Three Hundred and Twenty-Six Dead. WTH Will it Take

[clar]

to wake Americans up? I believe nothing less than a Beirut moment will suffice. It's going to take 50+ Americans blown up in a massacre before the people in this country wake up. And though I'm not wishing for such a moment, I despair that anything else will get through.

[Uzybone]

1. Sadly your right

unless they see CNN FOX MSGOP NBC CBS ABC and the rest of the whores showing 24 hr coverage of triage units and ambulances and stretchers most people will try not to care. One or two of our finest getting blown to bits or shot up everyday merely earns a scroll on the "ticker" at the bottom of the TV.

[KG]

2. 3 soldiers killed the other day - it was on pg 3 of the bradenton (fl)

herald. no longer front page news.

the rabid 'support the troops' crowd, has gone back to worrying about who gets kicked off 'survivor'.

this country sucks.

[clar]

3. Page 3 just about sums it all up

And it's true here at DU too. I think it's because we feel so impotent. Watch this thread sink like a stone.

[KG]

6. well, i think the outrage is still here.

but it what more can be said except - 'BRING THEM HOME NOW!'

[Spazito]

4. It is very sad statement when you see....

the Prime Minister of Canada and even that loathesome Tony Blair in attendence at memorials for the fallen soldiers of their countries and yet America's fallen barely rate a page 3. Very, very sad.

[wuushew]

5. Casualty aversion study

Do our civilian and military leaders have a sound case for believing that public opinion is linked to the number of casualties suffered in a military operation? Several RAND studies have examined this issue by consolidating available research and drawing conclusions based on the data. The first significant report, published in 1985, used Korea and Vietnam as case studies.5 The overall decline of public support over time in Korea and Vietnam shows that public support in both wars “behaved in a remarkably similar manner: Every time U.S. casualties went up by a factor of ten, support in both wars decreased by approximately 15 percent.”6 Likewise, comparing public support for Vietnam with the cumulative costs of the war leads to the conclusion one would hope for in a civilized society: “The most significant costs to the American people were the number of American boys killed and wounded in Vietnam.”7 Finally, analyzing monthly casualty rates indicates “a strong negative correlation (–.68) was shown to exist between monthly casualty rates and president Truman’s popularity in the Korean War.”8 In a companion finding, President Lyndon Johnson’s popularity was negatively correlated to the monthly number of Americans killed in action and the number of bombing sorties over Vietnam.9

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/sum00/hyde.htm

[clar]

8. What a great find

Thanks for posting it. Fascinating.

[alcuno]

7. I hate agreeing with you

but the answer to your question is "yes." It is likely to happen one of these days and then they'll act all surprised.

[section321]

12. How many of you saw "We were soldiers"?

That was the first major battle in Vietnam (for America. France had their last one about 10 years earlier)

That was years into our involvement and was the first time lots of Americans died on one day.

However, it was many years after that before we pulled out.

[arcos]

9. it would be good to edit the subject line of your post...

Apparently "WTF" is considered profanity, and another thread was locked because of this.

Probably a thread titled "The F word" would get locked too. :shrug:

[OneBlueSky]

10. it's far, far more than that . . .

why are American deaths the only ones that count? . . . there have been thousands of Iraqis killed -- men, women, and children -- whose lives (and deaths) are just as significant as those of Americans . . . just because the corporate media refuses to acknowledge the carnage that our little excursion has caused doesn't mean that we should ignore it too . . . the number of Americans killed is negligible compared to the number of Iraqis killed, and those civilian deaths, to me, constitute a crime against humanity of the highest order . . . I'm sorry as hell for the 326 Americans who have died, but that's not where the story is here . . .

[clar]

11. You're absolutely right

the deaths of Iraqis are every bit as tragic as the death of American troops and to me, in many ways more tragic. But that isn't going to make an impact on American opinion. And until American firmly repudiate this horror, we won't be able to influence policy. That's what I'm addressing here.

[Karenina]

13. Clar, it's so OVER THE TOP.

First one has to consider HOW the casualties are reported. Kids killed on the spot perhaps rate a mention, those injured in the same incident who subsequently die (1 hour, 10 days, a month later - NOT). Daily injuries, suicides, "accidents," fraggings, mental breakdowns, malnutrition, dehydration ARE NOT REPORTED. Last I heard Landstuhl reported processing somewhere near 7,000 with "injuries." NO REPORTS on the extent of those. (They are MASSIVE and the doctors are FREAKING OUT. Something to do with the Kevlar vests and ordnances used). And THAT number does NOT include those flown directly back, although we do occasionally hear of Walter Reade Hosp. farming out to hotels due to the overload (room service out-of-pocket). Never mind those who have become sick from the vaccination cocktails or sensitivities to the environmental poisons... Am I clear, this mawnin' y'all?

[Spazito]

14. Exactly!

None of this is getting out!