NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: This is a very interesting article and could be the topic for some really interesting discussion. My personal take on this is that anyone, male or female, who can do the job should be given the opportunity to do so. I did not always feel this way. ( BTW ... I think female warriors are sexy as hell! ) :D


Women Are Lethal Force In Military
The Record, Hackensack, N.J.
February 22, 2005

Spec. Dana Hamilton didn't buy the idea that military women can only be clerks or nurses. She wanted to carry an M-16 and travel the world.

So when she turned 18, the Fair Lawn native joined the U.S. Marine Corps.

"I thought I was going to shoot everything," she said.

That was before 9/11, however, when combat roles for women were still limited. Having switched to the Army National Guard, Hamilton, 24, eventually found herself hunkering behind a grenade launcher at Fort Dix, training to defend herself.

"Every soldier has to be able to know what to do," she said.

Soon after, she would be sent to Iraq.

In a military stretched thin, officials say, women are more involved than ever in bringing peace to an unstable world, whether serving as cooks, handling clerical duties, or flying helicopters and fighter jets.

Their role on the battlefield remains restricted, even as they endure the same blood and turmoil as men. Women still can't serve in combat positions, such as the Special Forces or infantry, or ride in tanks, the Pentagon says.

Still, of the 1,400 Americans who have died in the Iraq war, 29 were women, most of them the victims of explosives. After two years of conflict, nearly three times as many women have died in Iraq as in the entire Vietnam War.

Of the nearly 200,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 13,000 are women. And while most perform supporting roles as nurses, clerks, administrators, and related jobs, many are armed and prepared to preserve security, whether they serve in combat units or not.

"The doctrine of war has changed, and the role of the war-fighter has changed with it," said Dave Moore, a spokesman for Fort Dix.

Opponents of the trend say they're concerned about separating young women from their children. President Bush, in an interview with The Washington Times in January, echoed that sentiment, saying he isn't in favor of women participating in land combat.

But whatever barriers there are, the Pentagon says, they are no longer relevant. Women nonetheless are being trained to handle the most potent military weaponry, from machine guns to grenade launchers. They fly helicopters, and they're prepared to assist any fellow soldier who is attacking enemy targets.

At the same time, they are exposed to gunfire, explosives, and mortar fire. If a bomb blows up a vehicle, or grenades land their way, they'll point their M-16s and shoot.

"Because there's really no front line, they may have to protect themselves," said Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokesman.

Some servicewomen have become symbols of bravery. Two years ago, Jessica Lynch's ordeal as a wounded prisoner of war in Iraq made her an American hero.

Last month, Lt. Michel Blachowski of Mount Holly received the Bronze Star for heroism after safely disbursing more than $1.8 million to American troops in Iraq. Now home, the Army National Guard member hopes to resume her job soon as a full-time accountant.

Blachowski walks with a cane, the result of a knee injury suffered when she stumbled out of a C-130 cargo plane that was preparing to take off. But she feels lucky when she considers that her unit, a "finance battalion" that managed the military's battlefield money supply, was a constant target of gunfire and explosives.

"We were always on the road," Blachowski said. "You just have to keep your eyes open."

Not all of the women deployed enjoy being a part of history. They never thought they'd tote a gun and patrol the desert sands of Iraq. They saw the military as an opportunity to advance their careers.

Some are disturbed -- and their families angry -- that they've suddenly been thrust into the role.

"When I got mobilized I was kind of shocked," said Spec. Lisa Cuttino of Newark, who was deployed to Iraq in December. "It's just my mother -- she's not happy. I'm a female and her only child. She can't see her baby fighting."

Many, however, have not only accepted being a "war fighter." They relish it. They consider the military as not just an opportunity, but also an adventure.

"I thought it was exciting," said Staff Sgt. Doris Richardson of Ocean Township, a 1991 Persian Gulf War veteran who was sent to Iraq in December. A single mother, she has a 21-year-old daughter.

"I enjoy it because I'm a cook," she said. "But it's a little different [than it was in 1991] because you're more involved than you used to be."

It wasn't until the World War I era that the first women were allowed to enlist in the U.S. armed forces. Women weren't permitted in service academies until 1976.

The role of women in combat expanded slightly in 1993, when Congress repealed the law banning them from duty on combat ships. In 1994, the Pentagon approved a new general policy to allow Army women to serve with some ground combat units during fighting.

In 1991, 25,718 women joined the active-duty forces. In 2002 -- the most recent year available -- 31,354 women enlisted.

Some view themselves as the legacy of Molly Pitcher and others who assumed wartime duties when men couldn't do them alone. Pitcher, whose real name was Mary Hays McCauly, was known for defending herself with a gun and for helping to fend off a British assault during the Revolutionary War.

On the battlefield in the war against terrorism, Dana Hamilton of Fair Lawn is ready to take her role a step further. It's something she has looked forward to since she was in school.

Her mom got her involved in the arts, and encouraged her to sing. Hamilton, however, liked to play games like "manhunt" and "capture the flag." She also excelled in swimming.

"It gets kind of scary," she said, admitting that she and her family watched the bloodshed on television. But she is confident that she's well-prepared for battle.

"You have to familiarize yourself so you can defend yourself," said Hamilton, as she and others trained with a grenade launcher at Fort Dix. "Everybody has to know everything."

