RLGaming.com

US military killed in Iraq 2003-2008: 4,138

British 1st Airborne killed during Market Garden (8 days): 7,000+

US killed (both USN and USMC) during Iwo Jima (about 5 weeks): 6,825


I'm just posting this because it seems that the modern day media forgets to put things in their proper perspective.

thats because they were for the war before they were against it

Mind you thigns have changed a lot, ie we use body armor now in war and survival rates for injuries are a HELL of a lot higher now then then.

Also mind you hard to compare a war of attrition which would be the stats you posted as the iraq is more a gorilla style war these days.

Good comparison would be Vietnam as gorilla war. In the end the Us never lost a single major battle correct. Number of dead very low compared to number or enemy who died. similer here, the number of enemy dying to kill a American is high.

Buff is right that the media is not the most war friendly these days but people also have the misconecption that now we should be able to go in with nothing but smart bombs kill all enemy and we go home with losing a few random people. Hell even friendly fire incidents are few now to the point that when one happanes we go nuts, in WW2 there where a LOT more yet we don't hear much about those. different times. War form us is more survivable so things blown out of proportion.

Buffalo Six wrote:thats because they were for the war before they were against it

Exactly.

VEGETA wrote: Buff is right that the media is not the most war friendly these days but people also have the misconecption that now we should be able to go in with nothing but smart bombs kill all enemy and we go home with losing a few random people. Hell even friendly fire incidents are few now to the point that when one happanes we go nuts, in WW2 there where a LOT more yet we don't hear much about those. different times. War form us is more survivable so things blown out of proportion.

You bring up some valid points Veg. There's no doubt that the public perception of what "acceptable" casualties of both soldiers and civilans are has changed a lot since WWII.

For example, whenever a bomb or missile is fired in Afghanistan or Iraq and some civilians are unfortunately killed, that is guaranteed to be all over the news and its often done with the slant of "The US could have avoided those casualties". Has this media forgotten what happened in WWII? The daily Allied raids against Germany and Japan killed a lot more than a few civilians but I dont recall reading any books or accounts about the Allied media being overly critical about it.

well even with bad press the number of civilan casualties even form Vietnam is drastically reduced, I mean now you do go after militery targets, even then using a b52 strike to whipe out a area with civilians happened and was not a huge deal, more of a deal tho the WW2.

but war is war, people die

I'm of the opinion that any loss of life is too high, but then that's war and that's reality. The casualties are lower, but the dismembered, disfigured, and permanently impaired is much, much higher. Why? Modern medical science save these poor souls. So the real "casualties" may not be entirely accounted for as the lives that would have been can no longer. guess my definition of casualties is a bit different.

I agree with you Grif, anyone dying sucks to be hoenst. But yes we have record numbers os handicapped people returning now compared to previous wars