World War III

I wasn't quite sure who "they" were. Neither has been completely ignored.

 

Propaganda. People were already against the war. So it would be easier to hear that 1 person died on a particular day than 30. This is how it went down.

 

With out knowing what "the friend of the family" gives as a figure...
It's hard to say who is talking shit.

But:

4,697 / 365 / 7 = approx 1.8

Obviously every now and again the No. is higher.
But 30 troops being killed on a regular basis? nagh.

 

Right from the start, the way this whole thing was portrayed was just fucked up.

The numbers of american soldiers lost in Iraq, are nothing compared to any other actual wars overseas that they have been involved in.

US soldiers killed;
Iraq war: 4697 dead
WWI: 1357800 dead
WWII: 310,979
Korean War: 36,516
Viet Nam: 58,159

 

Do they ever say this on US news: "The family has been informed"?
As if we'd be the first to find out before the family.

 

apples and oranges...

 

Explain please?

 

the arena, the game players, all are totally different in iraq vs. past wars

 

Do those who died in the past wars, feel death less then those from now?

Do you think the families of those lost over the years feel differently about loosing their loved ones because of the points you mention?

Are those from the past wars not worth as much as those in todays wars?

I know it can't be on a per capita basis you speak of, seems that makes the losses of the Iraq war even less.

 

What is fucked up in the way things are portrayed?

 

and a Cuban cigar... :sifone:

 

Because each loss in the iraq war was treated with so much horror and revulsion that people think that 4000 people is a huge number to lose when it comes to a war.

The truth is that the losses in Iraq are insignificant in number to any of the other wars that have been fought..

You could make a claim that the two world wars were just that world wars and therfore the losses must be greater. But that doesn't work with vietnam and korea.

If you look at it from the basis of the effect it had on the US in terms of loss, then by pretty much any measure (that doesn't consider dead people good), then the iraq war has cost the least BY FAR. Yet it has been being portrayed as a huge travesty that people can't comprehend...

Thats what I mean by fucked up.

 

I thought that is what you meant. I totally agree.

 

sorry I was late..

 

huh?

idk man i'm just too lazy to talk about this right now :sifone:

 

Better late than never.

 

any death is tragedy
especially for a fuckin war over shit and greed
fuck man

 

In a nutshell and with out to much empathy: It's a storm in a tea cup.

 

You said that as an explanation that looking at Iraq war losses wasn't the same as losses from previous wars.

I would really like to know why you think this, especially when you then post this;

All wars are over shit and greed in one way or another.

If any death is a tragedy, doesn't that mean that 1,357,800 lives lost is a lot more tragic then 4697?