"War on Terror" Numbers

[llwoops]

I put this here since the war is a sensitive issue, but I really only have a question, it could turn into debate though.

K they announced that 4,000 troops have died in this war, but I was wondering does anyone know how many troops have actually been deployed into this war since it started? I just want to know the ratio.  I am looking myself but not finding anything so far.

[K-64]

that's the problem, they always tell us how many people have died, but never how many were fielded in the first place, maybe because the numbers would make the death count look small.

[Fleamo]

that's the problem, they always tell us how many people have died, but never how many were fielded in the first place, maybe because the numbers would make the death count look small.

...which would make 4,000 deaths less significant?

It IS still 4,000 deaths.  If you had asked anyone if they were willing to sacrifice 4,000 American troops for the removal of Saddam from power at the beginning of the war...I'd be curious to their answer.

[JonathanSpenc]

Why are we even in Iraq? It's stupid, a waste of time, and it's killing our soilders!

[Grim Jr.]

We went in for one reason and that reason has changed over time, originally it was to remove Sadam from power and help get the government going in a better direction. Which is partially the issue that the rest of the world has with America anyway; we act like world police when it isn't our job to interfere with other nations.

After Sadam was removed from power, we had to stay in order to clean up our mess. We kind of put ourselves in a lose-lose situation. If we had just removed Sadam from power and left, Iraq would have complained that we did nothing to really help them. Which has happened in the past, however...by staying, US citizens are being sacrificed to the cause and its caused unsettling in the population.

The offical purpose has been altered also, I can't even remember what Bush says the reason is now, but that isn't really the problem. The problem is getting out of this very sticking situation without causing more of a mess or making us look worse.

EDIT:

Also...

There have been over 200,000 troops total in Iraq.

According to About.com...

In late 2003, the Department of Defense plan was to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq to 105,000 by May 2004.

However, in November 2006, there were approximately 140,000 troops there. We no longer know what the breakdown is between active and reserve forces (including National Guard). The last time those data were available, there were 90,000 active forces and 60,000 reserve.

In November 2006, coalition troop numbers were down from a high of 25,600 (January 2004) to 18,000. Thus 89 percent of the troops were American.

On 10 January 2006, President Bush announced that he was sending another 21,500 troops to Iraq

[KeatonKitsune]

...which would make 4,000 deaths less significant?

No, I believe he said it’d make them LOOK less significant.

And I think it would look less significant. And hey, maybe it is. If 4000 people die, but 50,000 people live, that’s a lot of people who are still alive. So people with family over in the war can rest a little easier knowing that there’s a better chance their loved ones will come back home.

If you had asked anyone if they were willing to sacrifice 4,000 American troops for the removal of Saddam from power at the beginning of the war...I'd be curious to their answer.

Yes.

Why are we even in Iraq?

I believe the current idea is to make sure that we leave with the Iraqi people able to take care of themselves, at least as much as possible.

We went in for one reason and that reason has changed over time, originally it was to remove Sadam from power and help get the government going in a better direction. Which is partially the issue that the rest of the world has with America anyway; we act like world police when it isn't our job to interfere with other nations.

Yeah, but I think, at least in the case of Iraq, we were acting more like a neighbor helping a neighbor in need.

There have been over 200,000 troops total in Iraq.

Ah, so to do the gruesome math... approximately 1 person dies for every 50 who do not.

[Twilight Wolf]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Between 82,408 to 89,928 Iraqi civilians have died since 2003.  Why is it no one ever talks about this number?

[Witless]

We went in for one reason and that reason has changed over time, originally it was to remove Sadam from power and help get the government going in a better direction. Which is partially the issue that the rest of the world has with America anyway; we act like world police when it isn't our job to interfere with other nations.

Actually, with America being a Super Power*, I believe it's their job to act like world police.

It would be a crazy world if we all let other nations to do as they please. The world needs to support each other and help them in every way possible in order to maintain a balanced world society.

