US death rate worsening

[bamthin]

US death rate worsening
Baghdad
December 30, 2003

Twice as many US soldiers have been killed or wounded in action in the past four months as in the previous four, despite their commanders' claim to have made significant gains against the resistance.

Between September 1 and yesterday 215 were killed, compared with the 65 who died in action in the four months from May 1, when US President George Bush declared an end to major operations. The dramatic rise suggests that Iraqi resistance fighters have become better organised and more skilled. In the figures available on the Pentagon website, those of the US personnel wounded are also telling: 1380 in the past four months, compared with 574 in the four months to September 1.

The growing toll has yet to alter the prevailing sense among Americans that it was right to go to war on Iraq: 59 per cent said the war was worth fighting, according to a Washington Post-ABC television poll this month.

Nevertheless, they are growing weary of casualties, with 64 per cent saying the war had exacted too heavy a toll.


This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/29/1072546470075.html

-Bam

 

[r3volut!on]

And let's not forget the number of wounded soldiers, many of whom are permanently disabled.

The total number of wounded soldiers and medical evacuations from the war in Iraq is nearing 11,000, according to new Pentagon data provided in response to a request from United Press International.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031217-032344-8720r

 

[bushin04]

I've heard that the # of killed suprasses that of the first year of vietnam

 

[r3volut!on]

is that a photo of Bush signing his name on an American Flag?

 

[gertha]

Hey BAM, did you know that over 1500+ people died between Nov. 27 2002 and Jan. 1 2003? These people had not spent months in a war zone, they died as a result of drunk drivers. I haven't heard one politician cry over this. I guess because it would be easier to blame Ted Kennedy than GW.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by gertha
Hey BAM, did you know that over 1500+ people died between Nov. 27 2002 and Jan. 1 2003? These people had not spent months in a war zone, they died as a result of drunk drivers. I haven't heard one politician cry over this. I guess because it would be easier to blame Ted Kennedy than GW.

Yes, I agree that's a problem. Too bad our President is unqualified to address that either....

WEST ALLIS, Wisconsin -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush acknowledged Thursday that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

LINK



-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Yes, I agree that's a problem. Too bad our President is unqualified to address that either....

What disqualifies him? Committing a crime 30 years ago makes it impossible for him to judge right from wrong?

 

[gertha]

You've avoided my question.

Where are the tears for the sensless deaths in a non-war zone (triple that of how many months in Iraq)? Dean ignored it like a security report at a nuclear facility. It is unfortunate that the civilians and soldiers died to free Iraq, but there is no dispute about the greater good of man-kind.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
What disqualifies him? Committing a crime 30 years ago makes it impossible for him to judge right from wrong?

Well, when you consider that he lied about it during his campaign and that he lied in court in an effort to get his suspended license back (and then he kept drinking for eight more years). I would think even you can detect he may not be sensitive to the issue.

Look at it this way, would you trust Saddam to correct international human rights violations?

In my opinion, Bush has no qualifications to fix this problem. Did you know that his Texas driving record has been erased and is not available? Hmmmm....


-Bam

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by gertha
You've avoided my question.

Where are the tears for the sensless deaths in a non-war zone (triple that of how many months in Iraq)? Dean ignored it like a security report at a nuclear facility. It is unfortunate that the civilians and soldiers died to free Iraq, but there is no dispute about the greater good of man-kind.

I didn't avoid your question. Your question makes no sense. What does drunk driving fatalities have to do with the deaths in Iraq? You added the Kennedy/GW line to end your post. You certainly shouldn't have based on the fact that Bush is a convicted drunk driver. Kind of makes it look like you didn't even know that?

I guess I could bitch about drunk driving fatalities here but the name of the forum is "War in Iraq", maybe you didn't know that either?

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Why did you bring up GW on the drunk driving issue anyway? The laws and punishments are going to be established state by state, not by the President. Is it just that you couldn't pass up on an opportunity to bash Bush again?

So how about we look at it realistically then. Show us what it is that needs fixing that he isn't addressing pertaining to drunk driving. Cite the bills/laws that he has been involved in that backs up your claims. Has he vetoed something that would have helped? Has he enforced something helping the drunks? I'm trying to understand your thinking here and how you somehow hold him accountable for drunk driving deaths and/or the inability to reduce it.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Why did you bring up GW on the drunk driving issue anyway?

I was simply responding to someone else who brought it up and brought up GW and Kennedy.

Originally posted by gertha
I guess because it would be easier to blame Ted Kennedy than GW.

Talk to gertha about it....



-Bam

 

[gertha]

Originally posted by bamthin
Well, when you consider that he lied about it during his campaign and that he lied in court in an effort to get his suspended license back (and then he kept drinking for eight more years). I would think even you can detect he may not be sensitive to the issue.

Look at it this way, would you trust Saddam to correct international human rights violations?

In my opinion, Bush has no qualifications to fix this problem. Did you know that his Texas driving record has been erased and is not available? Hmmmm....


-Bam

Hey Bam! I give you credit. You follow the "Democrats for Dummies", written by James Carville, very well. I have this to say, bahhhhhhh. Freakin' sheep.

My analogy (look it up) was merely to expose the rediculous complaining of the likes of you, (hack wheeze) sir. I in NO WAY desired a debate over DWI, I was merely trying to compare death to... death, and the political actions taken by the talking heads. Obviously you read that chapter on "when you have no argument, confuse the subject". More people in America die by drunk drivers, BUT we must chastise our President for liberating a country from a menace. I'll tell you what, we'll start a web site gathering petition sigs to make you Saddam's prison bitch. Obviously, you feel more for him, than you do for the thousands that have died by his hand, or because of his decisions.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by gertha
Hey Bam! I give you credit. You follow the "Democrats for Dummies", written by James Carville, very well. I have this to say, bahhhhhhh. Freakin' sheep.

