Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

US War Dead in Iraq Exceeds Early Vietnam Years...

Nov 15, 2003 11:51AM PST

"PHILADELPHIA - The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War, the brutal Cold War conflict that cast a shadow over U.S. affairs for more than a generation.

A Reuters analysis of Defense Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on Dec. 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when American troop levels in Indochina stood at just over 17,000.

By comparison, a roadside bomb attack that killed a soldier in Baghdad on Wednesday brought to 397 the tally of American dead in Iraq, where U.S. forces number about 130,000 troops -- the same number reached in Vietnam by October 1965.

The casualty count for Iraq apparently surpassed the Vietnam figure last Sunday, when a U.S. soldier killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack south of Baghdad became the conflict's 393rd American casualty since Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 20.
"

US War Dead in Iraq Exceeds Early Vietnam Years

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Conveniently ignore what the actual report had to say...
Nov 18, 2003 2:04AM PST

and rely on drivel that has no foundation in fact Charlie. The rather lengthy report showed all kinds of EVIDENCE.

The present Admin relied on the information it had and came to the SAME CONCLUSIONS that the previous Admin did and that Gore and Clinton were spouting immediately after 9/11. They only changed their tune AFTER Bush acted (with the concurance of Congress) and AFTER WMD have proven hard to locate.

Various concealed weaponry is constantly being discovered.

Yes, I agree that inspectors had asked for more time--apparently better than ten years wasn't enough.

If you seriously believe that 'The only thing GW has succeeded with is to sacrifice more lives on both sides.' then I suggest you might start actually watching the news and listening to what both our military and the Iraqui citizens have to say.

- Collapse -
In cases like this Blake I would prefer to be wrong
Nov 17, 2003 12:13PM PST

But everything I said to you about this war has come to be. I even said that Saddam wouldn't be found.
I said that the situation wasn't unlike the vietnam war, yet one of the politicians over there denied that there was any similarity. Back in the old speakeasy I said that all the W.M.D were canned up and dispensed to the terrorists-Oh God I hope I am wrong on that one.

- Collapse -
I hope you're wrong, Steve...
Nov 17, 2003 12:52PM PST

Steve, I hope you're wrong about them being "canned up and dispensed to the terrorists", but I fear that you might be right.
Back in the old SpeakEasy, I also mentioned something. Iraq is about the size of California. If I had a year without inspection to hide a couple of tons of cocaine in the state of California, how long might it take to find it?
We are destroying our old stockpiles of poison gas and the like that were left from tho cold war days. It's a long and hard process, considering the safety factor. Iraq killed heaven knows how many people with theirs (remember the Iraq-Iran war). I find it amazing that they were able to get rid of their stockpiles so quickly, and more importantly, without a trace.
It's somewhat like a murder case where you have a body, know the specific weapon used, and even have eye witnesses, but can't find that weapon. It's easy to get rid of a single weapon, but tons of them is another matter.
On another line of thought, I don't seem to remember the same degree of anti-war talk during the Clinton Administration, starting with Somalia and going on to later events, let alone the constant death count or constant use of psychologically "loaded" terms like "body bags". I can't help but wonder if that difference has a strong political factor.

- Collapse -
Hi J.
Nov 18, 2003 8:35AM PST

I think the quicker that the new government of Iraq is given full control with it's own strong security against the Saddam filth, the better it will be for both our countries, and we can then withdraw and leave the Iraqi people to sort themselves out.
For any political party in America to attempt to win points on the backs of lost loved ones is the lowest form of action.

- Collapse -
Something is now quite diferent, Steve..
Nov 18, 2003 1:59PM PST

Steve, something is now quite different than it was when this situation started. Before, we had very minimal Human Intelligence Resources in that country. (Polite way of saying spys).
Now, however, we have many, and I dare say that England has picked up a pile also.
That new source of intelligence should change the picture in a big way.
I dare say that some of those new local area human resources are able to go elsewhere, like Iran, and do their thing undercover.