We all know the conspiracy theories around the War on Terror but really. What would've happened if we just stood there and let Saddam have his way? What would've happened if we let Hitler have his way?

This may sound cruel but I don't think 4,000 dead soldiers is shocking, especially form a total of 200,000. It's a war, people die. Those guys knew what they were signing up for and knew a day like this could come.
We all complain that war isn't the answer and that we should take those men out of there. But guess what, war has been the foundation of the world forever. The world wouldn't be where it was today, if it wasn't for war. Now, I'm not saying we should slaughter each other to progress but it's not bad when done for the right reasons.

Between 82,408 to 89,928 Iraqi civilians have died since 2003.  Why is it no one ever talks about this number?

Because we never hear about it.



*: The status Super Power is debatable.

[Fleamo]

If you had asked anyone if they were willing to sacrifice 4,000 American troops for the removal of Saddam from power at the beginning of the war...I'd be curious to their answer.

Yes.

Wow.  Would you sacrifice 4,000 Americans to remove Kim Jong-il?  4,000 Americans for Omar al-Bashir[Sudan]?  4,000 Americans for Than Shwe[Burma]?  Mugabe in Zimbabwe?  Hu Jintao in China?  Exactly how many American troops would you be willing to sacrifice? 

So people with family over in the war can rest a little easier knowing that there’s a better chance their loved ones will come back home.

But if there was no war then all families could rest well.

Actually, with America being a Super Power*, I believe it's their job to act like world police.

Aren't there international organizations which could have that responsibility?  UN Peacekeeping forces for example?  Why does international peace fall under the responsibility of one country?

It would be a crazy world if we all let other nations to do as they please. The world needs to support each other and help them in every way possible in order to maintain a balanced world society.

I don't see who has the legitimacy to control the other nations, unless you mean an international organization.

We all know the conspiracy theories around the War on Terror but really. What would've happened if we just stood there and let Saddam have his way? What would've happened if we let Hitler have his way?

Um what WOULD have happened if we stood there and let Saddam have his way?  He would be an annoying state dictator who would be unable to do anything to us except harbor people who are able to do so.  He would be  Ahmadinejad, but without even the possibility of a nuclear weapon. 

Saddam was hardly the new Hitler. 

This may sound cruel but I don't think 4,000 dead soldiers is shocking, especially form a total of 200,000. It's a war, people die. Those guys knew what they were signing up for and knew a day like this could come.
We all complain that war isn't the answer and that we should take those men out of there. But guess what, war has been the foundation of the world forever. The world wouldn't be where it was today, if it wasn't for war. Now, I'm not saying we should slaughter each other to progress but it's not bad when done for the right reasons.

There are a lot of things going on in this statement.

This may sound cruel but I don't think 4,000 dead soldiers is shocking, especially form a total of 200,000.

That's only Americans, and only soldiers. 

It's a war, people die.

But there didn't have to be a war, and people didn't have to die.

But guess what, war has been the foundation of the world forever. The world wouldn't be where it was today, if it wasn't for war. Now, I'm not saying we should slaughter each other to progress

Despite it sounding like you're doing exactly that...

but it's not bad when done for the right reasons.

  I agree. 

So was this war done for the right reasons?

[joric]

I feel more sorry for all the innocent Iraqi civilians that have been victims of this war the American army just bomb the heck out of villages killing innocent people, land mines are brightly colored to attract young children to them which is just barbaric. I studied the war on terror in history last year and some of the procedures the American army can do and get away with are horrible.

People were devastated at the 9/11 attacks they were an awful thing to happen but war and sickness claims  way more innocent lives than terrorist attacks.

I also believe the war is mainly about the oil that is in Iraq because the army guards some of the oil reserves there.

Instead of wasting money on war the we should be helping out disease and sickness stricken 3rd world countries like Africa and finding an alternative to fossil fuels.

This leads me to a quote i created.

"We should be saving lives, families and the environment instead of destroying them"
-Lachlan
     

[KeatonKitsune]

Between 82,408 to 89,928 Iraqi civilians have died since 2003.  Why is it no one ever talks about this number?