I agree... however, one point to be made... If women can handle the rigors of the training (not scaled down) then yes, they should be allowed to do the job.

I remember stories from my friends where on Long Maneuvers, the women would ride in the trucks while the men walked with all their gear.

I'll admit that the above is dated (10 yrs ago) but I've always felt, that if the person can do the job then they should get the job. and I know that there are women that CAN DO the job.

And the point of this article?

Its a well known fact that female soldiers have a negative effect on an Army.
There is a psycological side effect when seeing females injured in combat, all documented by the Izraeli army.

Who cares about woman as a military force? only some stupid brain washed american could think of something like that especially when WE DONT HAVE WARS TO FIGHT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID SO.. if you promote woman as a president i would agree.. but making her gun-meat for some personal interests of a stupid administration like your truly beloved Bush makes me sick.
get over your stupid propaganda system..
im sick of you!

And the point of this article?

Its a well known fact that female soldiers have a negative effect on an Army.
There is a psycological side effect when seeing females injured in combat, all documented by the Izraeli army.

what about the proven combat capability of the soviet women tank commanders, fighter pilots, and snipers who served with great distinction in the second world war?

Women are equally competent fighters, and our increasing level of technological sophistication only serves to further even the balance. (as in, we don't use broadswords any more, so the physical advantage that a man enjoyed is now no longer nearly as relevant.)
How anyone can effectively sideline 50% of their potential fighting force is beyond me... it's generally not a sound tactical decision.

Who cares about woman as a military force? only some stupid brain washed american could think of something like that especially when WE DONT HAVE WARS TO FIGHT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID SO.. if you promote woman as a president i would agree.. but making her gun-meat for some personal interests of a stupid administration like your truly beloved Bush makes me sick.
get over your stupid propaganda system..
im sick of you!

If anyone is being turned into gunmeat, it's the insurgents.

I bet if we counted the number of dead insurgents and divided it by the total number of insurgents, it would be a far larger ratio than any experienced by the current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

BTW, we're currently experiencing extremely low attrition rates for a force engaged with an insurgency. If you consider that some believe that the total number of insurgents is on a par with the total number of US forces in Iraq (or higher, in some estimates), then you'll be surprised to know that:

1. Unlike the Vietnam War, the insurgency is completely incapable of surviving a direct attack by hundreds of insurgents on any US position. The Viet Cong retained this capability throughout the Vietnam War. The insurgents in Fallujah found out that this was a good way to take over 90 percent casualties (most of them fatal).
2. Insurgents in Iraq have resorted to random detonations of explosives which, by and large, kill and wound ten times as many Iraqis as they do US soldiers.
3. Insurgents are unable to capture any American soldiers. They resorted to "capturing" a doll and putting it on a website.
4. They were unable to stop the recent election.

Yes, there's an insurgency, but it's becoming completely ineffective at attaining its goals. It can't kill enough US soldiers to make a political effect that would stop US involvement. It can't take over the Iraqi nation. It has limited support only inside Sunni areas. And it doesn't have the logistical support of a major nation (as the Viet Cong did from China and the USSR, or the Afghans had from the US).

So they're destined to become gunmeat. Lots and lots of uselessly created gunmeat.

... there are women that CAN DO the job.
And HOW! I've known a few of them, one of whom came very close to kicking my ass in an unarmed combat competition! We developed quite a mutual admiration, as a matter of fact. Later we both discovered that unarmed combat wasn't the only thing we were good at! :D

Well, I wouldn't agree with her on war being an adventure. But this article makes a whole lot of good points.

If a woman wants to get into the shit, she has every right to if she can hack it.

Who cares about woman as a military force? only some stupid brain washed american could think of something like that especially when WE DONT HAVE WARS TO FIGHT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID SO.. if you promote woman as a president i would agree.. but making her gun-meat for some personal interests of a stupid administration like your truly beloved Bush makes me sick.
get over your stupid propaganda system..
im sick of you!
The point I was trying to make is that everyone should be given the opportunity to hold the job they want to hold if they can perform the duties of the job at an acceptable level.

(as in, we don't use broadswords any more, so the physical advantage that a man enjoyed is now no longer nearly as relevant.)

Just as an aside...there were actually many great women sword fighters too, and a great many adept in using the broadsword.

Just as an example, in Terry Brown's "English Martial Arts (http://www.maisters.demon.co.uk/main.htm) ", he refers to a fighter known as Long (Tall) Meg, who beat several Knights of renown, including one who professed his love for her! Just as now they aren't as well represented as they should be but still, never discount anyone eh? :D

If anyone is being turned into gunmeat, it's the insurgents.

I bet if we counted the number of dead insurgents and divided it by the total number of insurgents, it would be a far larger ratio than any experienced by the current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

BTW, we're currently experiencing extremely low attrition rates for a force engaged with an insurgency. If you consider that some believe that the total number of insurgents is on a par with the total number of US forces in Iraq (or higher, in some estimates), then you'll be surprised to know that:

1. Unlike the Vietnam War, the insurgency is completely incapable of surviving a direct attack by hundreds of insurgents on any US position. The Viet Cong retained this capability throughout the Vietnam War. The insurgents in Fallujah found out that this was a good way to take over 90 percent casualties (most of them fatal).
2. Insurgents in Iraq have resorted to random detonations of explosives which, by and large, kill and wound ten times as many Iraqis as they do US soldiers.
3. Insurgents are unable to capture any American soldiers. They resorted to "capturing" a doll and putting it on a website.
4. They were unable to stop the recent election.

