Table of military casualties in Iraq

MSNBC ^

[shotput]

Thought we might reflect today on the losses incurred by all sides in the war in Iraq. The number of Iraqis killed is worth noting, especially when you consider that "our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people" (link). And how many friends and brothers and sisters and fathers and uncles of those killed are now attacking our soldiers? It seems soldiers are being killed every day now. How do we get out of this mess? Why are we in it in the first place?

U.S., BRITISH AND OTHER TROOPS KILLED:
COMBAT/ATTACKS
United States 263 (149)
Britain 20 (12)
Other nations 1 (1)

NON-COMBAT
United States 128 (104)
Britain 32 (7)
Other nations 2 (2)
IRAQIS KILLED:
MILITARY #4,895 to 6370
CIVILIANS Between 7,832 and 9,657+

# - Unofficial think tank estimates. No official figures available.
+ - Figure compiled on Web site www.iraqbodycount.net, run by academics and peace activists, based on incidents reported by at least two media sources.
NOTE: NON-COMBAT is defined as accidents, U.S. or British fire killing or wounding their own troops, and other incidents unrelated to fighting.

[Thane_Banquo]

CIVILIANS Between 7,832 and 9,657

Taken from 2 media sources? I bet both of the media sources were jihadist websites.

[M Kehoe]

Why are we in it in the first place?

Let me help you with an equation.

Get yourself ready by thinking of all the people who were killed on 9 11....

Would you rather we kill the terrorist in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, etc., or kill them here?

Now do the math.

Welcome to FR.

5.56mm

[KeyWest]

Welcome to FR.

This is more propaganda than fact since you use the body count from a known unreliable source. Since you are trying to prove your point, it would be better to use unbiased sources, otherwise it might seem that you are biased and not interested in truth.

BTW, we learned in Vietnam just how unreliable body counts are to prove anything.

I am sure du would welcome your post since they do not bother with truth.

[mikegi]

DUmmy troll: snotput, member since 2003-09-06. You DUmmies need to be more discreet. Hide in the bushes longer. Right after signing up you started posting Robert Fisk articles (seriously, not to make fun of). Go back to DUmmyland, gather up your slimy friends, put together your five brain cells, AND COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN! Sheesh...

[niteowl77]

Thought we might reflect today on the losses incurred by all sides in the war in Iraq.

I reflect on them every day... at least three times every day... since day one.

How do we get out of this "mess?"

Maybe killing enough intransigent Iraqis or foreign Islamofascists will do the trick.

Thanks for your heartfelt tribute to the sacrifices made by our troops.

[DianaN]

And the Democrats are helping the terrorists kill even more of our military.
A couple of them during a C-Span airing of a Democrat "Policy" meeting acknowledged the enemies of this nation was using their words which they just brushed off. Of course all of their "witnessess" were very left wing Democrats.
A Democrat, supposedly a "defense expert" named Ivan Eland, allegedly from an "Independent Peace Institute" even contributes information to a web site in France that asks for donations and jihadis for Saddam Hussein.
Hopefully, this is just disinformation but the way the Democrats have been politicizing this war, I am not sure at all especially with all the anti-American articles he has on the web.
Unfortunely, I think McCarthy was right and the Russian who said we may have won the Cold War battle, but we would be defeated from the inside and they would win the war was absolutely right.

[somemoreequalthanothers]

Welcome to FR. How do we get out of this mess? We kill the enemy until they are all dead. Why did we get in it in the first place? To remove a tyrant and install a democratic nation smack in the middle of the middle east, from which we will stabilize the area and put an end to decades of senseless violence.

[Gouda]

Relating 9/11 to Iraq has always been convenient, right?

Anyway, thanks for the "equation" - I love them. You can put so many numbers in equation, it's incredible fun.

In this case, one could come up with the tens of thousands of dead civilians in the first iraq war. Or the hundreds of thousands of dead children after the US embargos on Iraq - and Cuba for, the record. But wait, there's more you can put in equation - Iran! Nicaragua! Panama! Let's compare all this to 9/11! Now, that's what I call an equation.

Now do the math.

[DianaN]

Reuters has hired a bunch of Muslim "journalists" some of whom print anti-American articles on the Internet that go all over the globe.
I doubt all they do is "journalism" either as some of their names sound suspiciously familiar and some of them seem to be right there when our troops are getting blown up to take close ups.