We do, we have in the past. We just happen to be talking about a different number ATM.

Wow.  Would you sacrifice 4,000 Americans to remove Kim Jong-il?  4,000 Americans for Omar al-Bashir[Sudan]?  4,000 Americans for Than Shwe[Burma]?  Mugabe in Zimbabwe?  Hu Jintao in China?  Exactly how many American troops would you be willing to sacrifice?

Um, as I don’t know who those people are, I can not answer.

As to the final question, I view the lives of the Iraqi as exactly equal to my own, or yours, or my mother’s. So the answer would be that, if it were up to me, I’d do what would save the most lives and prevent the most suffering in the long run.

But if there was no war then all families could rest well.

Oh that’s not true... What about all the Iraqi families having their brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers tortured to death or just killed? They could hardly “rest well”.

Aren't there international organizations which could have that responsibility?  UN Peacekeeping forces for example?

The problem is, they don’t.

He would be an annoying state dictator

Random Iraqi citizen: Oooooh, you’re performing horrible dehabilitating acid, electricity, and fire-based tortures on me... how.... annoying!

But there didn't have to be a war, and people didn't have to die.

No, but that was Saddam’s choice. He was killing people... and the war was at least partly his choice.

the American army just bomb the heck out of villages

No, I think we targeted military installations...

land mines are brightly colored to attract young children to them which is just barbaric.

This statement is so wrong, I’m not going to even touch it.

Well okay maybe one poke. Yeah, we painted them up to look like candy! Yeah...

I also believe the war is mainly about the oil that is in Iraq because the army guards some of the oil reserves there.

See, my defense for this claim still stands, and is even growing. If this were true, I would not have felt lucky to pay $3.15 a gallon at the pump this week.

This leads me to a quote i created.

"We should be saving lives, families and the environment instead of destroying them"
-Lachlan

Which reminds me of another saying...

“It takes money to make money”

Think about it.

[Fleamo]

As to the final question, I view the lives of the Iraqi as exactly equal to my own, or yours, or my mother’s. So the answer would be that, if it were up to me, I’d do what would save the most lives and prevent the most suffering in the long run.

But the long run is so vague.  Who knows what the long-term cost of the insane debt piling up will be?  Or the ill will created by the war itself?  Or the terrorists using the war as a rallying cry? 

The "moral choice" I find too difficult to truly decide, because essentially it would require you to predict the future. 

Unless you think of morals like this: It is unjust to kill a person, except in self-defense, even to save another person or group of persons.  If that is the moral set, you should never start a war.

But my personal idea is...all lives may be worth equal value, yes, but the US government has a specific interest to the well-being of its people and its servicemen.  Other nations and nationalities are simply not the US government's jurisdiction.  So unless the war is going to give more benefit to Americans than it is going to take away from Americans, then the war shouldn't happen.

Aren't there international organizations which could have that responsibility?  UN Peacekeeping forces for example?

The problem is, they don’t.

Well, either they should or they have a good reason not to.  That is the proper channel for international issues.  Presuming the UN aren't sadistic bastards, then they will act for good when they can.  The US should push the issue harder in the UN rather than skipping it and going at it itself.

He would be an annoying state dictator

Random Iraqi citizen: Oooooh, you’re performing horrible dehabilitating acid, electricity, and fire-based tortures on me... how.... annoying!

Annoying to the US.  Lots of governments, including possibly even the United States government, torture people.  And we haven't overthrown all of them.  If Saddam posed a significant military threat to the United States, that might be the kind of thing to kindle preemptive war.  But he didn't, because nobody did.

But there didn't have to be a war, and people didn't have to die.

No, but that was Saddam’s choice. He was killing people... and the war was at least partly his choice.

He didn't declare war on us.  Nobody wants to go to war with the United States, they know they would get crushed.  It was his choice in the sense that people who steal choose to go to jail, I guess.  He wasn't tempting the US.

the American army just bomb the heck out of villages

No, I think we targeted military installations...