Yes, there's an insurgency, but it's becoming completely ineffective at attaining its goals. It can't kill enough US soldiers to make a political effect that would stop US involvement. It can't take over the Iraqi nation. It has limited support only inside Sunni areas. And it doesn't have the logistical support of a major nation (as the Viet Cong did from China and the USSR, or the Afghans had from the US).

So they're destined to become gunmeat. Lots and lots of uselessly created gunmeat.

so basicly you are sayin:
our womens are not gunmeat! all thouse who fight against us ARE because we are greater stronger taugher better bla bla bla.
:eek:
you really did NOT understood a thing of what i said :headbang:

so basicly you are sayin:
our womens are not gunmeat! all thouse who fight against us ARE because we are greater stronger taugher better bla bla bla.
:eek:
you really did NOT understood a thing of what i said :headbang:

The odds of a person being killed in combat in Iraq is less than the odds of being killed on the streets of Washington, D.C. (if you're a resident of that city and not the suburbs).

So does that make the residents of the capital of the United States gunmeat?

It's actually safer in Iraq. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Well, I wouldn't agree with her on war being an adventure. But this article makes a whole lot of good points.

If a woman wants to get into the shit, she has every right to if she can hack it.
"It is well that war is so terrible else we should grow too fond of it." - General Robert E. Lee

The odds of a person being killed in combat in Iraq is less than the odds of being killed on the streets of Washington, D.C. (if you're a resident of that city and not the suburbs).

So does that make the residents of the capital of the United States gunmeat?

It's actually safer in Iraq. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Would you like to back that up with some evidence?

No? Then stop posting rubbish

And the point of this article?

Its a well known fact that female soldiers have a negative effect on an Army.
There is a psycological side effect when seeing females injured in combat, all documented by the Izraeli army.
The IDF, with female combat personnel and female conscription, is one of the very best militaries in the world. Arab Muslims have been known to surrender for fear of being killed by women.

Who cares about woman as a military force? only some stupid brain washed american could think of something like that especially when WE DONT HAVE WARS TO FIGHT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID SO.. if you promote woman as a president i would agree.. but making her gun-meat for some personal interests of a stupid administration like your truly beloved Bush makes me sick.
get over your stupid propaganda system..
im sick of you!
Yes, because the United States of America is the only country in the world whose military has not opened all positions to women.

Oh wai...

The odds of a person being killed in combat in Iraq is less than the odds of being killed on the streets of Washington, D.C. (if you're a resident of that city and not the suburbs).

So does that make the residents of the capital of the United States gunmeat?

It's actually safer in Iraq. Hard to believe, isn't it?

well.. then all the washington dc population should move to iraq to feel safer..
you are just quoting some bullshit propaganda!
how can you learn to think free?
its not your fault anyway.. but let me try to make some logic to prove you wrong.. (even if i dont know the real figures and i bet you dont know the REAL ones either since your nation is beeing so manipulated.)
lets say washington has 6 mils population and 2k each year get killed in the streets.. then lets compare the 100k troops sent in iraq and the 1k-2k victimes in one year. logicaly you are WRONG. so how can you believe what you hear on the news?

Just as an aside...there were actually many great women sword fighters too, and a great many adept in using the broadsword.

Allow me to add that Xena: Warrior Princess --> Hell yes! :D


http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/lists/images/xena01.jpg

mmmm....

well.. then all the washington dc population should move to iraq to feel safer..
you are just quoting some bullshit propaganda!
how can you learn to think free?
its not your fault anyway.. but let me try to make some logic to prove you wrong.. (even if i dont know the real figures and i bet you dont know the REAL ones either since your nation is beeing so manipulated.)
lets say washington has 6 mils population and 2k each year get killed in the streets.. then lets compare the 100k troops sent in iraq and the 1k-2k victimes in one year. logicaly you are WRONG. so how can you believe what you hear on the news?
I submit that it is in fact you who has a problem "thinking free."

lets say washington has 6 mils population and 2k each year get killed in the streets.. then lets compare the 100k troops sent in iraq and the 1k-2k victimes in one year. logicaly you are WRONG

so how can you believe what you hear on the news?
Because you made all of those numbers up, you idiot. :rolleyes:

Allow me to demonstrate: You say that Brazil has a smaller population than Germany and France combined but:

Brazil --> 476 million
Germany --> 43 million
France --> 16

So logically you are WRONG!! Hahaha you stupid brainwashed Romanian! Die die die1!!!112

Allow me to add that Xena: Warrior Princess --> Hell yes! :D
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/lists/images/xena01.jpg

mmmm....
Whoa! Time for a bit of unarmed "combat!" :D

Allow me to add that Xena: Warrior Princess --> Hell yes! :D


http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/lists/images/xena01.jpg

mmmm....

I meant with a real sword and not that poxy knife but yes i take your point ;) :p

Yes, I can back it up.

