Posted on 03/07/2005 7:49:01 AM PST by satchmodog9
We passed another marker in this war on terror last week. The U.S. military death toll in Iraq hit 1,500. Did you know? Yes, there were stories about it in the national news, small and elusive at times, nothing compared to the stories about Martha and her sleek SUV ride out of the clink. In the local accounts, any mention of the 1,500 was often even less prominent. Some war supporters got all bent out of shape last April when "Nightline" decided to devote an entire show to reading the names and showing the photographs of the more than 700 U.S. service men and women who had been killed in action since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Ted Koppel's reading of the names took "Nightline" way beyond its 30-minute time slot. Around the time the death toll reached 1,000, the first anti-war rally in northwest suburban Barrington was staged. The yard surrounding resident Paul Vogel's business held more than 1,000 small U.S. flags, one for each of the soldiers killed in the conflict. The flags crowded the landscaping and stood amid two signs, one updating the death toll and another asking: "Do you care?" So, let's do the numbers: From March 2003 to April 2004, roughly 700 service men and women died. From April 2004 to March 2005, the number increased by about 800. That's not counting the number of soldiers who have been wounded. As of Sunday, the Defense Department placed the official death toll at 1,497 because a fallen soldier isn't included in the toll until his or her relatives have been notified. Officials say that at least 1,140 Americans, including four civilians working for the military, have died in hostile action. The remainder died in situations unrelated to combat. During President Bush's State of the Union
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
And more people were murdered in Detroit in the same time period...
She is real proud of herself for letting us know. I wondered how long it would take for some slimey reporter to bring it up.
She has always tried her best to be the black Maureen Dowd.
Another liberal throws a snit fit that her pet cause isn't winning in the marketplace of ideas. So typical.
A vast multitude of people voted for their leaders in a free election in their country (a former frightening, prison-like dictatorship) for the first time in half a century. Did you notice?
1500 dead in 18 months is a significant number but it is nothing compared to the Americans we lost in combat on just one day, within a hundred miles of Washington D.C.
Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) Maryland -
Wednesday, September 17, 1862 -
Union Army -
Killed - 2108
Wounded - 9549
Missing/Captured - 753
Confederate Army -
Killed - 1512+
Wounded - 7816+
Missing/Captured - 1844
Great statistic. How many were lost on D-Day? More then this I bet. I have a Liberal just like the woman who wrote this in my building. She cares more about convicted terrorists having thier rights abused and how many troops in Iraq have died vs. the historic call for Democracy throughout the Middle East - All thanks to Bush. If she had her way Saddam would still be in power and Kerry would be sitting in the Oval office. Amazing how Liberals can only look at one side of the coin....
When the smoke cleared and the Invasion of Normandy was at an end, thousands of men lie dead on the beaches of Normandy, France. The Germans were hit the hardest after the invasion. Over 30,000 men had to be buried, and almost 80,000 wounded soldiers were carried off. The United States was devastated nearly as hard as the Germans. A shocking 29,000 soldiers were picked up lifeless from the beach. One hundred six thousand men were in pain from their wounds. The United Kingdom did not suffer as bad as The United States and Germany. Around 11,000 soldiers were killed on D-Day. Fifty-four thousand British Men were injured. The Canadians had the fewest casualties. Only 5,000 men died during the invasion. This is very low compared to the other countries. Canada only had to care for about 13,000 wounded soldiers. At the Omaha Memorial, the many casualties of D-Day can be remembered in the hearts of their fellow countrymen.
If today's press was reporting, they would have declared it a quagmire and agitated the citizens that we must pull out immediately.
How many Allied and German casualties were there on D-Day, and in the Battle of Normandy?
“Casualties” refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no "official" casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult. For example, some troops who were listed as missing may actually have landed in the wrong place, and have rejoined their parent unit only later.
In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.
Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).
Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.
The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.
The total German casualties on D-Day are not known, but are estimated as being between 4000 and 9000 men.
Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged.
Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket (August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners.
Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9386 American, 17,769 British, 5002 Canadian and 650 Poles.
Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.
We probably lost 1500 per week in WW2.
Reminds me of a thread on another board where a mother was asking how to help her 18yo son get out of his Marine duty that he had "foolishly signed up for." He'd apparently signed but had not yet reported for duty. He'd "changed his mind" and decided to get married to his girlfriend instead.
Anyone care to wager how long that marriage will last?
Good catch on writer hitting the liberal trifecta. Unfortunately, it doesn't pay like it does with the ponies, as it is an all-too common event.
Why do liberals insist that we celebrate these landmarks? Liberals wait in the wings for these 'landmarks' of dead bodies so they can gleefully scream to make their point. Liberals were so happy that we reached 1,000 before our Presidential election, but were saddened that it did not have the effect they had hoped for. The reason why the 1,500 was not a big news story is that it is being overshadowed by the fact the peace and democracy is breaking out in the middle east and maybe just maybe this war was not such a bad idea.
It is a common misconception that World War 2 was the deadliest war for the United States. However, most people do not realize that more American soldiers died (Union & Confederate) during the Civil War than in every war before and after added together including WW 2.
Yeah bitch, I noticed. Next stupid question.