Yeah we do, but there is collateral damage.  We attempt to minimize it, but we still end up killing civilians.  And so does the other side.

[Witless]

Aren't there international organizations which could have that responsibility?  UN Peacekeeping forces for example?  Why does international peace fall under the responsibility of one country?

The UN is a joke really. They're only good for making treaties. If I remember correctly, UN soldiers aren't even allowed to fire their weapon. They're just there to make it seem like the people are protected.

I don't see who has the legitimacy to control the other nations, unless you mean an international organization.

I'm not saying other countries should control others through force. I'm saying that we should help other countries that are in need of help. Even through violence, if there is no other way.

Um what WOULD have happened if we stood there and let Saddam have his way?  He would be an annoying state dictator who would be unable to do anything to us except harbor people who are able to do so.  He would be  Ahmadinejad, but without even the possibility of a nuclear weapon.

Saddam was hardly the new Hitler. 

Who knows? He could've started a chain reaction which would've led the whole Middle-East to stand behind him as one unit in order to take down the Western world. That's why the US started a preemptive war, to prevent such an outcome. I'm sure nobody knew what he was planning but he was too dangerous of a man to be kept roaming around.

That's only Americans, and only soldiers.

I was only talking about American soldiers.

But there didn't have to be a war, and people didn't have to die.

Even if there was no war, people would still die because of Saddam and his dictatorship.

But my personal idea is...all lives may be worth equal value, yes, but the US government has a specific interest to the well-being of its people and its servicemen.  Other nations and nationalities are simply not the US government's jurisdiction.  So unless the war is going to give more benefit to Americans than it is going to take away from Americans, then the war shouldn't happen.

So say Saddam declared war on Tuvalu, San Marino and Nauru and nuked the shit out of them. You would just let him go away with it? Because after all, they were only the world smallest countries so it doesn't benefit America at all.

Nobody wants to go to war with the United States, they know they would get crushed.

China has a far bigger military than the US. ( Not to mention all those Chinese restaurants who are just waiting to be mobilized* ) The US has one of the greatest Naval Devision. The rest is nothing to brag about.


*: Conspiracy theorie #3246

[Fleamo]

Aren't there international organizations which could have that responsibility?  UN Peacekeeping forces for example?  Why does international peace fall under the responsibility of one country?

The UN is a joke really. They're only good for making treaties. If I remember correctly, UN soldiers aren't even allowed to fire their weapon. They're just there to make it seem like the people are protected.

Well then make the UN stronger or stay out of the business of other nations.  Why does the US, or any other country, have a right to intervene?  It's not our country.

Um what WOULD have happened if we stood there and let Saddam have his way?  He would be an annoying state dictator who would be unable to do anything to us except harbor people who are able to do so.  He would be  Ahmadinejad, but without even the possibility of a nuclear weapon.

Saddam was hardly the new Hitler. 

Who knows? He could've started a chain reaction which would've led the whole Middle-East to stand behind him as one unit in order to take down the Western world.

Iran would never stand behind Iraq.  There's too much history, and at the time there was religious differences keeping them apart too.  Turkey wants to get into the EU, and Pakistan likes the US.  Afghanistan was in no condition to be doing anything.  Saudi Arabia isn't the closest with the US, but it's nowhere near the point of wanting to overthrow the West. 

I'm sure nobody knew what he was planning but he was too dangerous of a man to be kept roaming around.

No he wasn't.  Not particularly.  There are many other figures still around who are more dangerous.

But there didn't have to be a war, and people didn't have to die.

Even if there was no war, people would still die because of Saddam and his dictatorship.

Well even if there was no Saddam, people would still die because of various conflicts in Africa. 

If you want to get the most effectiveness for the resources, we could have cured malaria for a fraction of the cost of destroying and restructuring another country.  And with no American soldiers dead, no citizens dead, it wouldn't even be a cost-benefit analysis of number of people killed vs people saved.  It would be just people saved. 

