Iraq Statistics from Idaho Observer

[rtm]

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030404.htm

From the April 2003 Idaho Observer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the numbers: Putting the Iraq war into perspective

There are so many indications this war is an abomination; the world is getting very angry at the Ceasarian/Napoleanic/Hitlerian/Stalinist manner in which the U.S. is handling its foreign affairs; the Iraqis do not want us in their country and; the Iraqis were obviously no threat to U.S. security and have no “weapons of mass destruction.”

Why must the U.S. continue its agression if none of the excuses for being there hold any water? We have answered those questions already. The following numbers, most of them published recently in the Toronto Star, make this abomination more abominable, if that's possible.

77: Percentage of Americans who support military action against any country believed to be linked to 9/11 terrorist attacks.

69: In a 2002 poll, percentage of Americans who said they believe Iraq has nuclear weapons.

0: Number of nuclear warheads in Iraq.

53.9: Estimated percentage of U.S. troops over the age of 20 deemed to be overweight by federal obesity standards.

$850 billion: Estimated military spending in the world in 2002.

50: Percentage spent by U.S.

0.0015: Percentage spent by Iraq.

50 percent: Spending increase on U.S. national defense projected between 2000 and 2007.

320 metric tonnes: Amount of depleted uranium left in region after 1991 Gulf War.

300,000: Estimated number of U.S. soldiers said to be suffering from Gulf War Syndrome.

700: Between 1991 and 94, percentage increase in cancer rates in Iraq.

1 in 6: Chance the U.S. bombed Iraq on any given day last year.

9: Percentage of U.S. munitions dropped during the first Gulf War that were classified as precision-guided.

75: Percentage used during current war.

98: The “success rate” (percentage of accurate strikes) by Tomahawk cruise missiles as reported during the first Gulf War.

10: Pentagon's estimated “success rate” after the war ended.

$1.3 million: Unit cost of one Tomahawk cruise missile.

725: By April 3, 2003, number of Tomahawks used in Iraq.

6: Of the 10-member commission created to investigate 9/11, the number who have direct links to the airline industry.

$3 million: Budget given to commission.

$9 billion: Estimated monthly cost for U.S. to sustain war in Iraq.

$100 billion: Estimated cost of Iraq “reconstruction.”

$7.4 billion: Amount U.S. will spend on missile defense R & D this year.

70: The percentage increase in wealth gap between the top 10 per cent of American families with highest incomes and the 20 per cent of families with lowest incomes between 1998 and 2001.

400: Number of French products and companies suggested for boycott on several websites.

18: Number of times France has invoked its veto in United Nations history.

76: Number of times the U.S. has used its veto.

1,200: Number of American historians who signed a petition last year demanding the Bush administration respect the U.S. Constitution with respect to declaration of war.

54 to 67: By 2020, estimated percentage of crude oil that will come from Persian Gulf.

2: Iraq's ranking of proven oil reserves, among all countries.

6: Percentage of the world's population living in the U.S.

30: Percentage of the world's energy resources used in the U.S.

89: Percentage of Americans who rely on television as their first source of news during war in Iraq.

92: Between Sept. 14, 2002 and Feb. 7, 2003, percentage of news stories airing on NBC, ABC and CBS that originated directly from White House, Pentagon or State Department.

67: Between March 25 and 27, percentage of U.S. television viewers who said they felt “sad watching the war coverage.”

83: Percentage of U.S. television viewers who say they now want a return to entertainment programming.

236,202: The number of times Osama bin Laden was mentioned in international media reports between Sept. 11, 2001 and Sept. 11, 2002.

57,667: The number of times Osama bin Laden was mentioned between Sept. 11, 2002 and today.

66,648: The number of times Saddam Hussein was mentioned between Sept. 11, 2001 and Sept. 11, 2002.

225,147: The number of times Saddam Hussein was mentioned between Sept. 11, 2002 and today.

Oct. 2, 2002: Date the American Gulf War Veterans Association called for the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after he denied the U.S. sent biological weapons to Iraq during the 1980s.

38: In a 2002 poll, percentage of Americans who said Canada should be annexed.

13: Percentage of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 who could find Iraq on a map prior to the war.

16,000: Number of inactive military ranges in the U.S. with unexploded munitions posing serious environmental hazards.

1.5 million: Number of Internet “hits” the Iraq Body Count Web site has had since the war began.

52: Percentage of these visitors who are from the United States.

50: Percentage of weapons entering the market that come from American firms.

