The journey from there to here

As I roam about the internet, I am often confronted with macabre counters that enumerate the deaths in the Iraq war. Though well intentioned, those counters miss several major points.

As Brad pointed out, the number (2037, according to the most recent list I checked) is over 2 1/2 years since war was declared in Iraq. And, while the death of EVERY soldier matters, it must be placed in context. 6603 American troops lost their lives on a SINGLE DAY on June 6, 1944 (D-Day)...important because we were ALSO involved in a foreign conflict opposed by a strong contingent of US protestors who felt we had no business being there (don't believe me? Google "America First" sometime, an organization that counted no less than Charles Lindbergh among its leaders). 3650 Union soldiers died in a single day at Antietam. 3100 Union soldiers (estimated) in a single day at Gettysburg (for the sake of the Civil War, I only included Union casualties, not out of disrespect for the Confederate deaths but as a buffer to those detractors who would bemoan the fact that my Civil War death count included deaths on BOTH SIDES of the line).

But those numbers, while important to me, pale when compared to another MORE important statistic that doesn't matter to the liberals, a point made by a conservative talk radio host (don't remember which one). The host asked his liberal callers repeatedly to tell him how many had died in Afghanistan. NOt one of them could.

Now, mind you, MOST of these liberals claim to be pacifists. They claim to be against the war, and that we are at war for oil. Afghanistan stands ignored as it is a fly in their ointment, a point at which most of their spurious arguments begin to unravel. It also is an embarassing sticking point as the casualty count (244, for all you numbers geeks) is too low to afford them the dramatic impact of a number that exceeds the number of years since Christ's arrival on this earth.

Add to that the fact that the number includes the TOTAL casualty count, which is just over 400 more than the COMBAT death count of 1634, and thus is irresponsibly inflated. The number 2037 represents TOTAL US troop deaths, which probably includes a couple cases of "Mohammed's revenge" from some bad Kurdish takeout.

I stand united with many Americans in desperately longing to see the day when all of our American troops come home. But I want them to come home as the heroes they ARE, and not the "babykillers" the antiwar movement is fast making them out to be.

And I believe EVERY deaths counts, but that counting numbers is a shameful attempt to manipulate public opinion through irresponsible reporting. Just as numbers related to chickenpox deaths (to sell guess what? chickenpox VACCINE) ignore the remarkably small amount of cases that result in death, the Iraq war casualty numbers ignore the relatively small percentage of combat deaths.

 

 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 04, 2005
>Even if you don't trust the DOD, you can match up national news reports, obituaries, and local news stories. If
>there were 8,000 families missing loved ones while the DOD claimed far less, we would know about it.

thats NONSENSE.
I dare you to try and sort out the news reports, I have tried and after awhile just gave up. Most of the media is in bed
with this administration.

As an example, today, WE have varying numbers today between 2016 dead (so called "official" reports) and some places
reporting as high as 2035.

NONSENSE.

Now you may argue ... that the families of the dead would know ... well I DARE YOU to take a count. Each family may know
but what does one family have to do with another? Secondly there is no THIRD party or independent party keeping count.

DONT EVEN TRY CONTACTING the greiving "families" about tallying counts ...

Trust me we wont know much about this until its over. As is in most things.
on Nov 04, 2005
>The number of fallen Soldiers is not unknowable, nor can it be hidden.

I beg to differ. It maynot be "hidden" in the technical sense. For example if I count "dead in iraq" as EXACTLY that, a
soldier that falls in the field of battle (field of occupation ) then soldiers that die from wounds suffered from that
battle ... on route or in foreign hospitals like Lienstein (I am unsure of the spelling) airbase in Germany dont count.

Lets say
2035 dead IN iraq (soil) 6000+ dead from wounds suffered (even if they died the next day or six months later)

Notice how the Pentagon announces war dead as "2000+" dead IN IRAQ.

After the smoke clears they can claim "we werent technically lying" and they would be right

pat tillman, jessica lynch, wmd, abu ghraib, gassed his own people, niger documents, rape rooms, blah blah blah
ITS ALL LIES
LIES
LIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSS
on Nov 04, 2005
It maynot be "hidden" in the technical sense. For example if I count "dead in iraq" as EXACTLY that, a
soldier that falls in the field of battle (field of occupation ) then soldiers that die from wounds suffered from that
battle ... on route or in foreign hospitals like Lienstein (I am unsure of the spelling) airbase in Germany dont count.

Lets say
2035 dead IN iraq (soil) 6000+ dead from wounds suffered (even if they died the next day or six months later)

Notice how the Pentagon announces war dead as "2000+" dead IN IRAQ.


A few months ago another person made the same accusations about deaths not being counted and I will now repost my reply instead of going through the hoops of rewriting it again.

Posted: Tuesday, August 09, 2005

“Dabe

The death rate of combat wounded is 10%, far lower then the 30% of WWII and 24% of Vietnam. This info comes from the Harvard Gazette:
Link

If you are saying that 9,000 soldier have died outside of Iraq and about only 29% of combat wounded ever even leave Iraq for medical treatment, then that would mean that about 300,000 soldier have been combat wounded of the 1,048,884 soldier who have rotated through Iraq. Link That would be almost a full one third of the soldiers.

Of the four units from my State's National Guard that has served or are serving in Iraq (a total of 434 soldier), only one has been wounded to an IED (sent to Germany) and one died in a roll over accident. Three of these units would be considered high risk units. I guess that some how one third of those soldiers forgot about being wounded. Then lets say ten percent of those wounded (14), standing in the welcome home formation forgot they died of those wounds. Also none of those soldier's families even noticed that they came home in a coffin.