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Nov 19, 2003 2:47PM PST
- Collapse -
Re:US War Dead in Iraq Exceeds Early Vietnam Years...
Nov 20, 2003 2:48AM PST

Well Charlie, let me answer you this way. Being of German and Swedish descent, I am grateful that my ancestors chose to come to this country.

You have shared with us in the past some struggle with depression and having been on antidepressant medications. It seems that under the rule of the Socialist parties in Sweden, your freedom to procreate may well have been stifled.

Bottom line, any government system that takes less of the proceeds from its citizenry's labor and implements less of any function impacting daily life, the more free the citizenry is to decide for themselves how to live.

- Collapse -
The Great Depression...
Nov 20, 2003 4:54AM PST
Bottom line, any government system that takes less of the proceeds from its citizenry's labor and implements less of any function impacting daily life, the more free the citizenry is to decide for themselves how to live. - Evie

Those who have no financial concerns have no way to understand that those in poverty or are struggling from paycheck to paycheck have far fewer freedoms than the privileged and upper middle-class. When money is a great concern, as is the case in a growing number of households in this country, then choices have to be made between eating and medical treatment. Choices have to be made between taking medication or living with medical illnesses. These are not freedoms nor real choices...

While the wealthy have the freedom of choosing among different styles of Rolex watches, expensive cars and SUVs, where their next trip will be anywhere in the world, a growing mass is left with trying to figure out how to clothe and feed their children, pay the rent, stay ahead of the collection agencies, and maintain a roof over their heads. Since over 3 million workers lost their jobs in this country since GW took the reigns, 3 million people are much less free than ever before. As the differences between the haves and have nots increases, only a select few in the US are truly free. The rest are constrained by Poor Credit which prevents them from buying anything of value. How can this be considered free???

As wealthy people who have no real concerns other than what the government should give them, a growing population in this country continues to lose any semblance of freedom as they helplessly watch as their life-savings are depleted for necessities. As more and more people go into poverty, there are less real consumers in the market, causing a domino affect. Because of the loss of spending, more people lose their jobs and enter poverty and freedoms continue to be lost to more and more people. Eventually, the only free Americans are the wealthiest Americans...

I bet few from the Great Depression era felt very free...
- Collapse -
By your rationale ...
Nov 20, 2003 5:00AM PST

... the poor are less free in any country and under any system of government. Social welfare enslaves the middle class Blake. The rich have the resources to move elsewhere, shelter assets, go outside the system for medical care, etc. The poor get it provided so there is no incentive to provide for oneself. The middle class tries to provide for themselves while also paying for the poor.

You draw erroneous conclusions when you make statements regarding my understanding of what it is like to live in true poverty. I may have not known it myself, but I've been close enough to it.

As suggested to Charlie, I would also recommend to you Star Parker's new book Uncle Sam's Plantation.

- Collapse -
Let Them Eat Cake...
Nov 21, 2003 12:55PM PST
the poor are less free in any country and under any system of government. Social welfare enslaves the middle class Blake. The rich have the resources to move elsewhere, shelter assets, go outside the system for medical care, etc. - Evie

Actually welfare to the rich and soaring deficits enslaves the middle class. Or to describe it more succinctly, it shrinks the middle class and creates a growing enslaved lower class. An endless war on terrorism that has no chance of being won and isn't waged against any real terrorists, enslaves the lower and middle class. I doubt that there are very many millionaire/billionaire soldiers...

Let's do a few small calculations to see how the lower and middle class are being enslaved. Let's assume that there are 300 million Americans. There are actually only about 285 million, but lets round up just to simplify our calculations...

For every $100 billion increase in debt, every man, woman, and child in America owes the government $333 above and beyond their normal taxes. A family of 4 will owe an additional $1,333 above and beyond their normal taxes in order to balance this new debt. In just this year alone, the deficit is projected to approach $500 billion. Each American, young and old alike, now will owe $1,667 above and beyond their normal taxes for just the deficits incurred during this year. For a family of 4, this amounts to an additional $6,667 per family above and beyond their normal taxes. Since similar deficits are forecast as far as the eye can see, the additional debt for each man, woman, and child will continue to increase. In addition, since these deficits are funded by loans, the interest will continue accrue until the entire debt is paid in full. These interest fees continue to pad the pockets of the wealthy while providing nothing of use to either the middle and lower class...

