A new benchmark of death, as defined by the base-10 system.

[archibaldcrane]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000. The grim milestone came on a day when at least 61 people were killed across the country.

Rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone, underscoring the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups despite an overall lull in violence.

Largely (and strangely) due to the political season the climbing death toll in Iraq has been underreported in the media, the incidences of death increasingly rote and unremarkable. Does the 1 to 2 soldiers per day death count not really matter? Is it just that it pales in comparison to prior military engagements (even though the last time we lost military personnel at this rate was over 35 years ago)? Is 4000 meaningless, just another number between 3999 and 4001?

Or can you only be "outraged" so long before you...accept the inevitability and allow it to pass with little fanfare.

I don't really know.

[Charla]

Old news is old news, but only until a power of 10 gets involved. If the election cycle wasn't available, they'd just be making news out of something else, because apparently we don't want to hear the same story every day for 5 years.

As for the public's attitude, a few guys are still outraged (and protesting over it), but the rest of us know they can't make a difference, so the media mostly ignores them too. If 51 senators can't do shit, you know 51,000 guys in Berkley can't do shit.

[Chicomagiko]

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...0723135904.jpg

[sb]

Well, 4,000 U.S. is not really all that much considering:

An independent UK-based research group, calling itself the Iraq Body Count (IBC), collates all fatality reports in the media where there are two or more sources as well as figures from hospitals and other official sources. At least four household surveys have been done asking Iraqis to list the family members they have lost. The results have then been extrapolated to Iraq's total population to give a nationwide estimate.

The results range from just under 100,000 dead to well over a million. Inevitably, the issue has become a political football, with the Bush administration, the British government and other supporters of the US-led occupation seizing on the lowest estimates and opponents on the highest.

(taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq )

That leaves us somewhere between less than .4% to just over 4% of the casualty rate, which is not very high comparatively.

[Aerin]

Don't be silly, American lives are the only ones that really matter.

[Faris]

I see a thread talking about Iraq and/or whats happening there and i have to post a reply. Sadly, i have nothing to say.

[miokomioko]

the last time we lost military personnel at this rate was over 35 years ago

Is it just me, or is that not that long ago? I was expecting to hear a comparison to Normandy or something if this was supposed to be a big deal huge death toll/rate from a "war."

[Shuemue]

Sadly, i have nothing to say.

Sad for yourself, perhaps.

the last time we lost military personnel at this rate was over 35 years ago

Is it just me, or is that not that long ago? I was expecting to hear a comparison to Normandy or something if this was supposed to be a big deal huge death toll/rate from a "war."

I think 35 years is a long time in terms of warfare. Technology etc.

[Kyreth]

At this point, the truly guilty party can't be held accountable for this.

That'd be because despite being the commander in chief, you generally can't court-martial a President. Thousands of dead and billions in dollars was enough to start the "war on terror". Apparently, it's not enough to stop even a part of it.

[Septimus]

At this point, the truly guilty party can't be held accountable for this.

That'd be because despite being the commander in chief, you generally can't court-martial a President. Thousands of dead and billions in dollars was enough to start the "war on terror". Apparently, it's not enough to stop even a part of it.

There's always an international War-Tribunal...

[archibaldcrane]

the last time we lost military personnel at this rate was over 35 years ago

Is it just me, or is that not that long ago? I was expecting to hear a comparison to Normandy or something if this was supposed to be a big deal huge death toll/rate from a "war."

Well, most of the people posting on these boards weren't alive as Vietnam was winding down, so it's the largest loss of military personnel most of us have ever seen.

Unlike Vietnam, the massive public opinion that has risen against this war isn't enough to stop it, which it seems is because the 1-2 soldier/day death toll isn't enough. I'm not even of the "we should just cut our losses and gtfo" camp regarding this war, and I've been about as against it from the start as possible.

I hate that I'm in the position of saying that 1-2 soldiers/day are "acceptable losses" for the stability of a country that we never should've invaded in the first place.

[Khamsin]

the last time we lost military personnel at this rate was over 35 years ago

Is it just me, or is that not that long ago? I was expecting to hear a comparison to Normandy or something if this was supposed to be a big deal huge death toll/rate from a "war."

Well, most of the people posting on these boards weren't alive as Vietnam was winding down, so it's the largest loss of military personnel most of us have ever seen.

Unlike Vietnam, the massive public opinion that has risen against this war isn't enough to stop it, which it seems is because the 1-2 soldier/day death toll isn't enough. I'm not even of the "we should just cut our losses and gtfo" camp regarding this war, and I've been about as against it from the start as possible.

I hate that I'm in the position of saying that 1-2 soldiers/day are "acceptable losses" for the stability of a country that we never should've invaded in the first place.

Well, also unlike Vietnam, our death toll is significantly less than the enemy's. For any war to be considered a success, the enemy has to die more than you.

And no, I don't buy the "no war is a success" argument because it's moot. It's obvious that not fighting at all would be the best option, but the world isn't perfect. War exists no matter how many people protest it. In that light, the next best thing is to minimize your losses, which we've done a decent job doing.

1-2 lives per day isn't insignificant. 1-2 families per day receiving news that they won't hear from their parents/spouse/children again isn't insignificant. But short of not fighting at all, could we do any better? Is it possible to lose zero lives per day, but we only lose 1-2 because we're negligent or incompetent in the field?

[skurlover]

At this point, the truly guilty party can't be held accountable for this.

That'd be because despite being the commander in chief, you generally can't court-martial a President. Thousands of dead and billions in dollars was enough to start the "war on terror". Apparently, it's not enough to stop even a part of it.

There's always an international War-Tribunal...

Good luck with that, I really hope you don't believe that is even an option.

[miokomioko]

Sadly, i have nothing to say.

Sad for yourself, perhaps.

the last time we lost military personnel at this rate was over 35 years ago

Is it just me, or is that not that long ago? I was expecting to hear a comparison to Normandy or something if this was supposed to be a big deal huge death toll/rate from a "war."

I think 35 years is a long time in terms of warfare. Technology etc.

http://interocitor.com/images/johnny5.jpg

Until we got these, I don't think these numbers are very staggering.

[Shuemue]

Johnny 5 is coming, bitches!

[Khamsin]

Sadly, i have nothing to say.

Sad for yourself, perhaps.

the last time we lost military personnel at this rate was over 35 years ago

Is it just me, or is that not that long ago? I was expecting to hear a comparison to Normandy or something if this was supposed to be a big deal huge death toll/rate from a "war."

I think 35 years is a long time in terms of warfare. Technology etc.

http://interocitor.com/images/johnny5.jpg

Until we got these, I don't think these numbers are very staggering.

Well, there was this old man who constructed a robot that can shoot people (such as himself). Mass produce them and send them into the fray.

Or attach guns to those horse/dog/mutant fly hybrid walking thingies and send an army of them into battle.

[thetruepandagod]

apparently a suicide happens every 17 minutes and that statistic was in 2001 and has been on the rise, why not worry about them instead of a tiny amount of people dying in a war. u can at least argue the soldiers dying as heros for thier country so there is something positive about it where as there is generally nothing positive about a suicide

[archibaldcrane]

u can at least argue the soldiers dying as heros for thier country so there is something positive about it

I say, with all sincerity, fuck off asshole.

[Krye]

4,000 deaths is a very fucking insignificant number.

[archibaldcrane]

4,000 deaths is a very fucking insignificant number.

Except when those 4,000 are completely avoidable.