Sizing Up Sacrifice

[Heather]

The liberal mainstream media loves to illustrate every death in Iraq, and pronounce it as a failure. Now, as the member of a military family, I will admit that every death is tragic...my brother lost a dear friend in Baghdad.

But lets look at the statistics, shall we?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...sus-major.html

What I find particularly interesting is the fact that more servicemen died during the Clinton administration (during peacetime), than those who have died during the Bush administration (during wartime).

Things that make you go hmmm....

[*Ashlee*]

that is interesting to see actually....hmmm

[Isley]

Where were the servicemen who were killed under Clinton? The middle east, africa?
Were they like UN peacekeepers or.. ?

But I agree, it is interesting..

[Heather]

Im not sure...the figures were taken from the US Statistics office. Im sure if you really dug around, you could find it, though.

Although we definitely lost some in Somalia...the rest, would take some research.

Another interesting fact, is that the Iraq death count, includes non-combat related deaths. Like my brother's friend, Cole. He died in a car accident. It wasnt a terrorist related death. So, if we looked at the actual number of combat related deaths, it would be less than the 4000 the media reports.

Another thing to make you go hmmm....

By most accounts, the biggest battle the US was ever involved in was the Battle of the Hürtgen Forest, a largely strategically meaningless campaign to push a salient through part of the Siegfried Line. It has become overshadowed in the public consciousness by the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler's last gasp at a counter-offensive. Yet the Hürtgen Forest chewed up corps-sized formations. Both the 4th ID and 9th ID were so badly savaged that they were withdrawn from the front line to re-establish themselves in the rear area before being re-committed.

In total, the US took something like thirty-two thousand casualties, in a series of brutal and sanguinary assaults reminiscent of the carnage that ensued in the same area during the Great War.

And, lest we forget, Allied forces were in action right up until the bitter end. Bomber Command and the USAAF were losing aircraft (and their crews) wholesale even in April 1945. The British, the US, the Canadians, the ANZACs, other Commonwealth forces: all were suffering thousands of casualties a month even as the war drew to a close. We lost people on VE day (and of course Victory over Japan was still months away, with the prospect of years' more appalling losses. What an act of deliverance were Fat Man and Little Boy).

Every casualty we have suffered in the campaign against Iraq and other Muslim fascist states is a tragedy, but a sense of proportion must be maintained.

Just emailed the author a graph based not on the total numbers but on the average daily fatality rates.

Viewed in this way, the contrast is even more striking--e.g. the Battle of the Bulge killed our soldiers at a rate more than 200 times higher than Iraq, and Iwo Jima and 75 times more fatal on a daily basis. (Interestingly, if you then factor in the size of the forces involved, Iwo Jima and the Bulge pretty much trade places, i.e. Iwo Jima having about 200x the fatalities as Iraq per troop/day.)

[Isley]

I tried to do some research but it was more difficult than first thought. Though there was a lot of conflicts around the world in the 90s. After the the 90s this statistics dropped and now, the number of armed conflicts are down, only in Africa and the middleeast is there still a number.

There was a lot of unrest in the 90s after the dissolvement of USSR. A lot of conflicts in eastern europe. Not to mention Rwanda, Congo, Somalia, Mozambique.. the list goes on and on.

I really don't understand, is this meant to be justifying for the war? It's interesting, yeah, hell it is, because you start wondering, what really happened in the 90s that caused all these fatalities but I don't see it as an excuse for having the Iraq war going since there aren't obviousl that many fatalities as the media wants to portay it to be. I don't care really, a war is a war and i'm fundamentally against it. I understand your supportive attitude towards it though Heather, you coming from a military family and all.

But I always feel one should have scepticism towards statistics if one doesn't know where it is from. The liberals would prob just give a statistics showing an overated number of deaths, while the conservatives would probably try to keep the deaths down to keep the war going. I also see by whom the statistics where taken, cos that's important too. Honestly I don't understand much of these statistics because there are no links to stuff, explaining. Where were the soldiers stationed? In relation to what? How did they die? Stuff like that... they always like to keep that OUT form the statistics, laying them on the table - THIS IS THE TRUTH, now read it and weep!

[Heather]

Ok..when I originally read the last post, I wasnt going to respond...but Im the member of a military family. My brother is deploying in the fall. And I need to point out how much you are missing the point.

