How does the Iraq war compare to past wars in regards to casualties,  causes, and  other pertinent variables?
914089
If WW2 or Korean war was taken place today we would have lost both no doubt it with our current media, we lost thousands of men each day in WW2  36,000 in Korea we are averaging 2 casualty a day in Iraq (4 yrs divided by 3000) and our media says "it is a disaster we can't win it", that does not bode well for future conflict with the media we have now. America might be approaching a point where we are afraid to defend anyone unless we are violently attack first. History will  eventually show that the constant negativism by our media have affected our will to meet these challenges. Vietnam is a good example we did not lose that war through a superior enemy, but years of negative news bias took it's toll.
551605
I heard the total number of Iraqi's who have died since the American occupation is around 100,000. How many have died since the war officially ended I couldn't say.\n\nIt is very naive by the way to believe insurgents are responsible for the majority of these deaths.
496962
Families speak about it:  http://www.mfso.org/article.php?id=533\n\nHow many people die in war:http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-14310.html\nChildren in war: http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/echoes/echoes-20-03.html\n\nThere has been no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began 18 months ago, but some non-government estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.\n\nThe researchers surveyed nearly 1000 Iraqi households in September, asking how many people lived in the home and how many births and deaths there had been since January 2002.\n\nThey then compared the death rate among those households during the 15 months before the invasion with the 18 months after it, getting death certificates where they could.\n\nThe experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths.\n\nThe study was designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/
1058813
What you can "know" about the war in Iraq is very varied, depending on what you want to know and who you ask.  The political sides taken in debate banter back and forth with as little intelligence as humanly possible, and they've gotten their nonsense from the liberal media, which is as senseless as anything possible on this planet, so what you perceive to be "knowledge" vs. "opinion" will go far in deciding how learned you feel after you do your research.  In my university graduate research classes, we were stressed to value broad but focused questioning.  Too many open-ended questions left too many dead-end answers, no matter their length.  We also learned about statistical reliability and validity and the allowable statistical variances, but that's getting into questionnaires, etc., and that takes FOREVER to develop, administer, score and analyze.  And even then, interpretation was allowed quite a "margin for error" even though it cautioned the reader as to it's statistical acceptance.  If you really want to know about the war in Iraq, I doubt seriously that this is the place to do any serious research.  From my experience here, there's a lot of uninformed opinion and much less intellect in the majority of answers  you'll get.  Blog's on the internet, etc., aren't much better since no one is held "accountable" for their responses.  They can just  rattle on, which some may say I'm doing now.  Talk to someone(s) away from the internet, face to face if possible, and someone who's main source of "knowledge" isn't the network "news" in order to get a more intelligent and statistically acceptable answer.  Even people you respect for their intelligence are suspect, since they have their opinions which find their way into the dialogue, as did my now deceased father who fought the Japanese at Okinawa in WWII and my son who is in Iraq on his second tour of duty as we speak.  They are both as opinionated as I am, and I guess that genetics since we're father, son, and grandson. Ultimately you have to come to your own conclusions, right or wrong, and be open to new possible understandings as your life goes on.   Debates still rage over the Civil War, and I doubt anyone alive has enough knowlege to fill a thimble, much less a blog or debate despite the goings-on and the "resources" they claim to have.  We still debate the Bay of Pigs incident in Cuba in the 1960's under JFK and the Vietnam war under JFK, LBJ, and RMN.  So ultimately, it's YOUR opinion that counts.  Make it a learned on.  It's so much more pleasant to hear an opinion that someone has given some thought to than one that sounds like they got it off the bathroom wall and are going to copy it on the next stall they're in.  God Bless you.
160593
There are statistics on the following page:\n\nhttp://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
996547
Intelligence and restraint.\n\nFather Bush led the First Gulf War to free Kuwait. He did not go alone but sought the help of allies from all over the world.  Once the war was concluded, we left.  Our economy was intact. No priceless Iraqui treasures were looted. They didn't hate us for invading their country. The conduct of this war shows leadership, with intelligence and restraint. \n\nNow, George W. has us in a non-winnable war.  There is no end in sight. We spend billions which is destroying our economy, not to mention wasting the lives of our men and women and those of Iraqi civilians. Iraqis and the world hate us.  This is the legacy of George W. Bush -- poverty, hatred and death. \n\nThat's the difference.