[cookcounty]

Do the parentheses mean anything?

[mikegi]

In this case, one could come up with the tens of thousands of dead civilians in the first iraq war.

Documentation? How many were killed by Saddam?

Or the hundreds of thousands of dead children after the US embargos on Iraq - and Cuba for, the record.

Again, documentation. How does the death rate of Iraqi children during the UN embargo compare to the death rate before? IIRC, the rate went up a few percent. Also, who was responsible for the embargo being imposed on Iraq? Was Iraq randomly chosen for embargo?

[M Kehoe]

What's your point?

5.56mm

[shotput]

The figures in brackets refer to casualties since May 1, when Bush declared major combat over.

[Michael81Dus]

Bush declared the end of major combat. So what should have done instead? The end of the war? It isn´t over yet. But the world expected him to say something after Iraq was occupied.

What´s your point?

[ChadGore]

Re: when Bush declared major combat over.
when Bush declared major combat over.
When Saddam lost for the second time.

[shotput]

Here is the www.iraqbodycount.org link to their methodology page.

Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication.

[cibco]

"Or the hundreds of thousands of dead children after the US embargos on Iraq - and Cuba for, the record."

What is Cuba doing in this propaganda? Cuba is open to trade with the WORLD! The US is the only country with the embargo. Are you saying the whole world in inept without the US?

[Gouda]

My point is, everybody seems to miss the core of the original post.
First reaction was attacking the source of the numbers (which for he majority are totally reliable sources including AP, Reuters etc.). Even if the numbers are wrong, they show a tendency that can't be denied. Plus, the original post was not intended to discuss the quality of the sources, but the effect of those killings.
"And how many friends and brothers and sisters and fathers and uncles of those killed are now attacking our soldiers?"

I think this is a thought worth following. Innocent civillian bystanders are killed every day in Iraq, the situation cannot get better this way.

And what do you do? Bring up 9/11. Whats YOUR point with that?

Do not start comparing numbers. Start finding a solution to the problem.

G.

[aspiring.hillbilly]

The military needs to take off the gloves AND POUND INTO DUST these irregulars and worry about winning the hearts and minds later.......

[mrsmith]

"Why are we in it in the first place? "

Are you too stupid to read congressional resolutions?

I said: are you too stupid to read congressional resolutions?

I SAID: "ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO READ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTIONS?

Then you're too stupid to bother with.

[MosesKnows]

Taken from 2 media sources?

What do you imagine the number of civilians killed would be under these circumstances?

[MosesKnows]

Maybe killing enough intransigent Iraqis or foreign Islamofascists will do the trick.

I would think the primary objective would be to eliminate more terrorist than you create.

[Thane_Banquo]

Killed by US military? Probably a few hundred to a thousand at the most.

Unless Saddam littered his military installations with numerous civilians, but I doubt it'd be 9,000 even then.

[MosesKnows]

Would you rather we kill the terrorist in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, etc

Neither the list nor the article gives any indication of the number of terrorist killed? I would think that it would be far more important to know who to kill rather than where to kill them.

I would also think the primary objective would be to kill more terrorist than are created.

[niteowl77]

I would think the primary objective would be to eliminate more terrorist than you create.

If you have better ways to do the job, then let the right people know them.

[Turbo Pig]

Gouda wrote - "And what do you do? Bring up 9/11. Whats YOUR point with that? "

The point is that the US is the focal point of a world-wide terror campaign bent on destroying Western Culture and enslaving the world under the teachings of Mohammed. 9/11 is the most glaring example, in a long and bloody line of examples, of the lengths these nut-jobs will goto to fulfill their dreams of a world wide caliphate.

The best way to fight the Islamofacists is to destroy what gives them their power. That is to drag the Arab culture out of the 15th century, and to democratize the Middle East. Basically raising the standard of living, education, and health aross a large swath of the world.

Pay attention here, this is where the Socialists and the "Hate America" crowd seem to lose the train of thought. Iraq supported world wide terrorism. It has been proven time and again; Ansar Al Islam, payments to Palastinian homicide bombers, the Airline hijacking school outside Bagdahd, etc. Iraq was also a dictatorship, like every other country in the Mid-East, with the exception of Isreal.