For an examination of the murder rate in DC, we have the following table:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

And, for casualties in Iraq, we have:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/OIF-Total.pdf

Look at the category in that document for Marines. The woman in this thread is a Marine.

351 hostile deaths in two years time - that's 175.5 deaths per year.

Now, from the DC statistics, we have 239 deaths for the year 2000 (196 in 2004, which is good news).

Of course, if we broke this down by male/female, or by race, the figures for DC would be even more skewed.

Allow me to demonstrate: You say that Brazil has a larger population than Germany and France combined but:

Brazil --> 476 million
Germany --> 43 million
France --> 16

So logically you are WRONG!! Hahaha you stupid brainwashed Romanian! Die die die1!!!112
...am i the only person confused by this?

...am i the only person confused by this?
I just edited it. It works now.

Because you made all of those numbers up, you idiot. :rolleyes:

Allow me to demonstrate: You say that Brazil has a larger population than Germany and France combined but:

Brazil --> 476 million
Germany --> 43 million
France --> 16

So logically you are WRONG!! Hahaha you stupid brainwashed Romanian! Die die die1!!!112

there is no hope for you ;)
sign the army n go get killed maybe on your last breath you will understand :rolleyes:

and if u really want to demonstrate a point bring me some figures about population of washington , ppl killed in the streets , army sent in iraq , ppl killed there. and then tell me that im wrong about the odds beeing killed in iraq and the odds getting killed in dc
sing heil america till death do us part and :gundge:
bdw.. im pretty sure you dont really know where romania is on the map.. so having a conversation with someone like you its useless.. ;)

I just edited it. It works now.
yea...that definitely makes more sense now :)

there is no hope for you ;)
sign the army n go get killed maybe on your last breath you will understand :rolleyes:

and if u really want to demonstrate a point bring me some figures about population of washington , ppl killed in the streets , army sent in iraq , ppl killed there. and then tell me that im wrong about the odds beeing killed in iraq and the odds getting killed in dc
sing heil america till death do us part and :gundge:
bdw.. im pretty sure you dont really know where romania is on the map.. so having a conversation with someone like you its useless.. ;)
You really should make an effort to discuss without resorting to personal attacks. :rolleyes:

You really should make an effort to discuss without resorting to personal attacks. :rolleyes:
he could probably do with learning to spell

oh, and not using the gun smileys

there is no hope for you ;)
sign the army n go get killed maybe on your last breath you will understand :rolleyes:


I did sign up for the Army, and I have been to Iraq (well, it was the last Gulf War).

I'm here in the States now.

I don't appear to be harmed, do I?

Show me where it is a certainty that joining the Army results in death (your quote "sign the army n go get killed".

So, signing up for the Army means you'll be killed?

Don't think so.

You really should make an effort to discuss without resorting to personal attacks. :rolleyes:

i agree with that.. but when i see stupid posts like die stupid romanian die.. i cant just stand still and not fight back.. as u can see im not sayin die stupid american.. im just talkin to him as a person not as a representative american.

he could probably do with learning to spell

oh, and not using the gun smileys
Well, since I've been guilty of both, I can't really complain when others misspell words or use the gun smilies. Heh! :D

yea...that definitely makes more sense now :)

mmmmmmmm sarcasm...

To misquote Thomas Carlyle as so many have done "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence." :D

Whispering Legs i didnt said joining the army gets you killed.. i just said he should :p

Well, since I've been guilty of both, I can't really complain when others misspell words or use the gun smilies. Heh! :D
i had to go over that post twice to make sure there werent any spelling mistakes...that would have looked stupid

i dont even know how to do the guns :confused:

Whispering Legs i didnt said joining the army gets you killed.. i just said he should :p

The war in Iraq is a lot harder on the insurgents than it is on US troops.

Compared to previous wars or insurgencies, we're hardly taking any.

Not that we're not taking any, but the number is small enough politically.

You'll notice that the insurgency is becoming weaker and weaker.

if u add up the numbers from wtc atacks and the other terrorist acts.. wich are casualties generated by your invasion in iraq i dont think you are right.

if u add up the numbers from wtc atacks and the other terrorist acts.. wich are casualties generated by your invasion in iraq i dont think you are right.
9/11 was caused by the invasion of Iraq?

where have you been for the last 3 an a half years?

if u add up the numbers from wtc atacks and the other terrorist acts.. wich are casualties generated by your invasion in iraq i dont think you are right.

During the initial invasion of this latest Iraq War, there were two divisions of Iraqis (two armored divisions) that took 32,000 dead in about 30 seconds of bombardment by CBU-97 and CBU-105 cluster munitions.

32,000 is a hard number to beat.

We have taken a total altogether in Iraq of 1486 dead over two years.

9/11 was caused by the invasion of Iraq?

where have you been for the last 3 an a half years?

uhm..ok not the iraq invasion but the agressive military politic of usa then.. could u at list agree on that?

uhm..ok not the iraq invasion but the agressive military politic of usa then.. could u at list agree on that?
yes, and ive argued for that once or twice on this forum

i had to go over that post twice to make sure there werent any spelling mistakes...that would have looked stupid

i dont even know how to do the guns :confused:
Click once on where you want the smiley to appear in your post, then click once on the smiley you want to place there from the box of smileys just to the right of where you type your post. :)

During the initial invasion of this latest Iraq War, there were two divisions of Iraqis (two armored divisions) that took 32,000 dead in about 30 seconds of bombardment by CBU-97 and CBU-105 cluster munitions.