The US debt is projected to exceed $6 Trillion in less than 6 years. So the debt owed by every man, woman, and child in the US will increase to $20,000 each above and beyond their normal taxes. For a family of 4, their additional debt will then be $80,000 above and beyond their normal taxes in 6 years or less...

Since raising taxes to pay for programs would prove to be political suicide for any party, programs will have to be cut with the excuse that there is no money available to fund them. So programs that millions of people depend on to survive will disappear overnight, forcing more and more people deeper into debt paying for the shear necessities in life. Also costs will have to be added or increased on many public things like swimming pools, gyms, parks, libraries, etc. Now many will be priced out of these activities...

Since the wealthy and upper-middle class never have any real financial concerns, they will continue enjoying their freedoms while being completely oblivious to the growing financial crisis of millions of Americans. I'm sure, for them, it will be nice that the crowds will diminish...

An increase in gym, pool, and other fees won't adversely affect the wealthy at all. But these added costs become huge burdens for those who must choose between food and health/medicine, clothing, repairing the car, paying the utilities, etc. So as the debt increases for the lower and middle class, their freedoms continue to erode, until one day they wake up and find there is no freedom for them in America at all...

As each dollar is removed for each program, the cost for the same service increases dramatically. So even though some may receive a $300 tax break, they end up paying far more to live as a result to make up for the loss in services. So the financial burden shifts and weighs heavier and heavier while welfare is contributed to the wealthy who have no financial concerns. As the wealthy become more free, the lower and middle class become more enslaved. Adding insult to injury, the wealthy will continue to fight for a flat tax that will shift the financial burden even more on those who can afford it least, enslaving millions more...

The wealthy are already moving their resources outside of our borders in order to hire cheap labor and avoid taxes, even though our system made it possible for them to exist. Even if we continue to give the wealthy government welfare, they will continue to shift their new found riches over seas in order to hire cheap labor and avoid taxes. Since these people had no financial concerns before they got these government handouts, why would anyone believe that putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy would trickle down to those who need it most after the government hand-outs? It didn't happen during the Reagan years and there's no reason to believe that it will happen now...

Perhaps we can eventually convince our allies to help us out of our self inflicted fiscal mess when the bottom falls out and get them to bail us out with grants. Somehow, I don't see that working any better than getting them to help us out of our mess in Iraq. Of course, the wealthy could say, let them eat cake. But history surely can't repeat itself. Can it???
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Nov 20, 2003 7:22AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Singing Bobby McGee now?
Nov 20, 2003 11:21AM PST

.

- Collapse -
(NT) - Blake, a fantastic reply! Thank You!
Nov 20, 2003 5:06PM PST

`?

- Collapse -
Re:The Great Depression...
Nov 21, 2003 12:06AM PST

Interesting statement here Blake:

"I bet few from the Great Depression era felt very free..."

Because that is the preiod when the slide toward socialism began right here with the unconstitutional government social programs (AKA "New Deal") of FDR.

You are right though because under the "New Deal" many saw what they had worked hard for taken away and presented gratis to others at the whim of government and they weren't too happy.

- Collapse -
(NT) The Great Depression... -- Great Post, Blake!
Nov 21, 2003 1:00AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Howso, Evie?
Nov 21, 2003 1:05AM PST

>> Most of our reduced freedoms of late can be directly traced to increased social programs. <<
Oh, really? Seems to me most of our reduced freedoms of late are attributable to BushCroft's overreaction to the terrorist threat. And women's reproductive freedom's are under assault today to an extent not seen in a couple of decades -- for reason's having NOTHING to do with increased social programs.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Well, how about our social security numbers for starters?
Nov 21, 2003 3:41AM PST

Never supposed to be used for ID but ...

How about everything the government knows about you just from your IRS return?

The list is long and goes on from there.

None of us have lost very much personal freedom if any significant losses at all due to Ashcroft. I can't think of a single thing besides having to take the little knife off my key chain and take off my shoes at the airport that has changed in my daily life.

Evie Happy