



*copied from CD insert


The Dixie Chicks dormant since Natalie Maines uttered a statement about Bush now shared by many people. A single, Not Ready to Make Nice, from soon to be released CD captures my thoughts. A defiant Maines sings:



*transcribed from downloaded song


Like Maines, I’m “mad as hell” about this war. “Mad as hell” at the occupant of the White House who took us there ”mad as hell” at the advisors (Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and others) who helped sell this debacle.

I grieve for the soldiers and Iraqis who died and I am not mad at those who have returned, either whole or broken, or those yet to return.

What this nation is really like will be documented by how those who went and survived are treated—you know, those bleeding-heart-liberal concerns--jobs, medical care and treatment by the public and media of basic human dignity and respect.

First of all, to answer the questions of this thread:


I feel more heavy hearted and angry as the death toll rises and there is a disproportionate amount of "progress" occuring. That is, as the death toll rises, and I see that things in Iraq aren't that much better than right after Saddam was taken out, I become angry and upset, and I mourn the continuing losses.



I can't really put a set number on it. I am sorry for the losses, but I understand that you can't have war without death. However, as I said above, there is a threshold where the deaths vs the progress made becomes disproportionate. I don't think there is ever a definite number, but I do think that right now, we have crossed that threshold.

I think this argument over the issue of the use of "we" is pretty unnecessary. Both sides have a point; while we do use the word "we" it is important to realize that our experience in this war is different than those actually on the front lines. At the same time, we is very valid because while I am not on the front lines, as a US citizen of voting age, I am fully responsible, as is the rest of the country, for their current position. Whether I choose to feel responsible is completely irrelevent to the fact that we all are.

And finally, a bit off topic but I guess it's okay in a casual conversation thread:
While I mourn the losses of the US troops and the soldiers returning home with disabilities and psychological baggage, I also mourn the loss of the Iraqi citizens who are just as much casualities of this world as our own troops. I am a very disheartened to see this concern for our own people and not a reciprocated concern for the Iraqis casualties of war. They are people just as much as we are, and their deaths are just as much painful for their families as our troops' deaths are to us. I just wish for more empathy within the US for people who are NOT of the US.

I think both you and moif hit the nail on the head. As the war drags on and it becomes more obvious by the day that the war was unjustified, the death toll becomes even more saddening, both American and Iraqi deaths. There's one image that really sums everything up about it to me -- if you have ever seen the film version of Pink Floyd's The Wall, there is an animated segment portraying WWII. At the end of it, there's a huge cross grave marker planted on a hill leaking blood into a sidewalk gutter.

If there was one lesson that the Pentagon learned from Vietnam it was to never again to allow the news media to show the United States in a losing posture. From the first Gulf War to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the public has seen only the images of war that the White House and Pentagon wants us to see.

So I can understand your casual dismissal of the dead troops in Iraq, TruthMarch. The Bush Administration does not want us to see our troops wounded or killed in Iraq or coming home in flag-draped coffins. Our compliant, corporate-owned media is only too happy to stick a flag pin in their lapels and accept the scraps they are allowed as "embedded" reporters. The brutality and suffering and atrocities of this war happen out of our line of sight. We're more concerned about who's going to win American Idol than we are about American soldiers coming home in a box.

We're quite happy in our blissful ignorance. The war in Iraq isn't allowed to intrude into our daily routine. Our beautiful minds can go on untouched and untroubled by all the drama "over there."

However, I'm undecided if your statement I think it's hard to conjure up true heartfelt sympathy for the ones who die so young and so ignorant isn't blindly naive or just callous as hell. Only someone who has never heard a shot fired in anger, or worn the uniform of a soldier could make such a statement. Sitting serenely in a comfortable chair, well-fed and secure in the knowledge that we can step outside our door to run and pick up a pizza without being blown to smithereens by a car bomb.

It must be nice to view the sacrifices made by others as an abstract concept that has no impact upon our own lives.



I don't see the death of a single innocent as a trivial thing. Whether it's 20 Iraqis killed by a terrorist bomb or two Americans by an IED. They are all dying an untimely, meaningless and horrific death for NO GOOD REASON. This price being paid for this failed experiment in nation building is too high.

To answer the question, TruthMarch, I still have the same sickened feeling at each and every death of American troops in Iraq.

And it's not that the deaths of Iraqi citizens or coalition troops mean less to me. It's just that it's hard enough keeping the body count current for the U.S. forces. I don't have the time to update toll of the dead and wounded in Iraq every day. That would be a fulltime job and I've already got one.



The magic number for me was "one" when 2Lt. Therrel Shane Childers became the first man to die in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He died in a firefight trying to secure an oil field. The first example of blood being spilled for oil. The first martyr for the greater glory of George W. Bush.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/...rel-s-childers/

I didn't need to wait for the number to reach 2,447 to conclude all this war was good for was enriching war profiteers, reelect craven, incompetent politicians, increase the hatred and loathing for the United States in the Muslim world and kill and maim a helluva lot of people.

I knew that from the beginning. I just don't know how many more will have to die before the rest of America has had enough too.

