American Deaths over the Last Three Years Put in Perspective:

• Auto Accidents: 120,000
• Falling Down: 45,000
• Poisoning: 27,000
• Drowning: 12,000
• War in Iraq: 2,300


[www.newsmax.com]
U.S. Iraq Casualties Plummet in March

The press is marking the third anniversary of the liberation of Iraq with an avalanche of reports that a sectarian "civil war" has broken out, which, reporters say, means U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are on the verge of failure.

But only a few short weeks ago reporters were measuring success [or, in their case, failure] in Iraq by a completely different standard: the number of U.S. troops killed in combat operations.

So why the shift in focus? It turns out that while the so-called Iraqi civil war has been raging, the number of U.S. casualties has plummeted to less than half of what they were over the previous five months.

In fact, if the current trend continues, March will be the second least deadly month for American GIs since the war began.

According to the Web site Lunaville.com - which keeps the most comprehensive and up to date statistics on U.S. casualties - about one soldier a day (1.1) has died in Iraq during the first three weeks in March.

That's a vast improvement over February's numbers, when U.S. troops were dying at the rate of 2.07 per day. In every month since November 2005, the U.S. death rate has topped 2 per day. In October, it was over 3.

The lowest U.S. troop death rate since the U.S. invaded was in February 2004, when less than one soldier per day (.79) was killed in combat operations.

Big credit goes to the U.S. military: The soldiers on the ground whose efforts to train Iraqis to do the frontline fighting themselves are getting the job done.

Still, don't look for much coverage of this dramatic turn of events - especially from reporters for whom "good news is no news" in Iraq.

---

**********

Support our troops

...and CALL all your Congressmen today and let them know: Legals, SÍ...Sneak-ins, NO!

Working my way through college. Life is great. Life is even better with a Mac.

"Don't dream your life, live your dream."

Good lord. How much Kool Aid can you drink?

---

Unpaid Social Liaison

One major difference is most of the automobile deaths weren't incurred in the commission of a crime, such as an illegal, unnecessary war based on lies. You also neglect to mention the over 100,000 - 500,000 Iraqis that lost their lives due to our illegal, unprovoked attack on them. But then they don't count, do they Cassie?

Automobile passengers have a choice whether to risk their lives travelling on the highway, and the number of people travelling by car vastly outnumbers those Americans placed in harms way in Iraq. The proportionate risk of driving on American highways vs. Iraq's is much less, unless you had roadside bombs on your route to school this morning. We don't even control the road from the Green Zone to the airport.

Most of the automobile journeys were initiated for some constructive purpose or at least for pleasure, whereas this war was initiated solely for the purposes of vile, bloodthirsty and ruthless greed.

True, U.S. casualties have fallen, mainly because of our increased reliance on air attacks. Unfortunately when we drop a 500# bomb on a house because we suspect an "insurgent" is inside (as opposed to kicking the door down and sending troops in after him, which has a much higher risk for our troops) we tend to kill everyone in the house, and the neighboring houses for that matter. To give you some perspective, 100 pounds of high explosive is more than sufficient to destroy the average three bedroom rambler. When you combine that power with shards of shrapnel you can understand how lethal such a bomb is. Relying on bombs and missiles does reduce our casualties but increases the Iraqi peoples civilian deaths and wounds. For every innocent death we cause vengeance will be required. We may be saving American lives now, but payback will be a @#$%&.

Even if you accept Bush's ridiculous justification that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq you must understand that for the Muslim world 9/11 was payback for generations of oppression by our client dictators. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, none were Iraqis.
We have long supported and defended the Saudi monarchy, which has a long history of publicly executing political prisoners by scimitar beheading. For every innocent death we cause in Iraq we create at least one more grieving relative or loved one willing or obliged to strike back at us. If the goal is to make us safe this war is having the exact opposite effect.

Also consider that the total number of deaths you reference in the US (206.3k) is from a population of 298,354,308 (as of today), or a death rate of 1 in 1446.

US deaths in Iraq in the same time period are (as of today) 2,319, out of a total of ~130,000 yielding a death rate of 1 in 56.

