How many coalition (USA, UK etc) soldiers died in Iraq War?

[TheRomanRuler]

Becouse it seems like repeat of Operation Barbarossa, first enemy advances with huge losses to own sides, then they are stopped and it is their time to suffer losses.
According to Wikipedia, which is why i am asking, during 2003 invasion 196 coalition soldiers died, and Iraq lost 30 000 (including civilians i think) KIA.
But during entire war, coalition seems to have suffered 25 000 dead and 117 000 wounded, while Iraq suffered 34 000 dead, wounded are not listed.
If that is true, this picture works very well:

and coalition suffered huge defeat on paper, aka losses.

 

[DoomBunny]

I saw the thread title and wondered why you hadn't simply checked Wikipedia. Then I read the thread and realised that you were just trying to soapbox.

Yawn.

 

[Doukan]

If you look at the thread title in a philosophical way, I think what they're trying to ask, is was it worth it?

 

[Easy-Kill]

Becouse it seems like repeat of Operation Barbarossa, first enemy advances with huge losses to own sides, then they are stopped and it is their time to suffer losses.
According to Wikipedia, which is why i am asking, during 2003 invasion 196 coalition soldiers died, and Iraq lost 30 000 (including civilians i think) KIA.
But during entire war, coalition seems to have suffered 25 000 dead and 117 000 wounded, while Iraq suffered 34 000 dead, wounded are not listed.
If that is true, this picture works very well:
View attachment 110805
and coalition suffered huge defeat on paper, aka losses.

Don't feed the troll!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Coalition_military_casualties

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Don't feed the troll!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Coalition_military_casualties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
I took figures from that site. But now i realised, coalition losses were separate from allied losses o
Sorry for wasting your time, but i am not troll, so if you don`t feed me, i might become one!

 

[The Super Pope]

18,000 dead for the post-Saddam Iraqi military...

The coalition makes up less than a fifth of the (inflated) figure you cite, and a third of the casualties.

Jesus Christ, the post-Saddam army took heavy losses though

 

[Easy-Kill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
I took figures from that site. But now i realised, coalition losses were separate from allied losses o
Sorry for wasting your time, but i am not troll, so if you don`t feed me, i might become one!

The entire premise of your thread was to essentially highlight how badly the western powers had performed in the Iraq war based on an image with a made up caption and poorly researched figures on allied causalities. I have a better picture for you.

 

[Hardeknut]

Crist...Fiji lost half of their millitary forces in the war.

 

[Calad]

Iraq war for coalition was rather casual low but caused much worse moral, economic and poltical damage. It will take long time before any western nation will start another landwar somewhere, needed or not.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Thanks for answers

The entire premise of your thread was to essentially highlight how badly the western powers had performed in the Iraq war based on an image with a made up caption and poorly researched figures on allied causalities. I have a better picture for you.

Your picture tells about soldiers, my picture tells about politics. My (or rather, "my") picture is still perfectly valid.

 

[DoomBunny]

Your picture tells about soldiers, my picture tells about politics. My (or rather, "my") picture is still perfectly valid.

Neither picture was worthy of anything more than total destruction. Your picture was, however, the worse of the two.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Your picture tells about soldiers, my picture tells about politics. My (or rather, "my") picture is still perfectly valid.

Your picture doesn't tell anything. It has a boy talking to a soldier with a rather rubbish caption. Mine shows a soldier putting himself in between danger and another more vulnerable than himself.

Neither picture was worthy of anything more than total destruction.

Why so (aside from a veiled attempt to be pretend to be ostentatious and edgy)? To me that looks both a morally and physically couragous act? Why would you try to 'destroy' it unless it makes you feel uneasy that you aren't doing something like that? To me, that picture epitomizes the the 'we' ... that is, it epitomizes the people who will be sent to go and something the next time people like you say 'we should do something about ...'.

 

[eleinvisible]

This is an incorrect thread with a flawed premise (a picture with captions being an accurate analysis of anything).

