U.S. death toll in Iraq hits 3,000

[IsrAmeriPrius]

U.S. death toll in Iraq hits 3,000

The death of a Texas soldier, announced Sunday by the Pentagon, raised the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq to at least 3,000, according to an Associated Press count, since the war began in March 2003.[/b]

U.S. military deaths in Iraq reach 3,000: Web site

The Web site, www.icasualties.org, on Sunday listed the death of Spec. Dustin R. Donica, 22, on December 28 as previously unreported and said his death, together with that of an unidentified soldier killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad on Saturday, brought the toll to 3,000.[/b]

When will the madness stop?

[McShemp]

Time/CNN article

[efusco]

Wait, wait....I wanna be a Republican:
"It's an arbitrary number"
"These soldiers have helped to install a "democratic" government"
"We put undue significance in a number simply b/c it ends in zero"
Blah, blah, blah [excuse], blah, blah, blah [excuse]....

[Schmika]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Dec 31 2006, 08:25 PM) [snapback]369068[/snapback]</div>

Wait, wait....I wanna be a Republican:
"It's an arbitrary number"
"These soldiers have helped to install a "democratic" government"
"We put undue significance in a number simply b/c it ends in zero"
Blah, blah, blah [excuse], blah, blah, blah [excuse]....
[/b]

No, but I will say this. ONE death is too many for no purpose at all. So, why is 3000 more significant than 2000, more than 55, more than 2? What is this obsession with body count?

Before you say "easy for you to say", my son is in Iraq w/ Marines.

If we are fighting for a just cause, 60,000 might be OK (remember the civil war?)

Find a better argument....this one makes you look like ghouls.

[efusco]

Well, I was trying to be a bit light hearted about it...
But many of us agree with you...1 death for an unjust cause is too many. We feel this cause was/is unjust. Thus 3000 is more signficiant b/c it 3000 times more than one unjust death.

There's been a quote going in one add on XM....something like this, not an exact quote:

We (democrats) believe we need a strong military.
We appreciate the sacrifices of our soldiers.
What we don't appreciate is sacrificing our soldiers {for an unjust cause}.

[daniel]

I do not know if this is true or not, but someone told me they don't count soldiers who die of their war wounds after being evacuated from Iraq, in the death figures. They count those only as wounded. As if the death of someone, as the direct result of a war injury, 48 hours after being flown to a military hospital in Germany, is the same as a war veteran who dies of an unrelated cause a decade after fighting in a war.

If this is the case, then the real number is much larger.

But of course it's a price Halliburton is willing to pay in order to produce healthy dividends for its stockholders.

[Alric]

"If we are fighting for a just cause, 60,000 might be OK (remember the civil war?)"

Sentences like this make ill. No violent death is justified. Even for "just" causes all deaths are regrettable. If people are dying then someone at some level is being incompetent.

More soldiers in Iraq have died than people died on 9/11. Not to add the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Even if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, which it didn't, the whole exercise has proven to be a waste of lives and money.

Its gotten to the point that when people ask me who I would vote for president I answer: "For the one I think will get the least amount of people killed".

[MarinJohn]

lets see, this administration has lied about everything important and now some believe a 3000 figure? g'won! ITEM ITEM ITEM for an aspiring journalist. Put out a national call for families to send in names of their loved ones killed in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Jaded cynic? Who, me?

[IsrAmeriPrius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Dec 31 2006, 05:44 PM) [snapback]369114[/snapback]</div>

lets see, this administration has lied about everything important and now some believe a 3000 figure? g'won! ITEM ITEM ITEM for an aspiring journalist. Put out a national call for families to send in names of their loved ones killed in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Jaded cynic? Who, me?
[/b]

There is a site that independently tracks the war's casualties: iCasualties.org

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 31 2006, 03:45 PM) [snapback]369081[/snapback]</div>

I do not know if this is true or not, but someone told me they don't count soldiers who die of their war wounds after being evacuated from Iraq, in the death figures. They count those only as wounded.
[/b]

Not according to iCasualties.org. They have links to DOD news releases that clearly state the cause of death. Here is an example: DoD Identifies Army Casualty

[Alnilam]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Dec 31 2006, 03:33 PM) [snapback]369075[/snapback]</div>

No, but I will say this. ONE death is too many for no purpose at all. So, why is 3000 more significant than 2000, more than 55, more than 2? What is this obsession with body count?

Find a better argument....this one makes you look like ghouls.
[/b]

Let's see if I can do the math:

3000 - 2000 = 1000 DEAD FOLKS
3000 - 55 = 2945 DEAD FOLKS
3000 - 2 = 2998 DEAD FOLKS

These are merely milestones on the road to oblivion. And this is just AMERICAN dead. Forget about the stupid Iraqis who were in the wrong place at the right time. Our country famously stopped doing body counts so they are unknown. And wipe from your mind the limbless but alive returnees. we have among us.

Ghouls, indeed!