Lets take it point by point, shall we?

I really don't understand, is this meant to be justifying for the war? It's interesting, yeah, hell it is, because you start wondering, what really happened in the 90s that caused all these fatalities but I don't see it as an excuse for having the Iraq war going since there aren't obviousl that many fatalities as the media wants to portay it to be. I don't care really, a war is a war and i'm fundamentally against it. I understand your supportive attitude towards it though Heather, you coming from a military family and all.

Conservatives and Republicans are painted as war mongerers in the press, and every single death in Iraq (while tragic) is highlighted on the evening news. Where was this coverage in the 90s? It was freaking non-existent! Under Clinton, our soldiers standard of living was barely above the poverty line. Most soldiers were on food stamps, and yet their sacrifice was ignored. Where was the coverage of Black Hawk Down? And what those soldiers went through? Uh...no where?

What was the first thing Bush did when he took office? He gave the soldiers a raise! And this was pre-9/11. Unlike the Clinton family, he respected the military before the War on Terror even began.

If you are so fundamentally against war, Isley, than you should be condeming the Clintons as loudly as you do the Bushes. But you dont.

But I always feel one should have scepticism towards statistics if one doesn't know where it is from. The liberals would prob just give a statistics showing an overated number of deaths, while the conservatives would probably try to keep the deaths down to keep the war going. I also see by whom the statistics where taken, cos that's important too. Honestly I don't understand much of these statistics because there are no links to stuff, explaining. Where were the soldiers stationed? In relation to what? How did they die? Stuff like that... they always like to keep that OUT form the statistics, laying them on the table - THIS IS THE TRUTH, now read it and weep!

Those are not made up statistics. And, as I have learned, numbers dont lie. You can fudge the stories, to make yourself look better, but numbers dont lie. Do you comprehend that? NUMBERS DONT LIE...no matter what the press says. And yeah, it was a statistics website. If need be, I will use my history skills, and do the research myself. But the fact remains that under the Clintons the quality of life for the military was far less, and more servicemen died. And while they were defending freedom of speech, they werent allowed to excercize it.

Thats a fact, that I know from personal experience. If you dont like it, or refuse to believe it, thats your perrogative.

But I am sick and tired of being maligned for supporting the mission, and our troops, when the other side does nothing but demean them.

This is my brother's life we are talking about here. And while you might not care about him, I would give my life for his. So having him supported on the homefront matters a great deal to me.

It doesnt matter how the soldiers under Clinton died. What matters is that they did. And now we are facing another Clinton, with as much animosity, and lack of respect for the US military. If she wins, we can expect a cut to soldier's pay, effective immediately. And while I have friends and family members in the military, risking their lives for this country, that is not okay in my book, whatever way you spin it.

End of story.

[Isley]

Conservatives and Republicans are painted as war mongerers in the press, and every single death in Iraq (while tragic) is highlighted on the evening news. Where was this coverage in the 90s? It was freaking non-existent! Under Clinton, our soldiers standard of living was barely above the poverty line. Most soldiers were on food stamps, and yet their sacrifice was ignored. Where was the coverage of Black Hawk Down? And what those soldiers went through? Uh...no where?

What was the first thing Bush did when he took office? He gave the soldiers a raise! And this was pre-9/11. Unlike the Clinton family, he respected the military before the War on Terror even began.

If you are so fundamentally against war, Isley, than you should be condeming the Clintons as loudly as you do the Bushes. But you dont.

If that was your point, why don't just say it, loud and clear for me to understand because I can't read your mind. I don't know what you meant to get out of this thread, I simply responded in the way I interpreted.

Well, numbers don't lie. I agree. But they can be twisted. It's not like every stastistic every written is the one and only truth. Numbers can be taken out, one doesn't know how many one have surveyed and under what time span, that kind of thing, I was talking generally, not just about this statistic.

I get that you're trying to prove a point, but you feel that you are extremely in the right that there is no responding to it. I get what you're saying I do, I just wish that you'd utter it more clearly a little earlier so we wouldn't be having this argument. It is not necessary, I'm not against you. And I wasn't sympathizing with the Clintons, I found it odd, like you, that in peacetime, for there to be so many deaths and honestly was intrugued by why.

