Is that 2,465 combat deaths?

IG

Reply By: InfoGeekPosted: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 Is that 2,465 combat deaths? IG

UMmmm dead is dead IG.

Not with the point he is making.

The press is talking about over 3000 combat deaths. A combat death in the desert is very different than a soldier who dies in Tacoma.

IG

Yes actually it is the point InfoGeek.

Why are the numbers more important and being touted as being so bad, when we lost more good men and women in peace time? Dead is dead, no matter where it is.

No, not quite.

If a firefighter dies in a blazing fire trying to save a life, that death and the mystique around it is very different if he died in a car accident.

A soldier who dies of old age in his own bed is very different than a soldier who dies in the desert in some far away land.

IG

The deaths reported were not natural causes and were deaths other than natural. BIG DIfference. One of those (1984) was Russell Smith, 3rd ID shot in the head during a training accident. Thats the kind of deaths we are talking about. I know he was my roommate.

So they were active personnel, but not in cmbat situations.

Why are the numbers more important and being touted as being so bad, when we lost more good men and women in peace time?

Because we (or those we elected) put them there, we put them in harms way. We bear some responsibility for their deaths. The death of Mr. Smith, while unfortunate, was done within the confines of "the military" and we bear no responsibility, as we cannot control the "normal" operations fo the armed forces.

IG

Ok, now add in the # of deaths from non-combat causes. Suicides, overdose, car wrecks, training accidents, pneumonia. All that.

"So they were active personnel, but not in cmbat situations." Thats the point! You got it.

"Ok, now add in the # of deaths from non-combat causes. Suicides, overdose, car wrecks, training accidents, pneumonia. All that."

That does include those. On both sets of numbers. Thats the point!!!

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf

Anyone who dies "in the line of duty". Taking a bullet, dying in a fire... dying doing what they are paid to do... is treated differently than if the same person died at home. That just is.

A soldier who gets shot in Iraq is very different, at least in the mind of the citizenry, than a soldier who gets hit by a car.

I believe even the military treats them differently.

IG

OK let me type this slowly so you understand..

T h e  m e d i a  t r i e s  t o  m a k e  t h e  n u m b e r s  a p p e a r  w o r s e  t h a n  t h e y  a r e .

Why did they not report how many soldiers died in a year when the number was over 2500 for one year alone in peacetime? Because it did not suit the bias of the media and its outlook on our International involvment. Now it does so they report them, knowing that each time they embolden the enemy and demoralize the US citizens.

 

No, you're not getting what I'm saying.

Take the combat dead and add that to the non-combat deaths. Compare THAT number to your peace time dead figure from the early 80s.

If we had not invaded Iraq we would have 3,500 LESS dead and 25,000 LESS injured. Given the fact that ALL these dead and Injured has not made us safer but has increased the number of NUTS that will attack us in the future, we have made a TRAGIC ERROR!

These dead and injured took place AFTER, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!!

Why did they not report how many soldiers died in a year when the number was over 2500 for one year alone in peacetime?

Because they died in peacetime and over a large area.

Now, as the President says, we are at war, everything changes.

We have 3,000 dying in a small area that we sent them to.

Why are the 3,000 who died on 9/11 so revered? Large numbers of people die, in other ways, (Katrina, tidal waves, etc), but it was HOW they died that gives them the added importance.

The soldiers who die in Iraq and Afgan are treated differently because they are different, the HOW they died is different, the WHY they were there is different and the WHO killed them is different.

Why are the men who died in the Arizona, D-Day, Iwo Jima different than those who died of natural causes during the war/

Because they are.

IG

dictator col gene this proves you to be an idiot again. out of those 3500 some may have been killed in accidents and out of the 25,000 some would have been hurt.

during the year i was in. one of the true soldiers didn't quite brake his back but he came close. His back bone was completely out of shape. and i also believe that during that 4 years in the 80's. The troop barracks in Lebanon was attacked i don't remember the number killed there. Everyone blames Reagan for those deaths. I blame the democrats in congress. Because they tried and succeeded in telling the president how to run a war operation. What i mean is that the democrat controlled congress ordered the president to order the troops not to have more than one bullet in their guns. This included the guards at that barracks location. So when the suicide bomber ran the barricade the guards had nothing to stop him with.