My point is, if your goal is just to save lives, there are much more effective ways to do so. 

But my personal idea is...all lives may be worth equal value, yes, but the US government has a specific interest to the well-being of its people and its servicemen.  Other nations and nationalities are simply not the US government's jurisdiction.  So unless the war is going to give more benefit to Americans than it is going to take away from Americans, then the war shouldn't happen.

So say Saddam declared war on Tuvalu, San Marino and Nauru and nuked the shit out of them. You would just let him go away with it? Because after all, they were only the world smallest countries so it doesn't benefit America at all.

I'm sorry, Saddam had nukes?

But more to the point, offering defensive forces is entirely different than starting a preemptive war.  If Tuvalu asked for some defense from an invading army, then there is no jurisdiction issue.  They asked, we can give. 

Nobody wants to go to war with the United States, they know they would get crushed.

China has a far bigger military than the US.  The US has one of the greatest Naval Devision. The rest is nothing to brag about.

The second-largest military with the highest[by a huuuuge margin] monetary investment.

But even if you want to quibble about whether or not it's the very best in the world, surely there is no argument about whether or not it could crush Iraq.

[JonathanSpenc]

I think Obama said that if he's nominated, then he will stop this war.

[KeatonKitsune]

But the long run is so vague.  Who knows what the long-term cost of the insane debt piling up will be?  Or the ill will created by the war itself?  Or the terrorists using the war as a rallying cry?

Yes, it is vague. Such is life, Nemo. Who knows any of this? Who knows what would have happened if we had NOT gone into Iraq? No one knows. That is part of our mortal existence. Get used to it.

The "moral choice" I find too difficult to truly decide, because essentially it would require you to predict the future.

Well, I base my moral decisions on what is known now with best guesses of the future. We can’t be letting the unknown scare us from doing what is right. That’s how I see it.

But my personal idea is...all lives may be worth equal value, yes, but the US government has a specific interest to the well-being of its people and its servicemen.  Other nations and nationalities are simply not the US government's jurisdiction.  So unless the war is going to give more benefit to Americans than it is going to take away from Americans, then the war shouldn't happen.

Well, you are using a different measure to make your decisions, then. Personally, I find that train of thought to be kinda self-centered or selfish... but you have your rights, of course.

The US should push the issue harder in the UN rather than skipping it and going at it itself.

To a point, I agree with that, but some times I think the people with the power would simply rather look after themselves than do the right thing. In times like these, I think bypassing the procedure to get the right thing done can be acceptable.

Annoying to the US.  Lots of governments, including possibly even the United States government, torture people.  And we haven't overthrown all of them.

One country at a time, Nemo. Have patience. We only have so many forces to toss around.

He didn't declare war on us.  Nobody wants to go to war with the United States, they know they would get crushed.

Well except Japan. Once. But I digress because that comment was just for the LULZ, so...

What I was trying to say was that Saddam refused our inspection, knowing what that might result in. Anyways its kinda a moot point, IMO.

Yeah we do, but there is collateral damage.  We attempt to minimize it, but we still end up killing civilians.  And so does the other side.

This is true.

Why does the US, or any other country, have a right to intervene?

Why do you or I have the right to stop a robber from stealing a woman’s purse on the street? Because it’s wrong, and it should be stopped.

we could have cured malaria

Could we have?

I think Obama said that if he's nominated, then he will stop this war.

Yeah, quite an excellent convenient campaign promise lie, isn’t it?

Not to say anything against specifically Obama, just sayin’, this is SPARTA Presidential Elections!

I'm saying that we should help other countries that are in need of help. Even through violence, if there is no other way.

I like how you put this. I think this spells out my feelings better than I seem to have thus far.

[JordAnime]

I have to take issue with this:

Why do you or I have the right to stop a robber from stealing a woman’s purse on the street? Because it’s wrong, and it should be stopped. 