Only 13,189 soldiers have received medical treatment in Iraq for every thing ranging from a John Kerry wound, sick stomach, vehicle accident, or actual combat wound. Link

Take this advice from a soldier who deals with deploying and returning units, not all conspiracy theories are true and this one is very far in left field
on Nov 05, 2005
>Take this advice from a soldier who deals with deploying and returning units, not all conspiracy theories are
>true and this one is very far in left field

But you admit that some conspiracy theories ARE TRUE.

Nevertheless you are a soldier ... you are part of the problem NOT the solution. You are the last person I will take
seriously.
on Nov 05, 2005
>Nevertheless you are a soldier

That statement should have read:
"Nevertheless you are a soldier (in the service of deploying and possibly recruiting units ... I would wager you are well
versed in the art of manipulating numbers to paint a rosy picture ...) ... you are part of ...

well, you know the rest!



on Nov 05, 2005
the CIA was pretty successful in subverting democracy in Guatemala, Chile, etc.


they were pretty successful at selecting the wrong kinda exploding cigars too...but i meant the other kinda success.
on Nov 05, 2005
thats NONSENSE.
I dare you to try and sort out the news reports, I have tried and after awhile just gave up. Most of the media is in bed
with this administration.


NO, you are just plain stupid. YOu were offered a way to verify, instead you beleive unsubstantiated propaganda. You did not leave JU, JU does not have a place for morons and idiots.

Now if you want to be rational. SOrry, wait, that is an oxymoron where you are concerned.
on Nov 05, 2005
But you admit that some conspiracy theories ARE TRUE.


Yea, the ones that say you are being controlled by space aliens! At least they are more plausible than your claptrap.
on Nov 05, 2005

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

This site, a VERY leftist site, puts the MAXIMUM number killed at just over 30K (as LW said). Libs might want to crunch their numbers a bit more.

on Nov 05, 2005

Most of the media is in bed
with this administration.

(chuckle).

You ever think about taking up stand up comedy?

on Nov 05, 2005
Some of you may already know this but I thought Id throw it in:

There is no Al Zaqawi or "Al Queda" in Iraq.
And Bin Laden is dead (and there is STILL NO PROOF that he masterminded 911).

The smart ones among you already know this ... the others ... well, still believe WMD existed
after the inspections and runnup to the 2003 war.

Also the tooth fairy comes at night to swap your teeth for coins
And Santa Claus delivers merry cheer and good tidings and presents at Christmas


on Nov 05, 2005
... an Robios has a brain. ;~D
on Nov 05, 2005
#27 by rombios (Anonymous user)
Saturday, November 05, 2005


Guess we got our spook! Sure dont have no facts! Just the usual ignorant troll!
on Nov 05, 2005
today, afghanistan is well on its way to becoming a rogue nation once again, bin laden is still free, the taliban is reviving itself and sooner rather than later, we're gonna need to go back and try again.


The NATO force that is currently in operation is doing a fantastic, bang-up job at keeping and maintaining the peace in Afghanistan. The Taliban may exist in small pockets, but as they come out of the woodwork they are stamped out like the bugs that they are. From the BBC:

What is the force?

It is called the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). It will be under a UN mandate but the soldiers will not wear blue berets. It will be under British command for three months, after which Britain will hand over to someone else. Who that might be has not been decided.
It will be between 3500 and 5000 strong. Britain will send up to 1500 troops; Germany has offered the same number; France has offered 800; Spain 700.


That was the initial response to the need for peacekeeping in Afghanistan. Since then, according to the Council on Foreign Relations:

To date, 18 countries have troops in the force, including 13 European Union countries, Norway, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and New Zealand. Great Britain turned down offers of troops from Jordan, Malaysia, and Canada.

This peacekeeping force, though authorized by the Security Council, is not officially a U.N. mission. However, in March 2002 the Security Council approved a United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), which will be headed by Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian diplomat and advocate of small-scale peacekeeping projects. Beginning with about 100 international representatives, UNAMA will coordinate relief, reconstruction, and recovery efforts, narcotics control, and other U.N. political activities in Afghanistan.


Just because we don't have Osama in Gitmo doesn't mean that all hell is breaking loose in Afghanistan. Things are progressing well and the democratically elected government is being established. The challenge comes from trying to make the nation transition from a heroin-based economy...

So, Kingbee, before making an off-handed remark about how poorly things are going in Afghanistan, why don't you take five extra seconds to Google "Afghanistan peacekeeping forces" and find out for yourself?
on Nov 06, 2005
So, Kingbee, before making an off-handed remark about how poorly things are going in Afghanistan, why don't you take five extra seconds to Google "Afghanistan peacekeeping forces" and find out for yourself?


thanks for the suggestion.

a little more than five extra seconds researching the situation might have enabled you to discover the un security council's global policy forum report on afghanistan--a much more contemporary assessment than the one you find so comforting--isn't nearly as optimistic.

"The UN also has a political mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) aimed at integrating all UN activities in the country. But Karzai’s authority barely extends beyond Kabul’s suburbs, warlords rule most of the country and opium production flourishes as the nation’s chief economic pillar. Afghanistan remains a “failed state” in spite of NATO and UN presence."

have five extra seconds on me: Link
3 Pages1 2 3