Iraq was the best candidate at the time, and in the place, to start doing what needed to be done. The fact that Iraq was not directly tied to 9/11 (a debatable fact) is irreleavant. Why, one may ask? It is irreleavant because as stated the links have been made to the bigger issue, which 9/11 is just a symptom. Iraq's backing of international terrorism did pose an imminent threat to the US, because international terrorism had proven itself an imminent threat to the US, and the West.

Now the next question that seems to come up is "why was Iraq the best candidate". Iraq was the best candidate for American plans because:

1) Iraq had backed itself into a corner, politcally, by non compliance to UN resolutions, and by not abiding by the cease fire agreements of the first Gulf War. This gave the US and it's 30 some allies the grounds act "unilaterally". Just because the UN as a whole did not wish to follow through on its mandates doesn't mean the the US, and its 30 some allies, were wrong in acting "unilaterally". Iraq posed the LEAST amount of problems politically as a place to start the clean-up of the Mid-East.

2) To the Coalition (read the US and its 30 some allies), Iraq posed the LEAST amont of problems logistacally, due to an established presence in the region. Additionally, once taken and secured, the Coalition can dis-engage themselves from places that the Islamofacists use to fire up the cannon-fodder; like Suadia Arabia. This gives the Coalition a base to operate from in the region, without giving the bad guys fuel for their fire.

3) Iraq's military had been shattered over the last 12 years. It's equipment was falling apart, and morale was low to non-existent. Additionally it turns out that the Iraqi officer corps was ripe for mutiny. Iraq posed at best a SMALL obstacle militarily. Even with the ongoing guerilla war being waged by the regime holdouts and Islamofacists in Iraq the cost has been low in tems of lives lost, compared to the alternatives. Admittedly little consolation to those who have, and will, sacrafice loved ones and themselves; our prayers are with them.

4) Aside from Iran, the people of Iraq are probably most suseptable in the region to the upside of Democracy, ironically due in part to the fact that Saddam H. strove to create a secular society free of the cultish mentality of islam. The uneducated masses of the Arab world are not ready for democratic change. It is too foreign a concept at this point for them. The proof lies in the problems seen in Iraq after just 30-50 years of dictatorship. The rest of the Arab world has NEVER seen any sort of political freedom. The cure would kill the patient, so to speak. The introduction of reforms in the region must be gradual, taking years, if not decades. Iraq posed the LEAST amount of resistance when it comes to injecting democracy into the region.

There you are, at least 4 good reasons why Iraq was chosen as the starting point in the Mid-East to secure the future of America.

[MosesKnows]

Probably a few hundred to a thousand at the most.

Your opinion could be fact but how could we know. I found a Web Site who claims to keep records of deaths and references to the news sources that report them. Each individual death is recorded as to when, where, and how. Their estimate is currently between 7,840 and 9,668.

The number seems a reasonable figure when one considers the total tonnage of bombs delivered, the number of troops, the number of armored vehicles and the weapons they discharge, and the time involved.

[cookcounty]

"Why are we in it in the first place?"

Why don't you read President Bush'e speech FOR THE FIRST TIME in your lazy life?

I have a son in the army in this effort, and I would like to remind you that it was our military under the leadership of President Bush that brought an end to government use of rape, torture, bruatlity, and murder.

YOUR CHOICE was that these things go on and on.

That's because you're DUer and a (no)A.N.S.W.E.R.-man. Like your friends, you don't care about suffering children, adults, old people or anyone, and you do not love liberty. You do not want freedom and liberty for Iraqis because they are Arabs, and like all the other hate-filled DUers, you are a racist and want to condemn Arabs to eternal slavery, though you do not wish for it as much as you crave the crucifixion of George Bush.

Life is about more that sitting in the theatre with your brains turned off slurping soda and sucking on candy. Wake up. Life is earnest. Life is real. Libery needs advocates. Get off your butt. get a job. Turn on your brains ----army vet, army dad

[somemoreequalthanothers]

Very good analysis.

[cibco]

Hear...Hear! Salute!

[M Kehoe]

Whats YOUR point with that?

The original poster, shotput, asked the question: "Why are we in it in the first place?"

I answered it. Then you decided to respond to what I said to shotput.

The simple solution is to kill them there, in large numbers, as fast as possible. Anything less is appeasement.

Civilians get killed in war too. Nothing you or I can do about it. Sad, but true.

Any questions?