32,000 is a hard number to beat.

We have taken a total altogether in Iraq of 1486 dead over two years.

i agree u had less casualties then iraq.. even if your figures may not be right as i still believe your mass-media does some kind of brain washing manipulation.. and to prove that i had a conversation with some american the other days and he told me that iraq had the third army in the world.. so im not sure how he could get to that conclusion if not from mass media (that means internet 2 as i`ve been questioned about what mass-media is also )

but i cant comprehend how the odds of beeing killed in iraq for a women are lower than in dc.. thats pretty obvius that cant be true. if u say that dc had x female victims on the streets.. but u forget to mention what is the female population of dc.. and u say u had y victims in iraq.. and also forget to say how many female u sent there.. it cant really have a point..

Click once on where you want the smiley to appear in your post, then click once on the smiley you want to place there from the box of smileys just to the right of where you type your post. :)
thing is, for some reason i dont have a box of smileys...:confused:

EDIT: got it

looked in my options - for some reason it was set a "basic text editor" which didnt give me any of the options

id better go set it back to basic before i start using smileys too much

uhm..ok not the iraq invasion but the agressive military politic of usa then.. could u at list agree on that?
I don't see taking decisive action, militarily or otherwise, against those who wish to harm you as necessarily translating into an "agressive military politic."

thing is, for some reason i dont have a box of smileys...:confused:

EDIT: got it

looked in my options - for some reason it was set a "basic text editor" which didnt give me any of the options

id better go set it back to basic before i start using smileys too much
LOL! It seems like lots of people go through a phase where they overuse the smileys, including me! :D

I don't see taking decisive action, militarily or otherwise, against those who wish to harm you as necessarily translating into an "agressive military politic."

do you really believe iraq wanted to atack USA? ;) why are you so sure they wished to harm you? because mass-media told u so? you actually believe USA had no interest in invading iraq other than "defending itself" ?

i agree u had less casualties then iraq.. even if your figures may not be right as i still believe your mass-media does some kind of brain washing manipulation.. and to prove that i had a conversation with some american the other days and he told me that iraq had the third army in the world.. so im not sure how he could get to that conclusion if not from mass media (that means internet 2 as i`ve been questioned about what mass-media is also )

I find that globalsecurity.org is a good site for military information. The Iraqi Army was the 4th largest in the world. But, most of their soldiers gave up, and those that didn't were annihilated, by and large.

The insurgents are taking terrible casualties. They are, in essence, crippled as a movement.

but i cant comprehend how the odds of beeing killed in iraq for a women are lower than in dc.. thats pretty obvius that cant be true. if u say that dc had x female victims on the streets.. but u forget to mention what is the female population of dc.. and u say u had y victims in iraq.. and also forget to say how many female u sent there.. it cant really have a point..
It all depends on how you want to break it down.
I haven't seen a breakdown by gender yet, and I'm trying to find the site that gives a month by month breakdown of the casualties.

I would like to compare January 2005 to January 2005. Give me a few minutes, and I'll be right back.

Globalsecurity.org
300 N. Washington St, B-100
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-548-2700
FAX: 703-548-2424

thats the info i got on that site about the location and contact of the ones who built that site. so for me its really not relevant. Im pretty sure the actual figures are wrong.

1. do you really believe iraq wanted to atack USA? ;)

2. why are you so sure they wished to harm you? because mass-media told u so?

3. you actually believe USA had no interest in invading iraq other than "defending itself" ?
1. When their leader sponsored an attempt to assassinate our President, and by all reports possesed WMD and the will to use them? Yes.

2. Partially that, partially based on personal knowledge, and partially based on my distrust of the efficacy of the UN.

3. I believe that was one of our primary motivations, along with a desire to create stability in the Mideast, and a sincere desire to spread demoracy, yes. Ascribing only less idealistic motives to the toppling of Saddam's Dictatorship is just as disengenuous as saying all our motives were pure as the driven snow. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes.

( Since I am having to use this damned "on-screen keyboard," it takes me a very long time to type out my posts. My apologies. )

Globalsecurity.org
300 N. Washington St, B-100
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-548-2700
FAX: 703-548-2424

thats the info i got on that site about the location and contact of the ones who built that site. so for me its really not relevant. Im pretty sure the actual figures are wrong.

I doubt that they are wrong. The figures match those found from other organizations.

See:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

and:
http://icasualties.org/oif/

A grand total of 1,486 US casualties over two years.

Sources:
About This Site
Contact UsOur Methodology
Data research by Pat Kneisler
Designed and maintained by Michael White


Special Thanks to Lynn, Evan, Glenn, Michal, Piotr and Pete (1) Department of Defense press releases @ DoD
(2) CENTCOM press releases @ CENTCOM
(3) CJTF7 press releases @ CJTF7
(4) British Ministry of Defense website @ MoD




Copyright 2003-2004 by Lunaville & iCasualties

Still not relevant ;) sorry but all info wich quote sources like department of defense press releases wich obviously are coordonated by your government cant be reliable in my opinion

if you believe source like that you could also believe this:
http://www.refusingtokill.net/USGulfWar2/washingtonconcealsuscasualties.htm
wich i dont.. i believe that article has been censored also ;)

So you somehow believe that there are far more than 1486 combat-related deaths?

