That is not what my TV told me last night. It said the 1500 mark shows the insurgents are slowing down and giving up!! That was from pentagon whore DeRita who said that. Natch no one on the TV debunkied his bizarro thinking.
I would be interested in how these numbers stack up to the first 2 years in Vietnam. These may be good hard numbers to use to convince some stubborn, 50 year family members about the evils of this war.
http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-... / This site compares the early years of Vietnam to the Iraq debacle. The Iraq numbers are higher (granted there were less troops in Vietnam in the early years) but what if a regional conflict breaks out. Should the current war in Iraq be a precursor to a regional war, Vietnam will look like a day in the park incomparison.
11. More troops dead in Iraq to date than died during first FIVE YEARS of 'Nam
First 8 MONTHS of Iraq:
U.S. war dead in Iraq exceed early Vietnam years November 2003
More US troops have died in Iraq in the eight months since the US war began than were killed during the first three years of the US war in Vietnam.
A November 13 (2003) Reuters analysis of US defence department statistics showed that in Vietnam the US military had suffered 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964...as of December 1, (2003) 437 US troops have died in Iraq since March 20, when the US invasion began.
They just focus on the end result of Vietnam, 58,000 US dead, and compare that to the "trivial" 1500 US dead in Iraq.
When told the fact that 'Nam went on for over a decade and that Iraq has only been going for 2 years, they do the usual rethuggery of ignoring that fact totally.
Same as the freeping bastards trivialize & denigrate the deaths of our troops by comparing 1500 dead out of 150,000, to the total number of Americans who die in a year in the entire state of 36+ million in California...because California and Iraq are the same size GEOGRAPHICALLY :eyes: No one does TOTAL STUPIDITY like freeping rethugs.
Try using the very same freeping stupid rhetoric on them about the "measly" 2800 deaths on 911 and how so many more Americans died in WWII than on 911 4 years ago so GET OVER IT already and the FACT that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with those 911 deaths in the first place and watch the rethugs shriek and scream and stamp their feet.
its not your son ,daughter ,brother or sister. Or a young child who has never had the oppertunity to even know his own parents ! This whhole thing disgust me beyond words. The way some people talk about these deaths as if there was no soul behind each #. Then to add insult to the whole ugly truth ,to cliam the one responsible is a man of God ,doing the work of the Lord, makes this war even more disgusting. Iam ashamed that at this point in history ,our country is now the aggresser, in a never ending circle of death and destruction. The war pigs now are in control , and I fear there is more death and suffering coming our way. Lets not forget the inocent Iraqie people ,who like us love there children and family members ,and how many have died and suffered because of this unnesassary war ! ITS SICK NicRic
War is war. If this occupation continues, the Iraqi combatants will grow in size and the American deaths will increase. I don't care how the numbers correlates. This graph just shows that over time more resistance from the Iraqis could cause greater death to American soldiers. Also, it shows that many more deaths are on the way if Bush let's this turn into another Vietnam.
When there are MORE troops in-country, there should be LESS deaths, but in Iraq there are more troops than were in 'Nam the first few years and yet MORE deaths.
MORE troops = MORE protection, MORE strength, and LESS DEATHS.
Except in Iraq it doesn't.
The graph shows NUMBER OF TROOPS KILLED. It does not matter if there are 10 troops, 10,000 troops or 100,000 troops in-country; FACT IS more troops have been killed in Iraq in the past 2 years than were killed in 'Nam in the first 6 years.
The graph is comparing ONE DEAD BODY to ONE DEAD BODY.
And again, as military people know, MORE troops should equal MORE protection, MORE strength, and LESS deaths.
Which is why the military brass said we didn't have enough troops; which is why we've been increasing troop levels.
Or do you think if we only had the 30,000 troops Rumsfailed wanted in Iraq this past year we would have had LESS troops killed?
62. Deaths are INCREASING in Iraq...yet same troop levels for mths now.
Edited on Sun Mar-06-05 09:40 PM by LynnTheDem
There goes your bullshit. ;)
And my "bullshit" as you put it, dear, comes right from US military strategic studies officers (ForceCom). The advantage of being married to the US military. Although really, common sense should have told you that;
2 identical wars; one has less troops, and one has more troops. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the war with LESS TROOPS will have HIGHER CASUALTIES.
In Vietnam we sent more troops BECAUSE WE ESCALATED THE FRIGGING WAR, and that's why we then lost more troops.
Now if you know better how to do it than ForceCom, perhaps you should join the US Military yourself and put them straight! ;)
Washington Post: U.S. Troop Level In Iraq To Grow Deployments Will Be Extended for Elections
By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December 2, 2004
The Pentagon said yesterday that it will boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to about 150,000, the highest level since the U.S. occupation began 19 months ago.
