blacklabman
Well-Known Member
I would much prefer to keep a count of the Islamofacists (aka terrorists) that have been killed.
oldman
Lobster Land
somdebay said:
I feel for the families as well but we have keep things in perspective. There is a war going on over there and deaths do go along with any war ever fought. Maybe a more interesting stat would be how many murders have happened in Maryland and DC over the same timeframe?
S
somdebay
Guest
oldman said:
Maryland
2003 525
2004 521
2005 522
DC
2003 249
2004 222
2005 195
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
click on the states in the yellow to see all stats.
ylexot
Super Genius
No war is good. Every war results in deaths on all sides. But if the pantywaist liberals had seen the instant reports from the field on D-day, we would all speak German and live under a flag with a swastika on it. I feel sorry for every death and injury, but in the light of true perspective on wars past, the losses to U.S. troops in deaths and non-deaths is infinitesimal to those lost in any of WW I, WW II, Korea, and Vietnam taken individually. It the Democrats have their way in Iraq, it will be our next Vietnam. You cannot fight a war half way. Either fight it or don't, but half way measures created by a bunch of rules imposed by politicians will kill more and do less. U.S. troops have never lost a battle in Iraq. The only thing the U.S. has lost is the public relations battle in the U.S. press.
We have freedom of the press in the U.S., but there is no such freedom guaranteed overseas. I'm all for tossing all the reporters out of Iraq. Reporters only report the sensational stories that suit their own agenda anyway. Truth in the press is virtually nonexistent.
We have freedom of the press in the U.S., but there is no such freedom guaranteed overseas. I'm all for tossing all the reporters out of Iraq. Reporters only report the sensational stories that suit their own agenda anyway. Truth in the press is virtually nonexistent.
MMDad
Lem Putt
somdebay said:
Why do you feel bad about 3,000? Why didn't you feel bad about 2,763? Is it only because the press is publicizing 3,000? If you honestly feel bad about every life that is lost there, why do you only mourn when it hits a multiple of 1,000? Shouldn't you be mourning every day?
Richard Cranium
New Member
blacklabman said:
To date, only a handful of Israelis have been killed as a result of the US invading/conquering Iraq for them.
Richard Cranium
New Member
What's wrong? You don't like it when I call out the true terrorists?
You need a
if you honestly believe they have nothing to do with it.
I would only hope that, since Saddam was hung, that Ehud Olmert receive the same for his crimes against the Lebanese and Palestinians.
You need a
if you honestly believe they have nothing to do with it.I would only hope that, since Saddam was hung, that Ehud Olmert receive the same for his crimes against the Lebanese and Palestinians.
truby20
Fighting like a girl
somdebay said:
And to put these number into perspective:
Currently there are 134,000 American troops in Iraq
While MD has 5.6 million people living here and DC 550,000.
So deaths per 100,000:
MD: 0.28
DC: 1.21
Iraq: 22.39
The rate in Iraq is 18 times what it is in DC and 80 times what it is in Maryland. And of course those Iraq numbers do not include civilians, although I doubt their murder rate would be as high as it is for our troops.
If you believe that, then you need to take a remedial world history class.Richard Cranium said:
Actually, Iraqi "insurgents" have killed more Iraqi civilians than they've killed US military personnel.truby20 said:
As far as your numbers go, percentage of a whole is always more honest than a simple count, so you're correct in putting it the way you did. So let's apply that technique to determine the percentage of troops in Iraq that have lost their lives, and see what the odds of survival are.
I suck at math, but it appears to me that if 3,000 out of 134,000 die, that's slightly more than 2%. So you have not quite a 98% chance of coming back alive if you are a soldier stationed in Iraq.
Those are pretty good odds, I'd say.
That's okay - I suck at math so bad that I didn't even notice.truby20 said:
But you are using facts correctly. You can't expect a lib to do that.MMDad said:
Any war is bad, but 585 deaths per 100,000 per year for a war is a very low rate.
Last edited: