Military death rates under George W. Bush.

Chief Bones said:
A coalition of UN Forces like the force that Bush Sr got together, used to enforce UN mandates would have been a 'valid' reason for US forces to have been committed to combat.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to establish much of a UN coalition when members such as France, Germany, Russia, China, etc. are making money from Saddam remaining in power. It's even harder when the UN itself has been completely corrupted to the point that some of its leaders are using UN sanctions to get rich off of Iraqi oil.

Seems to me that Bush put together a coalition of just about all the forces he could that weren't in bed with Saddam.
 
I won't join the "Why we went to war" arguements since they have been spelled out entirely too much and noone is obviously listening to the proper reasons we went to war....but I do recall something more back to topic:

The deaths of American soldiers also have to include reasons of no alcohol, reduced risk of auto accidents, etc in Iraq. After Desert Storm, a study showed that less soldiers died during the war than the time before it. It was even said that it was safer to be in the war zone due to the loss of so many factors resulting in a soldiers death. Alcohol, auto accidents, and so many other factors were reduced due to being in an area where it was monitored more or even prohibited.
 
soldierzhonor said:
The deaths of American soldiers also have to include reasons of no alcohol, reduced risk of auto accidents, etc in Iraq. After Desert Storm, a study showed that less soldiers died during the war than the time before it. It was even said that it was safer to be in the war zone due to the loss of so many factors resulting in a soldiers death. Alcohol, auto accidents, and so many other factors were reduced due to being in an area where it was monitored more or even prohibited.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Any source?
 
The United States suffered 148 KIA, 121 killed in non hostile action.

anyone know where to find the census for soldiers safety and deaths in that 7 month span?
 
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
Large portions of the Iraqi people probably used to live in constant fear of Saddam's agents. Now large portions of the Iraqi people live in constant fear of American, insurgent, Iraqi police&military and terrorist attacks. Is this much better? Furthermore, look at the (incomplete) numbers of Iraqi civilian & security casualties:
May-06 511
Apr-06 1010
Mar-06 1094
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 780

Is it really worth it?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I've heard computers in American bases in Iraq are unable to access this site. Can anyone here confirm or deny this?
Click to expand...
I'm still awaiting your answer on this one guys.
 
So that chart says that we're losing more soldiers now than we did under clinton in the same timespan. From what i could tell the deaths under clinton were mostly accidently and non combat, is it a good thing that Bush has soldiers dying in a combat zone? Even with the improved technology they shouldn't have to worry about getting killed if it wasn't for a false pretext to war.

The UN weapons inspectors could have made the same conclusion that the coaltion forces made years after the invasion, there were no WMDs. I guess GW just has to be thorough.
 
WarMachine said:
So that chart says that we're losing more soldiers now than we did under clinton in the same timespan. From what i could tell the deaths under clinton were mostly accidently and non combat, is it a good thing that Bush has soldiers dying in a combat zone? Even with the improved technology they shouldn't have to worry about getting killed if it wasn't for a false pretext to war.

The UN weapons inspectors could have made the same conclusion that the coaltion forces made years after the invasion, there were no WMDs. I guess GW just has to be thorough.
Click to expand...

Must you interject your agenda in EVERY post? It gets really old.
 
What agenda? I'm stating my opinion of Bush and this war like the others here. You can argue everyone here has some sort of an agenda, but let's not get paranoid now.

So stick to the subject of the casualties and relate your opinions about that, i don't need to be policed.
 
WarMachine said:
What agenda? I'm stating my opinion of Bush and this war like the others here. You can argue everyone here has some sort of an agenda, but let's not get paranoid now.

So stick to the subject of the casualties and relate your opinions about that, i don't need to be policed.
Click to expand...

You were the one that wasn't sticking to the subject, using this topic to give another little rant about the validity of the war. Pay attention to what you post, jeez.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top