I'll take my odds on the Santa Monica freeway, thanks.

Just stop Loki. Everyone knows of your obsessive compulsive disorder by now.

---

Unpaid Social Liaison

mick e Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just stop Loki. Everyone knows of your obsessive
> compulsive disorder by now.

You just don't get the concept of "ranting," do you?

And the death rates don't include those who will live as vegetables or cripples for the rest of their lives. Wounded figures are over 16,653 now, and because of body armor and faster medevac wounds that would have been fatal in previous wars are now resulting in survival, but severe handicaps, including brain injuries. Anyone who thinks this war is safer for our troops or that they aren't paying a horrible price for Bush's lies is full of @#$%&.

Bush will continue to rely on air op's to avoid US casualties in advance of the election, but this comes at an increasing cost to Iraqi civilians. But then they don't count, do they, Cassie?

rv - you've ruined this forum with your CONSTANT ranting. Can't you just reply once like everyone else? When I come here and see your name all over both columns, I click elsewhere.

hal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rv - you've ruined this forum with your CONSTANT
> ranting. Can't you just reply once like everyone
> else? When I come here and see your name all over
> both columns, I click elsewhere.

Mission accomplished.

If I have another thought it's easier to post again, than to edit. Nothing in the rules prohibits that. This is the "ranting" section, btw. "Complaints About Other Users Posts" is down the hall, first right, then second door on your left. Tell them I sent you.

So you want to be here all alone? is that your mission?

Must reply to every post and every reply that shows up here?

Ever go to a party, try to talk to someone and someone else barges in, opens his mouth and talks nonstop until he's alone in a corner? Whatta jerk...

---

Unpaid Social Liaison



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2006 06:12PM by mick e.

First you supposedly stand up for the kids getting killed and maimed, then you claim they know what they are doing and are re upping and are murderers, then you defend the islamists when they kill americans, then you are against them but only in afghanistan where we are. YOU ARE CLEARLY INSANE!!!!!!!!!!! And I don't mean in the Crazy Eddie sense of the word.

---

For the record, Crazy Eddie was never actually diagnosed as insane, only his prices were.

If nothing else, I am a Crusader for Truth®.

Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You also neglect to mention the over 100,000 - 500,000 Iraqis ...

With such specificity, how can one argue?

Has the number of Iraqis that would have been raped, tortured, and/or killed by Saddam's regime been subtracted from that number or not?

How were those numbers calculated?

At least this site details EXACTLY how they reach their numbers, which, as it happens, is about 1/3 as large as your "minimum".

- Shadow



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2006 12:13PM by shadow.

The Lancet estimated 100,000 Iraqis lost their lives as the result of our invasion. Other sources extend that number up to half a million.

Iraq Body Count only references those deaths we have death certificates for, not those buried in backyards or soccer fields or otherwise unaccounted for officially. Saddam killed tens of thousands, but that doesn't excuse us doing the same.

Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Lancet estimated 100,000 Iraqis lost their
> lives as the result of our invasion.

And? I can estimate a lot of things, doesn't mean I'll be right.

They polled 1000 households from heavy violence areas and then extrapolated the rest of the country from there. That's MORE biased than extrapolating the US murder rate from, say, Dallas - which, in fact, would "only" be 3 times higher than the actual murder rate.

> Other sources
> extend that number up to half a million.

Let me guess. You read that on the Intarweb... perhaps you want to back that up with a source that lists their methodology?

> Iraq Body Count only references those deaths we
> have death certificates for, not those buried in
> backyards or soccer fields or otherwise
> unaccounted for officially.

You didn't actually read the site, did you? If you did, you would know your statement is patently false. Heck, several of the recent additions were from bodies found in "backyards and soccer fields".

> Saddam killed tens of
> thousands, but that doesn't excuse us doing the
> same.

I'm not looking for excuses, I'm just pointing out that people like yourself will only present information that supports your agenda.

Have Iraqi civilians died because of the US-led invasion? Yes.
Would Iraqis continue to have been killed by Saddam's regime if not for the invasion? Absolutely.

If you want to use Iraqi civilian deaths at a justification metric, leaving out such pertinent and obvious data only goes to show a propensity toward "stacking the deck".