I just find that analogy terribly flawed.  Nations aren't people, global issues aren't pety theft.  Should we simply let rogue nations bully people around?  No.  That doesn't mean we should deploy our military forces to go take over the nation and then deal with a messy insurgency. 

Well, I base my moral decisions on what is known now with best guesses of the future. We can’t be letting the unknown scare us from doing what is right. That’s how I see it.

I feel this arguement is completely short-sighted and narrow-minded, not to mention morally inobjective.  Was it right to go into Iraq based on flawed intellegence and against the will of the UN?  I don't argue that Saddam was a mass murder and an iron-fisted dictator but then, there are a lot of those, and I don't think it's a reasonable arguement to say that we should be in the bussiness of dethroning all or one of them.  If clear and present danger exists, and it's clear now it didn't, then, and even then armed intervention should be the measure of absolute last resort, and in in this case it was not.

I realize when the war in Iraq started many thought they'd welcome us with open arms, but it's not like it was beyond a reasonable doubt that they wouldn't.  Just because the nation thought that might be a good idea at the time doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. 

Should we be afraid of deploying our military to seize control of a nation?  Absolutely.  That's why it should be a device of last resort, and not a gambit for political, military, and financial gain--or a regional attack platform. 

The true goal of the War on Terror was to stop terrorism, if anything, we've merely furthered terrorist operations in at least one part of the world, Iraq, as terror attacks on our troops and innocent civilians happen on a near daily basis.  The initial intentions for the War on Terror were just, but using it as a facade to invade Iraq was a gervous error that's cost far too many lives.

[KeatonKitsune]

I just find that analogy terribly flawed.  Nations aren't people, global issues aren't pety theft.

Yes. That is why this is called an analogy, and not the same thing. You “take issue” with it because it works.

Should we simply let rogue nations bully people around?  No.  That doesn't mean we should deploy our military forces to go take over the nation and then deal with a messy insurgency.

Off the bat? I agree. And we did not. But what do you suggest we do instead that was not already tried?

Was it rightp to go into Iraq based on flawed intellegence and against the will of the UN?

Define “right”. Morally, or strategically?

Morally, I say yes. We went in based on what we thought to be the truth.

If clear and present danger exists, and it's clear now it didn't

Talk about narrow-minded and short-sighted... Iraqi citizens definitely WERE in clear and present danger. Very REAL danger.

[JordAnime]

That's just a poor analogy, I'm sorry.  You say we have  the right to interfere in the course of other power's business because it's morally the equivlant of stopping a thef from stealing an old lady's purse.  I just don't think you can cubbyhole world affairs into such a limited allegory.

Define “right”. Morally, or strategically?

Morally, I say yes. We went in based on what we thought to be the truth.

Iraqi citizens definitely WERE in clear and present danger. Very REAL danger.

The problem was it wasn't the truth.  It was far from the truth, and it's our job to make sure we have all the facts before reading the verdict and carrying out the sentence.  I don't think it's on our best interests or our governments best interests to make massive military invasions unless we're sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the government represents a clear and present danger to its our own citizens.  The Iraqi people are not our citizens, the country was more stable than it is now.  Not saying Saddam didn't engage in his share of crimes, but let's face it, we put people in MORE danger by invading the nation without any kind of...what's the word, plan.

What about the fact that there's genocide occuing in Darfur right now?  Why don't we invade that country and take it over?  If that was our driving force, to get people out of danger by whatever means necessary, then Iraq wouldn't be on top of our laundry list. 

[Fleamo]

we could have cured malaria

Could we have?

Well I was thinking of a Gates Foundation goal of being able to cure malaria for $5 a person by 2010...but there are cost-effective ways of reducing transmission and saving a lot of lives.  500 million people are infected with malaria each year, 1 million die from it, nets cut transmission by 50%, meaning 250 million people not infected, and 500,000 still alive.  Per year.

At a rate of $10 a person, $5,000,000 does that, presuming perfect distribution.  In reality it would be higher, but I don't know what the real number is. 

That's a little over 13 minutes of the Iraq war.