My analogy (look it up) was merely to expose the rediculous complaining of the likes of you, (hack wheeze) sir. I in NO WAY desired a debate over DWI, I was merely trying to compare death to... death, and the political actions taken by the talking heads. Obviously you read that chapter on "when you have no argument, confuse the subject". More people in America die by drunk drivers, BUT we must chastise our President for liberating a country from a menace. I'll tell you what, we'll start a web site gathering petition sigs to make you Saddam's prison bitch. Obviously, you feel more for him, than you do for the thousands that have died by his hand, or because of his decisions.

You had no argument, so you tried to confuse the subject by diverting attention to DWIs and making an innuendo about Kennedy. I thought it was funny because Bush is a convicted drunk driver and you didn't know it. If you did, you wouldn't have made the Kennedy innuendo.

People die everyday by accident. Drunk driving fatalities are accidents committed by stupid people who don't have sense enough to stay away from a vehicle when they are intoxicated. US service casualties in Iraq, are by and large, not accidents. There was a conscious decision made to put these citizens in harm's way. If you can't see the difference between the two subsets, I am not sure I can explain it any better.

As far as Saddam goes, I just think that if the Iraqi people wanted to get rid of him, that was there choice. It seems the "rugged individualism" argument is out the window for the Republicans when it comes to the Iraqis. I thought you guys think that people should get off their asses and help themselves.

Seems a little hypocritical if you ask me....



PS: "My analogy (look it up) was merely to expose the rediculous complaining of the likes of you, (hack wheeze) sir."




PSS:

-Bam

 

[eric]

As far as Saddam goes, I just think that if the Iraqi people wanted to get rid of him, that was there choice. It seems the "rugged individualism" argument is out the window for the Republicans when it comes to the Iraqis. I thought you guys think that people should get off their asses and help themselves.

Talk about a silly argument, come on give me a break. We are not talking here about personal responsiblity and people helping themselves. Tell me how these people could have done that, by revolting against a brutal regime. This comment really does show your lack of any common sense. Why not take a hard look at China when the students tried to do just that. Iran is another one that comes to mind, as well as Nazi Germany, where my family was during WWII. They hated Hitler, tell me what they should have done, considering Hitler killed more Germans than Jews.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by bamthin
US service casualties in Iraq, are by and large, not accidents. There was a conscious decision made to put these citizens in harm's way. If you can't see the difference between the two subsets, I am not sure I can explain it any better.

If I am not mistaken, most, if not all, reports of injuries and deaths with the services are due to non-combat related occurrences. So, the fact that they occurred during combat related times doesn't counter your argument that accidental death is not as significant as in-combat death. Death is death- do you think the parents of the military dead would rather they have died in a drunk driving crash. One death meant something, one didn't.

I have a son...I'd much rather his death be of significance.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Moi
If I am not mistaken, most, if not all, reports of injuries and deaths with the services are due to non-combat related occurrences. So, the fact that they occurred during combat related times doesn't counter your argument that accidental death is not as significant as in-combat death. Death is death- do you think the parents of the military dead would rather they have died in a drunk driving crash. One death meant something, one didn't.

I have a son...I'd much rather his death be of significance.

You are mistaken. 331 of the 485 deaths in Iraq are combat related and a result of hostile fire.

The facts



-Bam

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by bamthin
You are mistaken. 331 of the 485 deaths in Iraq are combat related and a result of hostile fire.

The facts



-Bam

I said injuries and deaths...not just deaths. And, I've found at least 10 sources on the internet that disagree with the numbers you posted. I'm not saying that your numbers are wrong, but it just proves how inaccurate the numbers out there are and how different sources can twist the statistics to suit their aims.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by eric
Talk about a silly argument, come on give me a break. We are not talking here about personal responsiblity and people helping themselves. Tell me how these people could have done that, by revolting against a brutal regime. This comment really does show your lack of any common sense. Why not take a hard look at China when the students tried to do just that. Iran is another one that comes to mind, as well as Nazi Germany, where my family was during WWII. They hated Hitler, tell me what they should have done, considering Hitler killed more Germans than Jews.

Hey, revolution takes time. The uprising of the students in China really helped in China and that country is really starting to convert to capitalism more and more everyday. They are experimenting with private property. The Iranian student uprisngs have been very succesful and have made great progress in turning things around there. Lest we forget, the Iranians revolted and expelled the Shah a few decades ago. Hell, even the French revolted and took control of their liberty and freedom. I think Hitler was democratically elected. I *thought* he had pretty decent support. Are you saying that the majority of the Germans under Hitler didn't like him? Do you have any evidence of this? I am not saying you're wrong, just I always was taught and beleived that Hitler had a pretty decent following.

The best freedom is the one you earn yourself in my opinion.

History has shown, time and again, that the dictators and tyrants don't last forever. The people take matters into their own hands when it gets bad enough.

-Bam

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by bamthin
History has shown, time and again, that the dictators and tyrants don't last forever. The people take matters into their own hands when it gets bad enough.

-Bam

That's certainly true enough. However, I offer this set of circumstances: If your next door neighbor beat their kids day in and day out, tortured them, even killed a few of them, would you just sit there and watch? Sadly, I would bet that the overwhelming majority of people would. Isn't it the courageous who act to stop it?

Listen, I think there is validity on both sides of the argument of whether the reasons we went to war are compelling or will prove true. I just happen to believe that they are compelling enough...for me. I can't say that people are wrong for believing the opposite I just don't agree with them.