[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by poochee

Statistics don't impress me when people are needlessly dying.

Just more proof that the analysis went over your head. Can you give me an example when people need dying?

[poochee]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Just more proof that the analysis went over your head. Can you give me an example when people need dying?

You're not stupid, you know what I mean.

[poochee]

As of Jan. 15, 2007

US Casualties: 3024
Coalition Causalties: 3276

Total US non-mortal casualties: 47,657!

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

[rob.rice]

as long as it's not there life in question life is cheap to supporters of this war (unless it hasen't been born yet )

[poochee]

As of Jan. 19, 2007

US Casualties: 3025
Coalition Causalties: 3277

Total US non-mortal casualties: 47,657!

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

[combsdon]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Would appear that the analysis went right over your head.

....I thought her chart was related to IRAQ.............

[poochee]

As of Jan. 22, 2007

US Casualties: 3055

Coalition Causalties: 3308

Total US non-mortal casualties: 47,657!

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by poochee

Statistics don't impress me when people are needlessly dying.

You brought up statistics for warfare casualties.

I think gbrumbs analysis was right on the mark.

As wars go, throughout US history, US casualties in Iraq are quite low. But that will never be appreciated by anyone who sees Iraq as an unnecessary conflict, nor by those who wish to effect political change using this war as a platform to do so.

[poochee]

Not interested in statistics about previous wars, I live in 2007.

[rob821]

I assume the author of that piece has volunteered immediately, given that he says its so safe out there.

Strange analysis, he does the 8.26/1000 deaths multiplied by 3.75 to show that the expected number of deaths would be 4645. He then admits that this death rate figure includes seniors, so changes the rate to a more representative 103.6 per 100,000 and shows that the expected deaths in the US would be 585 (equivalent to the number of non-combat deaths). Why doesn't he then say that this shows that including combat deaths, servicemen in Iraq are 4 times more likely to die than their equivalent demographic in the US?

Additionally, his very interesting table of deaths in previous wars takes no account of the number of troops engaged, so is rendered meaningless.

Just goes to show....."There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

[linskyjack]

This is more utter nonsense. Remember when the right wing was comparing deaths in Iraq to traffic fatalities in the US! I guess everyone is suppose to feel good that a fake war has not produced fatality rates that equal unfake wars! Tell that to the families of the lost and maimed. These right wingers are sicker then I thought.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by poochee

Not interested in statistics about previous wars, I live in 2007.

Poochee, this is the same obstinate view you hold with minimum wage. You don't give a damn about people. All you care about is yourself. Seriously, answer these questions honestly.

-Do you not feel that everyone on this planet should be equal?

-That everyone should be free to live life to the best of their ability?

-That the life of an American, Canadian, Brit, Chinese, Iraqi, Aussie, etc is not equal?


You appear to be a democrat, a party that holds equality in such high regard, they'll give the minority the upper hand for balance. If you weren't so hypocritical and blinded by your hatred for Bush and Republicans you'd realize that there is more to the engagement in Iraq than oil and money. You would also be able to comprehend that what the US is doing in Iraq today, is NOT the same thing they started nearly four years ago.

Four years ago, they went in to topple the government, and make Hussein pay for his many crimes. Once that was done...the war was over. Unless you can tell me what country the Coalition is fighting?

The Coalition is there rebuilding a corrupt nation, this isn't like hiring a new manager at the local 7-11. You can't just throw someone in power and walk away with a mere "good luck". The country needs infrastructure, a political system, law enforcement an army, economy, etc... And while the Coalition aids the Iraqi government in trying to put these in place, insurgents/terrorists/criminals are trying to stop the process, they are killing indiscriminately. Women, children, they don't care, they are trying to take power, to once again remove hope from the masses and exert their control in place of the previous regime.

If you were truly honest with yourself, you're realize, while the Coalition is losing some young men and women, they are dieing to make humanity better, to make earth a safer and more just place.

It's not pointless to continue. There are many reasons to continue...so there were no WMD...who cares? Think big picture, think global, think of the future. Would you rather your Grandchildren grow up in a world where Iraq and the middle east is still full of corrupt dictators fostering hatred amongst their people towards the United States and the free world, OR would you rather they grow up in a more peaceful world, where the middle east has started towards peace, and prosperity, and providing a beneficial contribution to humanity?

[poochee]

As of Jan. 25, 2007

US Casualties: 3065

Coalition Causalties: 3318

Total US non-mortal casualties: 47,657!

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

[Gibble]

Nice of you to at least read my post

[poochee]

As of Jan. 28, 2007

US Casualties: 3080

Coalition Causalties: 3333

Total US non-mortal casualties: 47,657!

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/