Iraq War Fatalities

Very, very sobering.

Thanks for sending that along, Dan.

About Curzon

Lord George Nathaniel Curzon (1859 - 1925) entered the British House of Commons as a Conservative MP in 1886, where he served as undersecretary of India and Foreign Affairs. He was appointed Viceroy of India at the turn of the 20th century where he delineated the North West Frontier Province, ordered a military expedition to Tibet, and unsuccessfully tried to partition the province of Bengal during his six-year tenure. Curzon served as Leader of the House of Lords in Prime Minister Lloyd George's War Cabinet and became Foreign Secretary in January 1919, where his most famous act was the drawing of the Curzon Line between a new Polish state and Russia. His publications include Russia in Central Asia (1889) and Persia and the Persian Question (1892). In real life, "Curzon" is a US citizen from the East Coast who has been a financial analyst, freelance translator, and university professor; he is currently on assignment in Tokyo.
This entry was posted in Arabia, Geography, War & Peace and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Iraq War Fatalities

  1. Pingback: tdaxp

  2. Mutantfrog says:

    I’m wondering why they don’t list Iraqi fatalities. Even if you list only military casualties, Iraqi government security forces are being killed at a faster rate than US soldiers.

  3. heirabbit says:

    It’s the same reason why the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington is just a big list of American casualties. Even after the war has been widely recognized to be a fraud, an invasion, and a low point in our history, the state still decides that it’s only us (US?) who counts.

  4. Mike says:

    The Vietnam War Memorial is not intended to be for all people who fought, only for the Americans who fought and died in Southeast Asia. No one is saying that ARVN, the Aussies and the South Koreans don’t count. It is not “just a big list”, though thanks for showing how much you care.

  5. Mutantfrog says:

    If this website were just a list of the US casualties it wouldn’t bother me particularly, but listing everybody except Iraqis is I think quite offensive.

  6. J. Kende says:

    “… Even after the war has been widely recognized to be a fraud, an invasion, and a low point in our history, the state still decides that it’s only us (US?) who counts.”

    It has not be widely recognized as such at all. It has been widely *proclaimed* such by those who share your interpretation of events. Just because you have an opinion and have found many others who echo it, does not make it prevailing truth.

  7. Mike says:

    Mutant Frog, you make a good point, though I am sure the oversight stems from the difficulty in getting accurate stats on Iraqi casualties rather than indifference.

  8. Mutantfrog says:

    http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

    Didn’t take me more than one minute to find this page.

    Civilian deaths are harder to quantify, but certainly the Iraqi military keeps track of their casualties accurately.
    Count according to news reports:
    2005 Total 1262
    Total Prior to 2005 1300
    Total 2562

    Deaths Since April 28th
    (Shiite-led government announced):
    Police/Mil: 677
    Civilians: 1205
    Total: 1882

  9. Mike says:

    Well I guess you nailed it then, he is an Arab hating racist! Honestly, cut the guy some slack.

  10. Kende: The Vietnam war is globally viewed upon as a horrible desaster, not only for the US though, but still. Revisionist thinking is a foster children of (ultra)orthodox/conservative streams, what makes you think *your* memory of the war is right?

  11. lirelou says:

    The “global” view of Vietnam is also cast in “U.S. versus Vietnamese” terms, a distorted view that ignores the reality of a non-Communist Vietnamese government and armed forces. The “global view” also views that government as “puppet”, thereby implying that the other side (Ho Chi Minh’s) was legimate. The “global view” never explains exactly who voted Ho Chi Minh and his minions into power, and what legitimacy might or might not lie behind that “vote”. At least Anonymous sees that the war was a “horrible disaster” for more than the Americans. I, of course, disagree. It was a political disaster for the United States, and a personal disaster for the families of those killed and mained there, but it was only a truly horrible disaster for those Vietnamese who stood helplessly by as PAVN tanks rolled victoriously into Saigon. That was the day that their future died. Those who escaped, or were forced to flee, ended up being the lucky ones. Those who remained, the victims. I do not know of a single Vietnamese refugee from any country who visits Asia today and does not view Taiwan, Singapore, or South Korea as living proof that the wrong side won in 4-75. You can only tell the worth of a tree by the quality of its fruit. The Party took the richest colony in the French Empire, and reduced it to the rank of the poorest nations on this earth. They did this not only by fighting two unnecessary wars (by 1950 the French were quite willing to recognize an independent Vietnam) but by regulating their economy in accordance with, of all things, the now discredited theories of two Europeans. Or is that two Dead, White Males?

