Wednesday, September 29, 2004


Death toll? We are in a war, with little more than a thousand casualties in three years, and we are calling this a death toll?? God forbid, we ever have a real war with real casualty numbers. I am in no way discounting the loss of life in this war....we feel the sorrow of loss. But this is hardly cause for shaking fists at ridiculous "death tolls." Well said. A few weeks ago, there was an anti-war protest in downtown Indianapolis where the thoughtful protestors placed 1000 boots all around the Soldiers and Sailors Monument. In one way I guess that is honoring thier memory but I met a few and that wasn't the idea. Being the WW2 buff I am I tossed out a few statistics that I know. Iwo Jima took us 36 days to secure a 7.5 square mile island. Our casulaties were over 25,000. Of those 6,825 were killed. Okinawa took three months with total casulaties over 72,000, of which around 15,000 KIA and MIA. Battle of the Bulge - the surprise German counteroffensive toward the end of the war lasted around one month and we took between 70,000 and 80,000 casulaties. Like you, I am not minimizing the deaths of our troops but rather trying to put into perspective the cost of war. While I can respect someone's opinion as to whether Iraq was the right war at the right time, (is there a right time for war?) I don't see a whole lot of difference between the German and Japanese fascism of 1941 and Islamic fascism of 2004. Imagine the antiwar crowd today around 1943....kinda scary actually. Cheers Name Withheld