But, the question that you're hinting at: "was it worth it?" is a resounding "No." But on the other hand, at least we did something about a dictator (eventually). Is the end result better? Nope. We thought it might be, but Sunni Arab chauvinism is not as weak as we thought it was.

Anyway, stop beating a dead horse.

 

[Hibernian]

We thought it might be, but Sunni Arab chauvinism is not as weak as we thought it was.

Who's we? Some of us thought it would be a terrible idea from the very start.

 

[yezhanquan]

Who's we? Some of us thought it would be a terrible idea from the very start.

If the US didn't have a "fast in, fast out" mentality, MAYBE things wouldn't turn out to be so bad. The "some" you mentioned probably deduced that the US will not have the stomach for proper nation-building, hence the terrible idea.

In some aspects, it's Vietnam all over again. The US didn't know what they want on the ground and know next to nothing about local conditions and cultures. When things get sour, they just want to get the hell out without thinking things through.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Your picture doesn't tell anything. It has a boy talking to a soldier with a rather rubbish caption. Mine shows a soldier putting himself in between danger and another more vulnerable than himself.

No, think about it some more, German soldiers fought against Soviets to protect their homes,literally, but it was them who started the war to free oppressed peoples from Soviet tyranny (just saying why soldiers fought, politics are always different) so of course they have to fight for their families, that is what they forced Soviets to do! Same thing with Iraq, USA did not really have any reason to go there, yet they expect to be welcomed there as liberators, just like with Germans in Soviet Union. But USA soldiers went there to defend the world from dictator holding weapons of mass destruction, so they went to defend their homes and to prevent 9/11 happening again.
Ordinary German soldier`s actions in WW2 were just as heroic as one you showed in the picture, but it was foolish war which they started.
Get it? Soldier`s view from the war is completly different from political view, soldiers are always told that they are doing the right thing, but politicians know it is pointless.

 

[DoomBunny]

No, think about it some more, German soldiers fought against Soviets to protect their homes,literally, but it was them who started the war to free oppressed peoples from Soviet tyranny (just saying why soldiers fought, politics are always different) so of course they have to fight for their families, that is what they forced Soviets to do! Same thing with Iraq, USA did not really have any reason to go there, yet they expect to be welcomed there as liberators, just like with Germans in Soviet Union. But USA soldiers went there to defend the world from dictator holding weapons of mass destruction, so they went to defend their homes and to prevent 9/11 happening again.
Ordinary German soldier`s actions in WW2 were just as heroic as one you showed in the picture, but it was foolish war which they started.
Get it? Soldier`s view from the war is completly different from political view, soldiers are always told that they are doing the right thing, but politicians know it is pointless.

Oh dear.

 

[yezhanquan]

For the WW2 example, many locals initially did welcome the German Army as liberators against the Soviet Union. Many quickly changed their tune once the Nazis started outdoing the Soviets in brutality.

For the US, many Americans assumed that liberal democracy will happen (and automatically desirable) once Saddam is gone. The naivety of this train of thought is part of the reason why there is a train wreck.

 

[The Super Pope]

No, think about it some more, German soldiers fought against Soviets to protect their homes,literally, but it was them who started the war to free oppressed peoples from Soviet tyranny (just saying why soldiers fought, politics are always different) so of course they have to fight for their families, that is what they forced Soviets to do! Same thing with Iraq, USA did not really have any reason to go there, yet they expect to be welcomed there as liberators, just like with Germans in Soviet Union. But USA soldiers went there to defend the world from dictator holding weapons of mass destruction, so they went to defend their homes and to prevent 9/11 happening again.
Ordinary German soldier`s actions in WW2 were just as heroic as one you showed in the picture, but it was foolish war which they started.
Get it? Soldier`s view from the war is completly different from political view, soldiers are always told that they are doing the right thing, but politicians know it is pointless.

[video=youtube;tv666PtpD_M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv666PtpD_M[/video]