Most of the increase in the troop count -- which now stands at about 138,000 -- will come from the extended deployment of units already there as others arrive. That will keep some troops in Iraq for combat tours of 14 months, beyond the year-long mission that most service members are told to expect, Pentagon officials said.
MORE troops = MORE protection, MORE strength, and LESSmore DEATHS
LynnTheDem wrote: 2 identical wars; one has less troops, and one has more troops. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the war with LESS TROOPS will have HIGHER CASUALTIES.
In Vietnam we sent more troops BECAUSE WE ESCALATED THE FRIGGING WAR, and that's why we then lost more troops.
Yes, when we have two identical wars with all things being equal except troop levels, we can make a useful comparison. (Let me know when that happens, so I don't miss it.) Iraq and Vietnam seem very different to me.
How are you defining escalate? Do you agree that there were more troop deaths in Vietnam when the troop levels were increased? Here is a chart to see what correlation there might be, if any.
41. NPR brought up the fact that improved field medicine has cut deaths
If we had the same level of field medicine today that we had 30 years ago the number of KIAs would probably be more like 5000. The estimate is that up to half of the wounded in Iraq would have died from their wounds in Vietnam. Remember, these are very traumatic wounds caused by IEDs and rocket propelled grenades.
58. re: "NPR brought up the fact that improved field medicine has cut deaths"
Improved medicine has reduced the number of deaths; that means more kids are going home as multiple amputees or quadriplegics. Another factor is body armor which protects area of the vital organs; but, not the arms and legs.
7. Oh, go on....the American public thinks things are much better there now..
if you believe the "polls". :eyes: Yep, 54% think things are getting better and better all the time. Even progressives like Jon Stuart are beginning to drink the Kool-Aid and are thinking bush's ever changing reasons for invading Iraq are bearing fruit!
The propaganda's working on most of them I guess. I think they really, really WANT to believe in their hearts that their pResident isn't a stupid, little, war monkey, but the facts just don't back that up. It's my opinion that you can't force your system of beliefs on people, especially when the backbone of that system is greed.
How many MORE deaths will it take until they realize this "Democratization" of the world is a failed concept? Your guess is as good as mine.
Until then, I'm not drinking ANYTHING the government offers me. I DO hope some good comes out of this debacle, that all of these lives haven't been wasted on the whims of a stupid, little, wannabe cowboy. However, I'm not ready to jump on that rickety band wagon just yet. Things have to drastically change before that happens.
12. The rate of amputations has doubled and replaced the Vietnam
number of dead; ie troops who would have died from their injuries during 'Nam are now "alive" due to advances in medical technology, ability in Iraq to get troops faster to medical care facilities, and better (for those who have any) body armor.
But doctors say the injuries troops are suffering in Iraq are far more horrendous than 'Nam. There are an estimated 2000 US troops now "alive" but brain-dead.
Amputation Rate for US Troops Twice That of Past Wars
US troops injured in Iraq have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars, and as many as 20 percent have suffered head and neck injuries that may require a lifetime of care, according to new data giving the clearest picture yet of the severity of battlefield wounds.
The data are the grisly flip side of improvements in battlefield medicine that have saved many combatants who would have died in the past
Although at least as many US troops have been wounded in combat in the Iraq war as in the first five years of Vietnam, 90% are surviving compared with 76% in Vietnam.
Other experts also have credited superior body armor and equipment for improving combat injury survival. But the survivors often have injuries so severe that their future prospects are uncertain, Gawande writes.
US casualties in Iraq may be suffering a greater share of brain injuries
The war has seen unusually high rates of traumatic brain injury (TBI).
TBI rates in previous wars have been estimated at about 20 percent. In July, a San Francisco Chronicle survey of troops being processed through Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital in Washington DC indicated that as many as two-thirds of all soldiers wounded in Iraq suffer from the condition.
with today's improvements in surgery and rehabilitation, many, many soldiers that would have died in Viet Nam are now kept alive. They're vegetables, their country is turning it's back on them when they return home in a wheelchair, but they're alive. Their former lives will never be regained, they'll have no future except for pain and their wheelchair, but they're alive. In the loosest form of the term.
Many have said that they'd rather have been killed than what faces them in the present and future. But they aren't on the "list" of KIAs, and that's what makes the Army happy.
I'm willing to bet that the KIA numbers would be somewhere around 3,000 or so without today's medical technology, soldiers that would have died in Viet Nam.