  12. J. Kende says:

    Hmm.. Actually I made a late night mistake and took “the war” heirabbit was talking about to be the Iraq war. It seemed within the character of other posts of his I have read here, and relating to the original post we were all commenting on. My mistake.

    As for Vietnam, lirelou responded to that very well I think.

  13. Jerome says:

    To Lirelou:

    You said “The ‘global view’ never explains who exactly voted Ho Chi Minh and his minions into power, and what legitimacy might or might not lie behind that vote”. This, sir, has to be about the most twisted, distorted view of the situation I’ve ever heard, and I’ve heard some lulus. Consider this: The U.S. government had already agreed on there being a referendum to be held throughout Vietnam, North and South, on the issue of unification, to be held in 1956. Want to talk about voting? Know who won the referendum? It was NEVER HELD. Know why? Because the U.S. government, in it’s boundless appreciation for “democracy” and “self-determination” (note the sarcasm) realized that not only would the people of Vietnam [regardless of North or South] vote to support creating a unified country, but that since Ho Chi Minh’s party was the main driving force behind making the foreigners (France, U.S.) agree to a referendum, and was Communist, that the people of Vietnam would freely elect a Communist government. Rather than let the people decide their OWN form of government, the U.S. showed like it always does that it supports democracy only so long as people vote the way the U.S. wants them to vote, so they went back on their word and cancelled the referendum that would have avoided the Vietnam debacle. So the U.S. then proceeded to continue supporting its South Vietnamese puppet state run by profoundly unpopular U.S.-appointed Quisling leaders, ensuring continued windfall profits there for American weapons contractors as well as ensuring the C.I.A. could continue its enormous heroin exporting business whose profits went into countless off-the-books C.I.A. programs. The puppet governments of South Vietnam were deeply unpopular and had zero legitimacy, no different than Nazi-appointed puppet leaders for their occupied countries during WWII. The U.S. and puppet A.R.V.N. troops were increasingly at war not only with the North Vietnamese but also consider that a majority of people in South Vietnam supported the Communists which is why the Viet-Cong guerillas operating in South Vietnam enjoyed so much support from the population. So no, the only reason why Ho Chi Minh wasn’t “voted into power” is because the U.S. government cancelled the referendums, proving once again that the ‘word’ of America is meaningless.
    In regards to your comment that “by 1950 the French were quite willing to recognize an independent Vietnam” this is ridiculous. They were unwilling to do so and the proof is that they kept occupation forces in the country until they were encircled and crushed at Dien Ben Phu in 1954. Ever heard of that? Why was that necessary to kick out the French if they were four years earlier as you stated “willing to recognize an independent Vietnam”?? Dien Ben Phu was what made them unwilling to continue to expend blood and treasure to try to hold onto Vietnam, not some arbitrary date four years earlier, the proof is in their actions. After 1954, the French advised the U.S. to do as it was doing and leave Vietnam’s fate to be decided by the Vietnamese but America’s government didn’t listen and we see what happened. 58,000 dead fascist American troops later and about 1,500,000 dead Vietnamese including mostly civilians later, Vietnam gets the same result it should have had more peacefully in 1956 with a referendum. 30 April is a wonderful day for anti-fascists because two glorious things happened that day, exactly sixty years apart. On 30 April 1945 Hitler blew his brains out. On 30 April 1975 the last fascist helicopter left the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon (now of course rightfully called Ho Chi Minh City), never to return in indecent haste and a profoundly embarrasing moment for America with its ambassador crumpling the U.S. flag unceremoniusly into a plastic bag and getting the hell out of there, a fitting end to a totally unneccessary, illegal war caused by America. So America got what it deserved out of it, a humiliating withdrawl [as we will see in Iraq] but unfortunately learned nothing from it.

  14. Jerome says:

    Thirty years apart rather, not sixty years of course separate ’45 from ’75. Hooray for 30th April! No matter what anyone tries to say about Vietnam, remember at least now it is run by VIETNAMESE and not a foreign-appointed Quisling puppet leader.