When you hear about the latest American deaths in Iraq, currently around 2600 or so, do you feel the same feeling about it inside as you did at the beginning when the death toll was under 100?

Every death makes me feel sad, but I feel the same way about each one that I did in the beginning. Though I wouldn't have started this one, I still consider each death of a soldier to be the loss of a hero, and so I miss them all the more.

What death toll number would have to be reached until you start wondering whether or not it's not worth it?

Failure is not an option. The numbers don't change that, though I am glad they're as low as they are, unusually low for a war.

When you hear about the latest American deaths in Iraq, currently around 2600 or so, do you feel the same feeling about it inside as you did at the beginning when the death toll was under 100?

Well, my whole family is military, so ya, it hits home, we exchange e-mails constantly around the family, making sure everyone is alright, and most are now getting out of the country, shouldn't be too long before we have none in Iraq. some wounded etc. But nothing life threatening or maiming at this point.

And out of morbid curiosity, what death toll number would have to be reached until you start wondering whether or not it's not worth it?

Well, I never thought it was worth $1 American dollar, much less American life. The entire things is a boondoggle from jump, and I think the entire GW regime should be tried for treason. But, that doesn't mean I have no feeling for the troops that volunteered AFTER they discovered we have a moron in chief. - DTOM made the distinction about the pro troops- the "lifers"- and I am seriously starting to doubt that 85% figure anymore- I know I was very ignorant of anything political, or hell, even current events, when I joined, but kids seem much more savvy now. I know morale seems to be very, very low among soldiers I speak to and family members- most are really discouraged by the lack of progress there, more than one were going over, and excited about becoming a 'real soldier" - you know, you train for a job, and you want to test your mettle. It is the long hours and short staffing that seem to be dragging, and, from my contact, seems to be the lack of initiative of the Iraqi poeple themselves to "police thier own area"- meaning, they dirty thier own area so often, and expect the US to pick it up.

I do think that probably a large number of soldiers didn't know that Saddam had nothing to do with Iraq on the onset of the invasion, that particular piece of slick propoganda was being played by our regime pretty hard back then, but I don't think they suffer that illusion to much anymore.

When you hear about the latest American deaths in Iraq, currently around 2600 or so, do you feel the same feeling about it inside as you did at the beginning when the death toll was under 100?

No. My anger has progressed to bitterness. The more deaths that take place, the worse (to my mind) the decision was to invade a country that had not attacked us and did not pose a threat to us.

And out of morbid curiosity, what death toll number would have to be reached until you start wondering whether or not it's not worth it?

I was against it from the beginning, so I never felt the invasion and occupation of Iraq were "worth it". While it made sense to pursue Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, this undeclared war (and it does matter to me to have so many lives and so much money that could be helping Americans spent on an undeclared war--what the hell? Would we have somehow committed more lives and materials to something that was declared? Were we somehow doubtful of or ashamed to make this war "official"?) was undertaken for specious reasons.

While I had loads of respect for then Secretary of State Colin Powell, I found his rationale as presented to the United Nations for going to war to be empty. Surely there had to be something else that prompted the Bush administration to be picking on a country that wasn't picking on us. Some say it was for oil, and there is some evidence to support this. Some say it was to make a better way of life for the oppressed Iraqis, but to my mind there was less evidence to support this thinking that wasn't even emphasized until no weapons of mass destruction were to be found.

I disagree with TruthMarch who says that he doesn't feel sorry for those who went into the war ignorantly and lost their lives. Loss of life is loss of life. It means that the potential the person had for experiencing good things and performing good deeds is gone. It means that a family is bereft of a soul who contributed to their lives in so many ways. It is a tragedy that should not occur regardless of a person's ideology or misconceptions.

But I do understand, I think, where TruthMarch was coming from when he made that statement. Folly is perpetuated by those who persist in believing the folly even in the presence of evidence to the contrary. We are all subject to misconceptions from time to time, and the great tragedy is when these misconceptions are perpetuated and at times even encouraged by the Executive Branch of our government. All the "rah, rah, rah, sis boom bah" that the Bush administration and its cronies can utter doesn't amount to a hill of beans if the members of this government aren't even willing to send their progeny or don a uniform to go and fight themselves. "Atta Boys" should never be confused with true patriotism; it is the commitment to personal sacrifice for a cause that makes a person a patriot.

I also understand the frustration of knowing that whatever we do as protestors against the war and occupation of Iraq, we can't end the conflict. Perhaps TruthMarch is experiencing this feeling as well. Bitterness comes from a feeling of helplessness. And sometimes we will focus our arguments on the way something is phrased when our levels of bitterness and helplessness are running high. I did not send our troops over there either, TruthMarch. Nobody asked me what I thought about invading Iraq. So while "we" as the United States of America sent troops to invade and occupy, it really wasn't "we". It was this poor excuse for a President and his hawkish, gluttonous cronies who eagerly fueled the fires, at one point deliberately implying that Iraq was somehow complicit in the 9/11/2001 attacks to the point where, yes, many Americans made a connection that simply wasn't there.

No, it wasn't worth it in 2003, and it certainly isn't worth it now. But please, let no one construe my opposition to the war as being opposed to our military doing their duty for their country.