If Dawn Turner Trice isn't writing articles pushing the gay agenda, she is writing articles condemning GW and the blacks in his administration like Dr Rice. Trice is a mentally ill left wing lunatic posing as a journalist.
http://www.illinoisleader.com/printer/article.asp?c=13726
http://www.illinoisleader.com
IL MEDIA WATCH: Tribune columnist criticizes black achievers
Friday, April 09, 2004
By Dan Zanoza (admin@illinoisleader.com)
49 year old National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice started college at age 15 and graduated by 19.
Secretary of State Colin Powell says he rose from "a black kid living in a slum area in New York City" to the top of his "chosen profession as a soldier to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" to becoming the first African-American Secretary of State.
OPINION -- For nearly a half century, the liberal elite in America have promoted the idea of a color blind society in our nation.
Great thinkers like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. suggest men and women should be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin. Of course, most reasonable Americans now agree with such lofty aspirations. And we, as a people, have made great strides towards the achievement of such goals.
However, it has become evident the left does not truly hold to this premise. For example, President Bush has the most ethnically diverse administration in American history. Yes, more diverse than the presidencies of his Democratic predecessors, including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
You would think all Americans would celebrate the achievements of individuals of color like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. In fact, Powell and Rice are part of George W. Bush's closest inner circle of advisors. Both have been mentioned by Republicans as possible future presidential or vice-presidential candidates.
But in the eyes of many on the political left, the achievements of Powell and Rice are not legitimate.
The writings of Chicago Tribune columnist Dawn Turner Trice perfectly illustrate my point. Trice, an African-American herself, implies blacks must pass a liberal litmus test before receiving the recognition they deserve from their race.
In her April 5th Chicago Tribune column titled, "Rice's politics isolate her from many blacks," Trice suggests unless African-Americans adhere to a prescribed liberal political philosophy, they have abandoned their people.
Unfortunately, this is a viewpoint shared by many liberal elitists. But Trice's words ignore the true meaning of tolerance in our society. It is a sad statement which tells me there are those who put politics ahead of the nation's welfare.
In her column, referring to an alleged lack of support for Rice by African-Americans, Trice writes,
Still, so far, the people or civil rights groups whose business cards seem to read: "We come to the defense of black people smoldering under the harsh light of public scrutiny" have been notably silent. Neither have women's groups been quick to flock to Rice's side. Support for her has been tepid at best.
What Trice doesn't address are the reasons why support for Rice has not been forthcoming from some politically motivated groups. Trice continued in her column by stating,
What's happening illustrates what occurs when an African-American aligns with the Republican Party.
Trice is clearly telling her readers African-American leaders are not entitled to diversity of thought. They must be on the political reservation concerning public matters, including support for issues such as affirmative action and opposition to President Bush's attempt to reform America's failing educational bureaucracy through the "No Child Left Behind" program.
What Trice neglects to point out is the gross failure of liberal legislation which has virtually enslaved minorities and the poor of all ethnicities.
In the 1960's, legislation, resulting from Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" initiative, led to the less fortunate in our society becoming dependent on the welfare state. And as a result, today, in the African-American community, the rate of out of wedlock births has skyrocketed to over 70%.
Many social scientists rightfully blame a system which encouraged poor whites and minorities to abandon the traditional family unit, in order to survive. Democratic politicians were the beneficiaries of this dependence on government and, to this day, derive support from those who are truly victims of a once well-intentioned cultural experiment gone dreadfully wrong.
Trice also suggests nearly all African-Americans view blacks who are aligned with Republicans in a negative light. This is truly not the case. But it is evident many African-Americans are, in fact, conservative in their thinking concerning social and religious matters.
Another Chicago Tribune column by Trice titled, "Blacks' opposition to gay civil rights ignores history," published on March 29, 2004, brings to light her rationale for why blacks must be aligned with politically correct thought. In the piece, Trice is critical of African-Americans who rebel against homosexuals who have attempted to link their cause with the African-American fight for civil rights.
Trice is critical of blacks who say they will likely vote for George Bush in November because he supports a Constitutional amendment which would define marriage as solely being a union between a man and a woman.
In reference to a conversation with a Democratic friend who said she and other members of her church were seriously considering voting for Bush because of the gay "marriage" issue, Trice writes:
"You guys would vote for Bush solely because of the gay marriage issue?" I asked my friend. "And, even though there's scant chance such an amendment would see the light of day?"
"Yep," she said.
"Even though segregationist, hate-mongers used religion to buttress laws banning blacks from marrying whites?"
"Yep," she said.
Again, Trice, who admonishes African-Americans for forgetting history, has apparently forgotten history herself. The greatest opponents of the civil rights movement during the 1960's were southern Democrats who Trice conveniently fails to mention in the column.
When I began writing this piece, I meant to point out the hypocrisy concerning the left's treatment of individuals like Professor Condoleezza Rice.
The truth is, well before Rice joined the Bush administration, she had achieved great personal accomplishments which people of any color would be proud. But while writing the column, I found something more sinister and dangerous within thought advanced by columnists like Dawn Turner Trice.
Some of the most unrighteous aspects of our nation's past were due to overgeneralizations relating to an entire race. I believed intelligent people had cast off such thinking. However, it appears Trice and many others not only believe African-Americans must adhere to stereotypical thought, they chastise those who do not comply with their ideas about politics and culture. To make matters worse, they justify their mindset and discourage individual insight among blacks, especially if it is of a conservative nature.
Is it possible conservatives have embraced the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr., while liberals have rejected his philosophy? The writings of Ms. Trice are certainly sobering. It is a premise I reject for the sake of all Americans, no matter what their race.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.