The trouble with 2592.

[cali]

It doesn't seem to make much of an impression on the American public. Most Americans don't know anyone killed or injured in Iraq. What I keep hearing and reading from the right, is that the death rate of American soldiers, is low. What does it take in terms of numbers for these losses to really hit home?

As a corollary: Do you personally know anyone who's been killed or injured in Iraq?

[Bandit]

1. is that the death rate of American soldiers, is low.

It certainly is one hell of a lot higher than under Clinton or Carter. Might be low compared to other Republican Presidents but I doubtr even that...

[rurallib]

2. The Bushies have done all they can to blunt all the things that

Nam such a PR disaster. Such as no pics of coffins and no draft etc. About the only thing they haven't controlled is Cindy Sheehan - who IMHO is a great American Hero! The press is totally bottled up and very compliant.
And yes, our town lost a soldier very early in Bush's War. Helicopter pilot who was shot down. Left a wife and two wonderful teenagers. His wife was totally opposed to Bush's War from the beginning.

[cali]

4. I too, know someone

who died in Iraq. My little town of under 3 thousand has lost 3 people over there. And I agree about the blunting, but I think it's more than that. Most people simply aren't connected to these losses.

[SheilaT]

3. No, I don't personally

know anyone who's been killed or injured in Iraq, although I do know one young man who has served a tour over there and came home safely.

It is true that 2592 dead Americans is not enough to touching a significant percentage of those here at home. Heck, even with the 50,000 plus who were killed in Vietnam, I'm not aware that anyone I knew was killed, and I'm exactly in the demographic that sent the most young men over there.

And now they're talking about recruiting overseas to fill vacant service slots. What that means is that even fewer Americans will be personally affected. When a nation goes to hiring mercenaries to fight its wars, it's definitely on the way down.

[livetohike]

5. No, I don't know anyone who has been killed or injured in Iraq

and as far as the "numbers" go ...consider this:

By 1972 2,594,000 troops served in Nam! There were 58,000 American troops killed.

This info came from this website: http://www.rcnv.org/rcnv/archives/2003/militarydemographics.htm

[Ilsa]

6. Personally? No, but one has a grave not far from my

mom's gravesite, and alot of people in this town knew him and his wife and kids. I honked and waved at one of his family members the other day -- they had a bumpersticker with his name on it.

And just 20 miles north of us we lost a soldier who was 19, married, one kid, one on the way.

And to those who say the numbers are small and that 2500 were killed every week in WWII, I ask them flat out how many have to die for them to understand that this is futile and painful? I ask them why they cannot empathize with those who have suffered great loss.

[Javaman]

7. You know I have been thinking about this a lot lately...

right now the death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq stands at just under 2600.

Okay, given all that medicine has learned since the Viet Nam war, how many of the wounded soldiers of today would have been a casualty number back then?

But then again, some of these poor soldiers that are wounded now, are in such horrible shape, there should be a new category for them. wounded in action just doesn't do it justice. Perhaps destroyed in action.

:(

[bobbolink]

8. It isn't registering because it isn't a personal connection.

For quite a while now, we've had a society that can't relate unless it hits personally.

That's why some of us think a Universal service requirement makes sense for this country.