10: Percentage of U.S. military spending that would provide the world'spopulation with basic necessities.

1: Number of countries that have used nuclear weapons against another country.

 

[jimnyc]

One was forgotten:

0: Number of brain cells of the person responsible for importing that article from Toronto.

 

[rtm]

Originally posted by jimnyc
One was forgotten:

0: Number of brain cells of the person responsible for importing that article from Toronto.

0: Number of peaceful thoughts in your republican head

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by rtm
0: Number of peaceful thoughts in your republican head

Educate yourself youngster!

You'll read a lot of articles on this board, and most of them with opposing views. I think something that most can agree on here is that we all just want peace. That includes Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea.

We may disagree on the best way to achieve that, but peace being the common goal.

You may want to read some of the board an get familiar with the posters and their views before you start spouting nonsensical crap at everyone.

 

[rtm]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Educate yourself youngster!

You'll read a lot of articles on this board, and most of them with opposing views. I think something that most can agree on here is that we all just want peace. That includes Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea.

We may disagree on the best way to achieve that, but peace being the common goal.

You may want to read some of the board an get familiar with the posters and their views before you start spouting nonsensical crap at everyone.

I've only read like three threads in total on this message board, and most of the people here are bashing me with "Get out u dumb sand n***er" for posting information, perhaps information that addresses a differerent viewpoint, but information nonetheless. How's that promoting peace and unity?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by rtm
I've only read like three threads in total on this message board, and most of the people here are bashing me with "Get out u dumb sand n***er" for posting information, perhaps information that addresses a differerent viewpoint, but information nonetheless. How's that promoting peace and unity?

Please point me to the post where someone called you what you're referring to.

It's not that you have a different viewpoint, it's the way you express yourself. Respectfully disagreeing and ridiculing/mocking are 2 different things.

 

[eric]

I think he needs to grow up.

 

[eric]

As far as selling fruits, better than the job his father holds; Camel shit cleaning boy! Ahmed come here right now, the camel had too many beers!

 

[janeeng]

I think I could use a few beers right about now!

 

[dijetlo]

Hate to be the voice of desent but

>>0: Number of brain cells of the person responsible for importing that article from Toronto.<<

Seemed a little harsh. Besides, I know you have better material.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Hate to be the voice of desent but

>>0: Number of brain cells of the person responsible for importing that article from Toronto.<<

Seemed a little harsh. Besides, I know you have better material.

I hope you followed the link he provided as well, then you would have saw the article was originally printed in Toronto and re-produced on that website. My reference wasn't to our poster here at all.

 

[SLClemens]

I first read this in the Toronto Star, and have seen it posted in quite a few places. Why would it be so awful to analyze some of the facts it brings up. If most Americans think that Saddam was behind 9/11 don't we have a pretty major problem here? Do you have any idea what this fact (which has been reported around the world) does for American credibility? It makes the American public look brainwashed and Washington totally manipulative. What country would want to get into an alliance with one like America, knowing this?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
If most Americans think that Saddam was behind 9/11 don't we have a pretty major problem here?

Can you provide a current link to support this statement?

 

[SLClemens]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

This is from a poll taken during the late spring or summer, I believe.

BTW, how funny that to say something disparraging about America one always needs documented proof, but it's platitudinous, of course, that the French are cowardly, Canadians are bleeding-heart whiners, and the Russians are thuggish.

 

[Bry]

jeje. you're making some good points SL.

Welcome to the board.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

This is from a poll taken during the late spring or summer, I believe.

BTW, how funny that to say something disparraging about America one always needs documented proof, but it's platitudinous, of course, that the French are cowardly, Canadians are bleeding-heart whiners, and the Russians are thuggish.

"The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."

Not a very credible sample. I live in a huge metrpolitan area and I don't know a single person that still believes there is a connection. Sure, people thought so shortly after the attacks, but given their history I don't think that was unnatural to think their may have been a connection.

Yes, sometimes documented proof is requested. It lends a bit more credibility to the post. If not, we can all make posts claiming whatever we like.

And the French, Canadians & Russians aren't asking us for proof because we provide our supporting evidence in our initial posts (generally speaking). Other than humor, the posts generally will be about news articles that users have read. They are usually facts, or supporting opinions, and anyone is free to debate the accuracy of the posts.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
"The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."

Not a very credible sample. I live in a huge metrpolitan area and I don't know a single person that still believes there is a connection. Sure, people thought so shortly after the attacks, but given their history I don't think that was unnatural to think their may have been a connection.