I find the figure to be fairly accurate.

Having spoken to many people in-theater (and continue to do so, some civilian reporters, some contractors, and some military personnel), I find the figures to be remarkably accurate.

Yes, I can back it up.

For an examination of the murder rate in DC, we have the following table:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

And, for casualties in Iraq, we have:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/OIF-Total.pdf

Look at the category in that document for Marines. The woman in this thread is a Marine.

351 hostile deaths in two years time - that's 175.5 deaths per year.

Now, from the DC statistics, we have 239 deaths for the year 2000 (196 in 2004, which is good news).

Of course, if we broke this down by male/female, or by race, the figures for DC would be even more skewed.


OK, well you have to balance that against populations Legs - not just totals.

For example, the 239 murders in 2000 are out of a population of 572,000 - equating to an anual murer rate of about 41.7/100,000

Now, not knowing the total deployment of Marines (and given that your initial statement was not restricted to Marines), we shall visit the Iraq Coalition casualty count site (http://icasualties.org/oif/hnh.aspx), and select US soldiers only - we note that there have been 1124 deaths to hostile causes (I am exluding several hundred non-hostile deaths).

Now, over the two year period of the war we shall assume an average of 562 deaths per year, and an average deployed American force of 140,000 - which is on the high side.

so working that out, there are an average of

401 combat deaths per 100,000 US troops in Iraq, compared to the DC number of 41.

And we won't get into the fact that soldiers travel with medics who save many lives that would not have made it with similar injuries in DC.


But the point being that your statistics are wrong. It is far safer in DC than as a soldier in Iraq, almost by a factor of 10.

if you search the net with google you will find many sites that post other figures then your state departments.
yes.. i do believe the figures are wrong. not by mistake ..with a reasonable motive.
If US citizens knew that so many ppl died in combat it would be possible to stop the fight (becase population has the absolute power in a country in the end) . so there is a perfect reasonable motive for the censor.
put yourself in someone directly implicated in this war shoes and tell me you woulnd censor this information if it could stop the war.. wich from you get control over an important part of the world.. wich could become a cheaper way to controle that zone.

The problem we have, Zepp, is that Romania doesn't believe that the total US dead are 1486.

He doesn't want to use the data from any site which uses DoD casualty figures - which is virtually all of them (all I can find, anyway).

So he believes that it's far, far, far more lethal to be in Iraq, and that the DoD is lying about the dead.

Thank you Zeppistan.. thats what i was tryin to say 2.
im not that good on searchin the net but it was easy to guess that its imposible the odds of gettin killed in dc were bigger than iraq.

I'm so glad these threads never get off topic.

The problem we have, Zepp, is that Romania doesn't believe that the total US dead are 1486.

He doesn't want to use the data from any site which uses DoD casualty figures - which is virtually all of them (all I can find, anyway).

So he believes that it's far, far, far more lethal to be in Iraq, and that the DoD is lying about the dead.


Oh, I'm not agreeing with Romania Legs. I am taking the DoD numbers at face value.


I'm just pointing out the error in YOUR application of basic statistical principles which neglected to account for the differences in populations.

Women, in most wars served only as medics. But if they want to go off fighting some war fine by me.

The dead are also a fraction of the rate we experienced in Vietnam.
55,000 dead in 9 years vs. 1486 in two years.
6,111 per year vs. 743 per year.

And if we get away from the McNamara-esque stupidity of counting dead, we might ask for a comparison of the effectiveness of each of the two insurgencies.

The Viet Cong, by any stretch, were far more effective in combat, and far more effective in political terms. They were able to engage US troops directly and inflict massive casualties - a rate eight times greater than what the Iraqi insurgency can manage. The Iraqi insurgency is also incapable of engaging US troops in direct combat - unless they feel like being wiped out.

Setting off random explosions that kill more Iraqis (your potential supporters) than they kill US troops is not a good insurgency tactic.

Kidnapping a GI Joe doll and putting it on a website claiming you've kidnapped a US soldier is not only lame, it's sad. It also proves you no longer have the capability to capture a US soldier.

Outside of the Sunni areas, they couldn't scare enough people away from the polls.

The insurgency is in trouble - it risks being politically marginalized and it has lost all real offensive capability (in terms of being able to achieve political goals through direct action).

Not gonna disagree with most of that Legs.

Just disagreed with the other statistic you tried to pass of as valid.

It wasn't - even if you WON'T come out and admit your mistake.



Nor, incidentally, has the culprit of the GI Joe doll fiasco been determined. It was equally likely a practical joke sent to the Arab media from some kid in France... or california.

Not gonna disagree with most of that Legs.

Just disagreed with the other statistic you tried to pass of as valid.

It wasn't - even if you WON'T come out and admit your mistake.

Nor, incidentally, has the culprit of the GI Joe doll fiasco been determined. It was equally likely a practical joke sent to the Arab media from some kid in France... or california.

Well, you're the only one on this whole forum who actually does catch me.