I've a friend who got his left hand blown off in Viet Nam. Before he was drafted he was a great musician, organ, piano, drums......he was definitely top of the chart material. Now, not a day goes by that he doesn't wonder what might have been. He curses the day he let them draft him and says he should have gone to Canada. He feels that his loss was for nothing, nothing at all. He works now, at a job that barely pays the bills, spends his free time as an activist, trying to keep other young men from making the same mistake. Many won't listen though, you're bullet proof when you're young. Immortal.
So, yes. Many more are being sent home who would have ordinarily died, but sent home to what?
National Guard troops walk alongside a hearse as they pass outside Morris Elementary School enroute to the church for the funeral of Staff Sgt. David Day, Thursday, March 3, 2005 in Morris, Minn. Day, a Minnesota National guardsmen killed in Iraq (news - web sites), was a police officer in St. Louis Park, Minn. (AP Photo/Jim Mone)
23. Do you suppose U.S. Army Spc. Lizbeth Robles death is counted?
U.S. Army Spc. Lizbeth Robles, 31, of Vega Baja, Puerto Rico is shown in this undated handout photo provided by her family on Wednesday, March 2, 2005. Robles died on Tuesday in an Army hospital in Tikrit, Iraq (news - web sites) from injuries suffered in a vehicle accident this week. She was part of the 360th Transportation Company, in Fort Carson, Colorado. (AP Photo/El Nuevo Dia)
there seem to be an ungodly number of traffic accidents in Iraq. How many of them occur when the driver is going pedal to the metal to get out of an ambush? When the driver is ducking bullets and runs into a wall, so it doesn't count at a 'combat fatality' because it was a wall, not a bullet that gets them?
U.S. Military Personnel who die in German hospitals are not counted in Iraq death totals.
There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded, this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 1,400+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources.
I don't know if the article is true either but I am past trusting ANYTHING official and so anything is possible. The * Administration lies. Period.
Here's what the owner says about himself: "Contrary to the hysterical views of rabid trailer park Bush supporters, I was not suckled by a werewolf and I am not a member of the far left. In point of fact, I am a very disillusioned moderate Republican whose family were bankers, brokers and CEOs of various nice companies."
36. Projection of Casualties to 12/2006 - Line Chart
Edited on Fri Mar-04-05 10:27 AM by LeftHander
Using the data from above I projected a trend line excel with a polynomial projection to 12/2006. It shows the logarithmic scale that the casualty rate is showing. So. If you went out to ten years like the Viet Nam war we could have another 65000 troops killed in a meaningless war.
What is/was the the reason for this war? for these deaths? for these severe injuries? for Iraqi citizen deaths & injuries? for the devastation of this country? What was the reason? I hope & pray someone is held accountable. & Michael Jackson continues to be the headline. Where is the OUTRAGE??!!??
I have come up with 3 projection of how many more day for the next 500 to die. 145 days 242/295=.82 127 days 177/242=.73 113 days 82-73=9 73-9=64 for .64 or in other words 4 to 5 months. _____ I wish I could stop this. We do not need another Vietnam.
The average for the period was about 3/day. The 10 days listed above account for 104 deaths above that average. Averaged out to 3 per day, it should have taken another 35 days to reach 1500 total. This would still be a faster rate (500 deaths in 212 days) than the previous period to reach this mark. So even accounting for those 3 events, your point is correct. Things have gotten worse.
67. Ah yes, the old Democrats hate the military canard
Seems you don't know that you're posting to someone whose brother was in the Marines and is subject to recall. And the OP's husband is currently IN IRAQ. And there are plenty of posters here who are former and current active duty members of the service. But yes, you go on thinking that Dems hate the military. :eyes:
And what branch of service are you in? You haven't volunteered for Iraq yet? Why not? You do realize that they are recalling even certain Navy personnel for service in Iraq, right? So your branch of service is no excuse for not going over there.
You see, I keep asking this of republicans and "independents" who cheerlead for this war because I don't want my brother to have to die in your place. You want it, then you go fight in it. My brother was smart enough to know it was BS from the beginning. Sorry that you can't see that too.
And while I didn't call you a stupid American, I would call you sadly mis/uninformed. Know anything at all about the petrodollar? Or are you just going to bury your head in the sand and avoid the real issues behind the war? Know anything about the UN approval of Iraq switching to the Euro? About OPEC's threats to do the same? About Iran's agreements with the EU? Or Iran's plans to implement its own market for oil sales- which transactions will be made in the Euro? Do a little research into the petrodollar issues before you make assertions of our invasion being for democracy in the Middle East. :eyes:
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.