918289
I think that the war in Iraq is a war that cannot be won just like the war on terror, sure we can do things to help the cause but the actual war/wars are not going to be won. I just cant believe how many people still think that we can win this war. I don't know if it is worse than Vietnam, we lost over 50,000 people there but the long term ramifications of this war cannot be measured.
896812
If you include other nations, yes disease,\n\nBut even in the US, more people are killed in auto wrecks in just one state of the US than are killed in the war each year.\n\nSo allowing US citiznes to drive cars are far more dangerous than the war is.
1073318
US Army: about 2500 deaths, Iraqis: about 100,000. Who's kicking whose butts???
281835
try "The Great War For Civilisation" by Robert Fisk.  You will need to go back further than 20 years too as the current problems are rooted in the decisions made after the first and second world wars.  This book covers other countries in the Middle East too.
95226
(1) Ecomonical cost of war, very expensive.\n(2) Human cost, you can not replace this.\n(3) Infastrucal rebuilding (after the war)\n(4) The politcal fall out, power shifts as a direct result of war\n(5) The moral ground or loss of it.\n(6) Occupation from the invading army.\n(7) Destruction of every facet of human social framework.\n(8) Long time effets (i.e. unknown disadvantages)\n\nI hope that helps\n\nAnhar Hussain Miah
542823
First off, for most of us WW2 took five years of actual fighting and then the cold war with its regional conflicts that followed went on for another Forty!\n\nAlso in that conflict the allies would lose the total number of casualties incurred in Iraq in a single day.\n\nThe war in Iraq was won.....It is the peace which is being lost.
1066850
Exactly...this is another Vietnam...it might not be the same scale casualty wise (at least American casulaties. Iraqi deaths are right up there). It's ridiculous. We never should have been there. I don't think it's the military's fault that there isn't progress...I'm sure they're doing what they can but there is only so much you can do before you realize that things aren't going to get any better. Insurgents are nasty and they'll stop at nothing to kill someone. This war is going to be going on for a long time unless something changes and unfortunately we have to wait a couple more years before those changes can begin. We destroyed a country now we're going to have to pay for it ....probably for the rest of our lives. It's a sad situation with no real end. You still have people out there saying that it was good that we went in...we got Saddam...we didn't go in to get Saddam. We went in to get weapons and the only ones we've found are the ones we sold them years ago to fight Iran. Interesting how that works out isn't it?
778930
BOTH// Both wars were bad because the people who were put there to do the fighting had their hands tied by the gutless wonders in Washington(Most who never served in the military)Who  know nothing about combat. I served as a gunner on a copter & we were told not to cross a magic line on a map. Never mind they were firing on us with rockets from over that magic line. The same in Iraq. The rules of engagement are set for us by people who never served, go to Iraq, stay in the safe zone and tell our fighting men & women what to do. What they should be doing is stay at home & do the work of making america a better place to live & leave the fighting to those who know what they are doing. THE TROOPS ON THE GROUND, not Washington.
233788
This war is unlike most we have fought.  In ww2 and other previous wars there was a line, on one side we were and on the other the bad guys.  In the past a unit would fight for x amount of time and then get some time behind the line, where it was safe.  In iraq, there isn't a line, everywere is a danger zone.  At any minute, your Humvy could get blown up by an ied(improvised explosive device) or they could shoot an rpg(rocket propelled grenade) at you.  Now don't get me wrong the people who fought in all our previous wars are some of the bravest and greatest americans in our country's history.  But this war is a little different from any we've fought in the past.  We're kind of like sitting ducks over there.  As for the emotions, well it's a rollercoaster.  But leaving is a high that you'll never forget.
794987
It was just like the Vietnam war years ago, except there wasn't a rapid change to show the horrors of war as much.  The war coverage was always sort of propaganda filled in that it would show the death tolls and then immediately indicate that "progress" was being made.  Frankly, I feel like we have no connection to the wars that are being fought.  How much do you or I really know?
941919
No way to know because there have been a lot of foreign fighters and terrorists coming in fighting in civilian clothes.  \n\nI can tell you that most have died because of terrorists and their actions, not because of the troops there.  \n\nAlso, a lot less than what Saddam was killing.