Still, I think that over the next year, the insurgency is going to dwindle away.

Now, would that be historic? That a major insurgency was defeated in such a short period of time?

Well, you're the only one on this whole forum who actually does catch me.

Still, I think that over the next year, the insurgency is going to dwindle away.

Now, would that be historic? That a major insurgency was defeated in such a short period of time?

If it happens - yes.

I meant with a real sword and not that poxy knife but yes i take your point ;) :p
Hey, combined with a roman shield and about 49 other soldiers that blade would be fine.

If it happens - yes.
If and when it happens, try not to be too disappointed, ok? :rolleyes:

If it happens - yes.
I think the trend in insurgent tactics already shows what's happenning.

if you believe source like that you could also believe this:
http://www.refusingtokill.net/USGulfWar2/washingtonconcealsuscasualties.htm
wich i dont.. i believe that article has been censored also ;)
Wheee, Full Moonbattery Ahead, just be careful not to trip and fall flat on your face from using any sort of logic. :)

If and when it happens, try not to be too disappointed, ok? :rolleyes:

Wow - I agree that I will be pleased and that's still not enough for you?

Excuse me for not breaking out the pom-poms and dancing around a shrine to the great GW.....

:rolleyes:

I have this unique mental picture...

Years after the Bush years, when they give him credit (deserved or not) for having Libya give up its efforts to work on WMD, and for guiding the one Palestinian-Israeli peace process that worked, and brought democracy (however flawed) to Iraq, and forced Syria out of Lebanon, and the news reader says, "the man who brought peace to the Middle East by controversial means..." the camera zooms back from the news reader on CNN, and we see...

Zepp in his living room, trying not to vomit.

I have this unique mental picture...

Years after the Bush years, when they give him credit (deserved or not) for having Libya give up its efforts to work on WMD, and for guiding the one Palestinian-Israeli peace process that worked, and brought democracy (however flawed) to Iraq, and forced Syria out of Lebanon, and the news reader says, "the man who brought peace to the Middle East by controversial means..." the camera zooms back from the news reader on CNN, and we see...

Zepp in his living room, trying not to vomit.

Wow - you sure like giving him credit for things he has had nothing to do with....

Wow - you sure like giving him credit for things he has had nothing to do with....

I'm not saying he had anything to do with them. But I bet the media gives him credit.

The Libya thing could be explained by his fear of being overthrown by Bush.
The Israel-Palestine thing (even though they seem to be doing it themselves) would be ascribed to his "effective leadership".
Etc., etc.

They give other Presidents plenty of credit for things they had little to do with. I don't think he'll be an exception.

If anyone is being turned into gunmeat, it's the insurgents.

I bet if we counted the number of dead insurgents and divided it by the total number of insurgents, it would be a far larger ratio than any experienced by the current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

BTW, we're currently experiencing extremely low attrition rates for a force engaged with an insurgency. If you consider that some believe that the total number of insurgents is on a par with the total number of US forces in Iraq (or higher, in some estimates), then you'll be surprised to know that:

1. Unlike the Vietnam War, the insurgency is completely incapable of surviving a direct attack by hundreds of insurgents on any US position. The Viet Cong retained this capability throughout the Vietnam War. The insurgents in Fallujah found out that this was a good way to take over 90 percent casualties (most of them fatal).
2. Insurgents in Iraq have resorted to random detonations of explosives which, by and large, kill and wound ten times as many Iraqis as they do US soldiers.
3. Insurgents are unable to capture any American soldiers. They resorted to "capturing" a doll and putting it on a website.
4. They were unable to stop the recent election.

Yes, there's an insurgency, but it's becoming completely ineffective at attaining its goals. It can't kill enough US soldiers to make a political effect that would stop US involvement. It can't take over the Iraqi nation. It has limited support only inside Sunni areas. And it doesn't have the logistical support of a major nation (as the Viet Cong did from China and the USSR, or the Afghans had from the US).

So they're destined to become gunmeat. Lots and lots of uselessly created gunmeat.

I dont get this arguement, if they get any decent backing at all, and get organized beyond bandits taking pot shots, your going to see some problems.

When the USA leaves, this insurgancy will either take down the iraqi government or force it to become a brutal dicatorship in order to stay in power...

I dont get this arguement, if they get any decent backing at all, and get organized beyond bandits taking pot shots, your going to see some problems.

When the USA leaves, this insurgancy will either take down the iraqi government or force it to become a brutal dicatorship in order to stay in power...

They were organized beyond bandits taking potshots. In Fallujah, they were extremely organized. As such, it was their move to take things to the next step and confront US troops in the street, much as the Viet Cong did in the jungle.

They were wiped out in Fallujah. Even though they outnumbered the attacking US forces. Even though they were in urban terrain.

The insurgency can't do much anymore except things that alienate their own population. They have no political spokesman, and have conspired not only to remove themselves, but their constitutents as well, from the political equation.

The Kurds and the Shiites don't want them. The insurgents are outnumbered by the Shiites alone.

Since the insurgents have no major nation supplying them, they are going to run low on weapons. They can't do what the Viet Cong did, and use US weapons, because they can't defeat any US troops in any battle, no matter how small.