5.56mm

[Thane_Banquo]

Your source is not objective. Moreover, they seem to count ALL Iraqi dead as civilians, which doesn't make sense at all. Furthermore, the news sources may have quoted "Iraqi officials" or other people who were not objective, but the news articles may not themselves have directly stated the number of dead as fact. This was the practice in Afghanistan, where the Taliban would report incredibly huge numbers of dead and the liberal media would go along with it.

[MosesKnows]

Your source is not objective

That was a portion of my point when I responded to your assertion that the number of civilians killed was probably a few hundred to a thousand at the most.

You say, without reference to any source, objective or not, that probably the number killed were a few hundred to a thousand at most, and as I said you may be correct.

When I offered a Web Site you suggested that the source is not objective. However, the source reports the date, time, location, target, weapons, deaths, and referenced the many and varied news sources reporting the data. It may not appear objective to you but the information offered could be verified and challenged, which in my opinion is far more objective than your unsupported opinion.

This Web Site is not unique; it was just the easiest to read of the many I found. There is one truth we can agree on, neither of us have first hand information so we both must obtain our information from third parties. My position was fairly simple; the number of civilian deaths reported to be between 7,840 and 9,660 seemed plausible, very plausible.

[Gouda]

I am happy that someone finally admits what this is all about. So go ahead, kill those "islamofascist" arabs, as many as possible.
Force them into liking democracy, even if it means ignoring what the people and the rest of the world thinks about it. Go on "civilizing" countries by using uncivilized methods, lies and million dollar bombs.

So, how about taking on Saudi next? It's a 15th century dictatorship, so you should really bring it down. Of course, they were your friends until now. Plus, the people of Saudi Arabia don't really want democracy, but you'll teach them anyway.

Then - Quatar. Another dictatorship. They helped you with Iraq, but you don't need them anymore, so crush'em. Bomb some democracy into their homes. Use the same cluser bombs you used in Iraq, this way you can "spread" democracy better.

I'd still recommend you keep in mind what Mosesknows posted earlier: Eliminate more terrorists than you create.

I took the liberty of rewriting one of your pargraphs from your above post:

"The point is that Iraq is the focal point of a world-wide democracy campaign bent on destroying middle eastern culture and enslaving the world under the teachings of the Pentagon. 3/20 is the most glaring example, in a long and bloody line of examples, of the lengths these nut-jobs will goto to fulfill their dreams of a world wide empire."

Over and out
G.

[mrsmith]

"Arabs want to live in chains! Those people can't handle freedom."

I took the liberty of translating your post into plain English.

Not that you can understand plain english.

[Turbo Pig]

I am not going to lie to you. The days of Arab dictatorships are numbered. Friendship as a matter of convieince has been a part of politics since day one. Just so happens that funding US enemies while the US protects you is one way cause that friendship to end. Condeming the US is just showing your hatred of the US.

If the Arab dictatorships (and the socialist elite in the US) die a slow peaceful death as democratic ideas take place, then good for them...less blood will be shed. If it take the blood of tyrants to water the tree of liberty then so be it.

As far as what the rest of the world thinks, so what. They allowed a tyrant to sit in place for 12 years in Iraq; 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves scream. They applaud as Lybia sit on the Human Rights Committee. They allow slavery and extermination of Christians in the Sudan to go unspoken of. They celebrate the death of Isreali women and children, and mourn the deaths of those who killed them. They danced in the streets on 9/11. It took that day to show a majority of the US the errors of our ways.

I disagree with you, in fact reading to your tripe makes me a little sick to my stomach. I will give you this, though. In rewriting what I wrote, you were honest with us all. You see the US as an enemy, and you see democratic freedoms as a threat to whatever your view of what the world should be is.

Your ideas are intellectually bankrupt. All civilizations and societies are not equal. The US is not empire building. If that were the case, it would have happened long ago, and there is nothing anyone could have done about it. Sometime force is needed to right injustices. Evil in the form of dictatorships and religious fundamentalism will not bow to talk and sancitions. You would deny the US the right to protect itself in a declared war. Deaths are bad, as long as they are not American.

This is an us or them situation, and by the enemies own words, there can only be one side standing when it is over. The days of the US buckling under from the whining of Europe and the socialists in the US are over. They died a firey death on Sept. 11, 2001. Choose your side and choose it carefully.