This article is so true. The liberal fools do not know what they are talking about. The one thing I must add is that new figures state that the Russians may have had over 400,000 killed and wounded in the Battle for Berlin.
Quite correct. I chose only to put down the KIA and not total casualties for each of the campaigns I cited.
Imagine the media and the liberals today if they saw the casualties of the D-Day invasion. They would denounce the entire operation as a failure despite the fact that it wasn't, and they would call Europe a lost cause.
first time posting here, been reading for some time but would just like to add some small facts.
Most recent info i have read on Soviet losses during the battle for Berlin is aprrox 500,000 soldiers killed, wounded and MIA..thats half a million.
The Romans at Cannae lost 80,000 soldiers, mostly killed in a slaughter and many were also drowned when forced into a lake in the area.
Iwo Jima saw 25,000 wounded and killed American soldiers while only 250 Japanese soldiers survived out of a total 21,000. And thats after about 5 weeks of battle.
The Battle for Monte Cassino, a SIX month long battle, or series of battles, cost 350,000 soldiers dead and wounded.
Liberals love to forget about those real losses in extremly bloody slug matches and only exxagerate a small amount of 2,300 dead American soldiers over a 3 year period..yes, any dead American soldier may seem one too many, but we are at WAR and liberals dont want to hear that word..WAR..as they dont understand why we fight, they only want us to run away and/or surrender, no matter what the consequences may be, as long as it happens to someone else.
This article is two smrt fer me.
Some concerns have been voiced to me over my comparison of accidental US deaths in the general population to our war deaths in Iraq. In other words, we've lost 2,300 soldiers out of the amount that have been stationed there over the past 3 years whereas the general US population is 300 million.
People with those concerns miss the point.
I am merely trying to point out that death happens, and the deaths that get attention are the ones that the mainstream media harps on and obssesses over in its quest to forward its left wing agenda.
In other words, if one can point to 2,300 deaths in Iraq being disasterous, then why can one point to 3,000 deaths from bathtub drowning as being diasaterous? Should we withdraw bathtubs from each and every American home?
There's no question Iraq is a dangerous place, but there's also no question that as far as WARS go, its a pretty benign engagement in terms of US soldier fatality (again, not that we'd like to see any brave US , British, or Australian soldiers die).
I never see any figures on how many of the bad guys we've killed. If you have that, would you mind posting it? The MSM sure as hell won't, so I reason that it is a substantial number.
Good question! I don't even know where to start to find the figures of how many terrorists and Saddamists we've sent into a nice dirt nap. Its nearly impossible to find any sort of relaible number; most Iraqi casualty numbers available are from leftist 'peace' organizations which drastically overestimate the numbers of civilians we've killed to suit their agenda. I do not have access to the military's offical estimates.
From the looks of it, a reasonable guess would be a kill ratio (of enemy combatants to Western soldiers) of anywhere from 50-1 to 100-1. I would make an educated guess towards the high end of that spectrum, possibly even more. I would not be shocked with a 150-1 ratio.
Anyway, to make a long story short, based on conjecture I'd venture to say that we've probably offed somewhere in the vicinity of 250,000 Baathist Soldiers and Terrorists in the past 3 years. There's no question many, many potential suicide bombers shed their blood in Iraq as opposed to Europe or America due to this war.
It's hard to count enemy casualties when all that's left of a dead koranimal is shredded intestine, a shit smeared right hand, and a turban.
Commenting by HaloScan