The insurgency is weak now - weaker than it has ever been. It can't force a political decision and it can't win a battle. In another year, the main Iraqi army is going to be strong enough to hold them off on their own.

They were organized beyond bandits taking potshots. In Fallujah, they were extremely organized. As such, it was their move to take things to the next step and confront US troops in the street, much as the Viet Cong did in the jungle.

They were wiped out in Fallujah. Even though they outnumbered the attacking US forces. Even though they were in urban terrain.

The insurgency can't do much anymore except things that alienate their own population. They have no political spokesman, and have conspired not only to remove themselves, but their constitutents as well, from the political equation.

The Kurds and the Shiites don't want them. The insurgents are outnumbered by the Shiites alone.

Since the insurgents have no major nation supplying them, they are going to run low on weapons. They can't do what the Viet Cong did, and use US weapons, because they can't defeat any US troops in any battle, no matter how small.

The insurgency is weak now - weaker than it has ever been. It can't force a political decision and it can't win a battle. In another year, the main Iraqi army is going to be strong enough to hold them off on their own.


That was not a mjaor battle, most of them just fled.

I agree though that the insurgants are not that numerious, most of the problem is from bandits and general lawlessness.

Iraq will continue to be a magnet to militant muslims though and to deal with that I think you are going to see a very naughty regime installed in iraq. One that wont think twice about killing anyone seem as a threat to its power. The veil of democracy is going to come off very, very quickly.

That was not a mjaor battle, most of them just fled.

I agree though that the insurgants are not that numerious, most of the problem is from bandits and general lawlessness.

Iraq will continue to be a magnet to militant muslims though and to deal with that I think you are going to see a very naughty regime installed in iraq. One that wont think twice about killing anyone seem as a threat to its power. The veil of democracy is going to come off very, very quickly.

Over 2000 were killed in Fallujah, several hundred captured (most of those wounded). A minority apparently fled with Zarqawi.

The point being that they were unable to resist a US force smaller than their own, or prevent their stronghold from being taken.

They lost a great deal of useful equipment and explosives in Fallujah. They also lost prestige - something that is important in an insurgency. It's harder to recruit people when they find out that life expectancy is less than six months.

Yes, most of them care if they survive. Consider that recently, they recruited a person with Down's Syndrome to be a suicide bomber because they couldn't find anyone else to do it.

They have to win a battle or two. They have to be able to inflict massive casualties on US forces. On demand. They have to be able to stop elections. They have to be able to kidnap and torture a US soldier on demand, on television.

Their reputation is shot.

Errr..... you are suggesting that 2,000 lightly-armed insurgents perished in Falluja while battling against attack helicopters, bombers, tanks, and a few thousand of the best equiped soldiers in the world ... and it demonstrates their inefficiency against an inferior force in terms of strength? Or even of manpower?


Interesting analysis of the situation, but not one that I am tending to agree with.

Clearly the insurgents haven't the equipment to match up the US military, which I'm sure is why they have largely concentrated on the Iraqi security forces for the past while. After all, it serves the same destabilizing puropse for them with generally better results in terms of damage.

Errr..... you are suggesting that 2,000 lightly-armed insurgents perished in Falluja while battling against attack helicopters, bombers, tanks, and a few thousand of the best equiped soldiers in the world ... and it demonstrates their inefficiency against an inferior force in terms of strength? Or even of manpower?

Interesting analysis of the situation, but not one that I am tending to agree with.

Clearly the insurgents haven't the equipment to match up the US military, which I'm sure is why they have largely concentrated on the Iraqi security forces for the past while. After all, it serves the same destabilizing puropse for them with generally better results in terms of damage.

Here is the difference. In Vietnam, the insurgency knew that they could "cling to the enemy", that is, fight as closely to US infantry as possible so that the US heavy weapons could not be used.

Unfortunately, that tactic in Fallujah was unworkable. Try cozying up to current US infantry in their body armor, especially at night, and you end up dead.

To borrow a page from the Viet Cong playbook, killing the local militia has some local effect - but sending US troops home in bodybags is the only way to win.

By that measure, the insurgents have already failed.

I see their main problem (outside of losing face in the Arab world by constantly losing) as a lack of supply. They are not nearly as well supplied as the Viet Cong were.

They can't even capture US weapons.

You are assuming that the Iraqis are taking a page out of the Vietnam playbook. Frankly they seem to be taking a page more out of the Mujuhadeen playbook of Afghanistan.... which is not exactly the same thing.

You are assuming that the Iraqis are taking a page out of the Vietnam playbook. Frankly they seem to be taking a page more out of the Mujuhadeen playbook of Afghanistan.... which is not exactly the same thing.

Still, the Afghans fighting against the Soviets were much better equipped, advised, and had an ability to strike at will at Soviet forces.

In addition, the mujahedeen also did the "get close and hug them" tactic during ambushes. It made it difficult for supporting Hind helicopters to aid the troops on the ground, and made artillery support impossible.

The US has an inordinate advantage in precision weaponry on one hand, and heavily armored troops on the other. It's a lethal sqeeze, and it does radically alter the insurgency's capabilities. Or limit them.

I do believe that it has caused a great deal of confusion and low morale for them - the plan they originally had DID imply a confrontation tete-a-tete with US troops in Fallujah.