It's a pitty, really. What we need today are well-formulated and thought-out discussions, not hyperbole and slight-of-hand. This goes for both "sides" of the issue. The more people pick-and-choose what they want to hear, the greater the wedge will be in this great nation of ours.

- Shadow

shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have Iraqi civilians died because of the US-led
> invasion? Yes.
> Would Iraqis continue to have been killed by
> Saddam's regime if not for the invasion?
> Absolutely.

So we could have at least saved the $300 billion and 2,320 American lives lost so far if we had stayed home? That's good enough for me. It doesn't matter to those tens of thousands confirmed dead whether they were killed by Saddam or by us - they're still dead. Get it?

shadow Wrote:

> And? I can estimate a lot of things, doesn't mean
> I'll be right.
>
> They polled 1000 households from heavy violence
> areas and then extrapolated the rest of the
> country from there. That's MORE biased than
> extrapolating the US murder rate from, say, Dallas
> - which, in fact, would "only" be 3 times higher
> than the actual murder rate.
>

Actually, the Lancet study use exactly the same cluster sampling methodology employed to estimate the number of dead after any catastrophic event (like a Hurricane or a Tsunami), No one has been able to fault their methods, or their conclusions (and LOTS of people have tired).

There was a lot of noise about the width of the confidence interval, mostly from folks who didn't understand the statistics.

The bias in the sampling method was to err on the side of lower excess mortality by excluding regions with the most intense ongoing hostilities (Falujah, for instance).

The biggest problem with the Lancet number is that it is now terribly out of date.

>
> You didn't actually read the site, did you? If you
> did, you would know your statement is patently
> false. Heck, several of the recent additions were
> from bodies found in "backyards and soccer
> fields".

IBC numbers are compiled form news reports. They require two independent reports of a casualty figure before they add it to the body count. This method is more likely to undercount than to overcount.

> Have Iraqi civilians died because of the US-led
> invasion? Yes.
> Would Iraqis continue to have been killed by
> Saddam's regime if not for the invasion?
> Absolutely.
>
> If you want to use Iraqi civilian deaths at a
> justification metric, leaving out such pertinent
> and obvious data only goes to show a propensity
> toward "stacking the deck".

Your argument assumes two things:

1) That it is better for Iraqis to be killed, or to be imprisoned and tortured, by US forces than by Saddam's regime.

2) That congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq to stop the human rights abuses of Saddam's regime.

[www.whitehouse.gov]

Regarding the first assumption -- from the point of view of the Iraqis being killed or tortured, it probably doesn't make much difference. From the point of view of a United States citizen, however, the loss of innocent life and the defiance of international treaties with regard to indefinite detentions and treatment of prisoners at the hands of US troops is a very big deal. It doesn't matter if they have killed and tortured fewer Iraqi's than Saddam.

Regarding the second assumption, you will see that the AUMF in Iraq makes only a second-hand reference to the human rights situation in Iraq, by way of the IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998

[www.milnet.com]

Which, itself, specifically excludes the use of US military force to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam.

In short, while the US occupation may not be -- by some measure -- "as bad as" Saddam, it is bad enough. And, the shifting justifications offered by the Bush administration notwithstanding, the invasion was authorized to make the US more secure, not to liberate the people of Iraq.

As they say on Law and Order -- intent follows the bullet. It does not matter if the people of Iraq would have been dying at a higher, or lower, rate under Saddam than under the US occupation. They are dying now, at our hands. which makes it our fault -- and the past, or projected, actions of Saddam have exactly no bearing on our responsibility for the loss of innocent life since the occupation began.

"American Deaths over the Last Three Years Put in Perspective
Posted by: cassie (IP Logged) [Ignore]
Date: March 22, 2006 09:42AM

American Deaths over the Last Three Years Put in Perspective:

• Auto Accidents: 120,000
• Falling Down: 45,000
• Poisoning: 27,000
• Drowning: 12,000
• War in Iraq: 2,300"

Then, why don't you jump off a bridge? That would just be one death. Do you have any concept what one death does to a family? The whole premise of your post is idiotic.