Yes, sometimes documented proof is requested. It lends a bit more credibility to the post. If not, we can all make posts claiming whatever we like.

And the French, Canadians & Russians aren't asking us for proof because we provide our supporting evidence in our initial posts (generally speaking). Other than humor, the posts generally will be about news articles that users have read. They are usually facts, or supporting opinions, and anyone is free to debate the accuracy of the posts.

This still leaves us with a majority of Americans as of four months ago, unless this poll had a margin of error of more the 20% - remotely possible, but it was in keeping with a few other polls I saw. Even if just a quarter of Americans believed something so ridiculous it would be appalling. And what are we doing to help dispell this myth? Well, from the above, it looks like we're shooting the messanger. How unpatriotic, ya know, spreading around facts that might get in the way of government plans.

You're implication that there might be a rural-urban divide is an interesting one. I wonder if fears of Saddam being behind 9/11 is really stronger in rural areas, and if support for the invasion was also stronger. I also wonder what percent of the army's footsoldiers come from rural areas.

It's interesting as well to listen to some of the soldiers - the odd time they're allowed to be interviewed - in Iraq when they talk about why they're there. So many of them mention 9/11. And in Kuwait while the troops were massing the camps were called Camps New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. I think the generals know suckers when they see them!

 

[jimnyc]

This still leaves us with a majority of Americans as of four months ago, unless this poll had a margin of error of more the 20% - remotely possible, but it was in keeping with a few other polls I saw. Even if just a quarter of Americans believed something so ridiculous it would be appalling. And what are we doing to help dispell this myth? Well, from the above, it looks like we're shooting the messanger. How unpatriotic, ya know, spreading around facts that might get in the way of government plans.

Who's shooting the messenger? I'd like to see a larger sample, maybe of individual states, before I find it more credible. And I'll agree that they are facts, that 7 out of 10 polled feel Saddam was behind 9/11. It's also a fact that 99.5% of the country isn't accounted for in that poll.

You're implication that there might be a rural-urban divide is an interesting one. I wonder if fears of Saddam being behind 9/11 is really stronger in rural areas, and if support for the invasion was also stronger. I also wonder what percent of the army's footsoldiers come from rural areas.

That's a damn good question, and more than likely true. Although those living in rural areas have means to keep up with today's news, my experience has been that they are more up to date with localized news.

It's interesting as well to listen to some of the soldiers - the odd time they're allowed to be interviewed - in Iraq when they talk about why they're there. So many of them mention 9/11. And in Kuwait while the troops were massing the camps were called Camps New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. I think the generals know suckers when they see them!

I can't debate your comments about those interviews as I haven't read them. The few I read showed they saw their goal as a fight with terrorism. To be fair, I have heard negativity from soldiers about other things, but none yet that showed they thought that's the major reason they are there. Their negative comments had more to do with facilities, R&R, benefits, length of stay...

I personally wouldn't call our soldiers "suckers" I think their some of the most honorable people in the nation. They are simply following orders and doing their jobs. They didn't join the military to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, they did so to defend America, and probably shouldn't be mocked for doing so.

 

[SLClemens]

The soldiers I've met and seen interviewed are quite a diverse lot and yes, it's probably unfair to label them all as "suckers". But some of them most certainly did enlist to fight the war on terror knowing full well there was much talk of going into Iraq. And is for fighting the war on terror, they've just helped take a state that wasn't a terrorist threat to America and turned it into one where Americans die daily from what Bush calls "terrorism". If they think they're really making a contribution to fighting terrorism they're sadly deluded ... or suckers, as I would say.

At any rate, I must be off to church - my handbell choir is doing a special piece for Veterans' Sunday and we really need a pre-service rehersal! Happy Sunday, and God Bless America, Iraq, and everywhere in between.

 

[spillmind]

wow, mark twain, good to have another unbaised voice on the board.

jim may say the credibility needs challenging, but you brought up a good point that he didn't bite off.

This still leaves us with a majority of Americans as of four months ago, unless this poll had a margin of error of more the 20% - remotely possible, but it was in keeping with a few other polls I saw. Even if just a quarter of Americans believed something so ridiculous it would be appalling. And what are we doing to help dispell this myth? Well, from the above, it looks like we're shooting the messanger. How unpatriotic, ya know, spreading around facts that might get in the way of government plans.

it *is* a pretty common poll, and maybe jim has a hard time believing most of those that support his endorsed general agenda aren't fortunate enough to share his intelligence?

for the most part, i believe this post is true, and just yet another illustration of the american public en mass. sad.