There was a lot of hmmmms going on and I don't know how to interpret that.
Looks like interpreted it wrong since I got this blow back on me.

Whatever, you're right, you know the story.

The End.

[Heather]

It was meant to make you stop and think, and see the hypocricy that we all live under. Every death under Bush is reported on the evening news, while the deaths under Clinton were downplayed, or flagrantly ignored.

Why? Was their sacrifice less?

No, it was not. And I, for one, am sick and tired of the double standard.

Yes, I am passionate about the military. My baby brother, my cousin, and one of my best friends (since 1994) are all in the US military, and every defamation, every demeaning speech, is aimed at them, people I love dearly.

So, yes, I get angry when people like Harry Reed equate them to Nazi Storm Troopers, and in the 90s cut their funding beyond belief.

Im allowed to be mad that the truth isnt being told, but instead, being spun.

I get that you're trying to prove a point, but you feel that you are extremely in the right that there is no responding to it. I get what you're saying I do, I just wish that you'd utter it more clearly a little earlier so we wouldn't be having this argument. It is not necessary, I'm not against you. And I wasn't sympathizing with the Clintons, I found it odd, like you, that in peacetime, for there to be so many deaths and honestly was intrugued by why.

I got defensive because the tone of your last post negates that. The whole, "this justifies a war", comment really rubbed me the wrong way. Because to them, the soldiers, they are there for a reason, and they find honor in it. They see the changes the press doesnt report, and take pride in it. They are saving lives, while risking their own.

That post just really rubbed me the wrong way, because I know what our soldiers continue to sacrifice. You dont know what its like to live through something like this. To not know if your loved one is alive or dead. I do. And it is hell. But they still do it, and we still support them. Because thats their job...and standing by them is ours.

Im just so sick of the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq rhetoric, because the truth of what is going on over there is not being reported. You want to hear about the progress? Talk to a member of a military family. You want to hear the doom and gloom? Pick up a newspaper. The lack of coverage over the progress is truly sickening.

[Lorren]

I was in the military in one form or another (reserves or active duty) from 1993 to 2003. There was the Cole, several terrorist attacks, plus there were a lot of "peacekeeping" missions, which aren't exactly safe.

I know that I went to a few funerals, they were all for accidental deaths.

Kinda weird that there were more deaths then... not sure why. But you're right, they didn't really make the news, except maybe in San Diego or the town of the military base where the accident happened.

[Heather]

Lorren, thank you....for your service and sacrifice. It is truly appreciated.

[Taminar]

My heart goes out to the families of any service member killed or injured in the line of duty, anywhere at any time. My dad served in the Navy 28 years and 11 months. Thank goodness he was never in a war zone, really. He was part of the Cuban blockade in the 60s, and of course the Cold War was going on. He told us once his sub brushed a Russian sub that was prowling around in the same area.

My frustrations with the Iraq war is that Bush decided to concentrate our action there instead of focusing on nabbing Osama bin Laden. A few months after Sept. 11, people on the street were blaming Saddam and Iraq for the 9/11 attacks. Yes, Saddam was a tyrant, but I'd rather have seen us bring down Osama first.

[Heather]

My heart goes out to the families of any service member killed or injured in the line of duty, anywhere at any time. My dad served in the Navy 28 years and 11 months. Thank goodness he was never in a war zone, really. He was part of the Cuban blockade in the 60s, and of course the Cold War was going on. He told us once his sub brushed a Russian sub that was prowling around in the same area.

Please thank your father for me. Even if he didnt serve in a warzone like so many have, he was still defending our freedoms, and deserves our thanks.

My frustrations with the Iraq war is that Bush decided to concentrate our action there instead of focusing on nabbing Osama bin Laden. A few months after Sept. 11, people on the street were blaming Saddam and Iraq for the 9/11 attacks. Yes, Saddam was a tyrant, but I'd rather have seen us bring down Osama first.

I dont think thats necessarily true. I know soldiers who have served in Afghanistan, and were part of the hunt for Bin Laden. I dont believe that it was forgotten, it just wasnt highlighed in media coverage. I think we have to remember, that in the case of Al Queda, that national security is the key...they simply cant tell the American people everything they know about what is going on, because the enemy in this case has access to the same information that we do.

Just because it isnt being reported, doesnt mean it isnt happening.