The Nissan Club banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Smell it, fools...
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Why is the liberal media jumping on the "1000 deaths milestone"? Why is 1000 a milestone anyway? Is 1000 more important than 100? or 500?

I decided to go take a look at US casualties over time just to see if 1000 deaths is anything special. Here's what I found:

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf

From 1980 to 1995 we had 1000+ casualties EVERY YEAR... Why is it such an outrage now?

in 96 we had 974, 97 we had 817, 98 we had 826, 99 we had 795 and so on...

It seems the democrats are not outraged about the deaths, but about where the deaths are occurring.
 
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
The press sucks balls
 

·
I don't care
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
PsyKoh said:
From 1980 to 1995 we had 1000+ casualties EVERY YEAR... Why is it such an outrage now?
It's an outrage now because instead of going stop aggression we went in and started it. So in a sense, these deaths are the fault of the US.

This is funny because I'm reading this book right now (I just put it down).



Maybe when I'm done I can tell you if this war in Iraq is just or not. :D
 
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
^Homogay.
 

·
Smell it, fools...
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Ben said:
It's an outrage now because instead of going stop aggression we went in and started it. So in a sense, these deaths are the fault of the US.

You're right... How could I forget. Saddam was so nice to his people and had nothing but best wishes for the US and actually condemned Hamaz suicide attacks... He even invited weapons inspectors to manage the destruction of his WMDs.

The US is such a mean superpower. Bad USA, bad USA!!!!

:rolleyes:
 

·
I don't care
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
Also, I think you may have read the graph wrong. It seems to me that the 1,000 would go in the "Hostile Action" part and which hasn't been over 150 in that chart. I think you were wrong to compare the 1,000 deaths number to the Total deaths listed there because that also counts things like illness and accidents.

(seems like the terrorist attack part fits into this somehow too)
 

·
Resistance is futile
Joined
·
3,202 Posts
Well, while that is very true, the 1000 the Dems are harping on are the Iraq deaths, and are over and above the ordinary annual numbers that are almost always unrelated to actual military engagement.
They know a large chunk of the American voting public have no recollection of the Vietnam conflict. It has probably been 30 years since there were several hundred deaths in a year that could go in the "hostile" column on that website.
They hope that Americans don't have the will to see it through. Backing out now would be worse than never having gone in.
 

·
I don't care
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
kierandill said:
Well, while that is very true, the 1000 the Dems are harping on are the Iraq deaths, and are over and above the ordinary annual numbers that are almost always unrelated to actual military engagement.
They know a large chunk of the American voting public have no recollection of the Vietnam conflict. It has probably been 30 years since there were several hundred deaths in a year that could go in the "hostile" column on that website.
They hope that Americans don't have the will to see it through. Backing out now would be worse than never having gone in.
I'm not surprised by the number of deaths but I think many people thought that this was going to be more like Dessert Storm. Pulling out would cause a new set of problems luckily the candidates seem to have the same plan for how to handle Iraq.
 

·
Smell it, fools...
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Ben said:
Also, I think you may have read the graph wrong. It seems to me that the 1,000 would go in the "Hostile Action" part and which hasn't been over 150 in that chart. I think you were wrong to compare the 1,000 deaths number to the Total deaths listed there because that also counts things like illness and accidents.

(seems like the terrorist attack part fits into this somehow too)
"The 1,002 figure includes deaths from hostile and non-hostile causes since the United States launched the Iraq campaign in March 2003 to topple Saddam's regime."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040908/D84V554G0.html
 

·
I don't care
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
PsyKoh said:
"The 1,002 figure includes deaths from hostile and non-hostile causes since the United States launched the Iraq campaign in March 2003 to topple Saddam's regime."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040908/D84V554G0.html
First I'll note that this is how many died as a result of this war in Iraq so your comparison is flawed. Secondly, from the first sentence of that article
U.S. military deaths in the Iraq campaign passed the 1,000 milestone Tuesday, with more than 800 of them during the stubborn insurgency that flared after the Americans brought down Saddam Hussein and President Bush declared major combat over.
that shows that more than 800 deaths during that period (starting around March 2003) are a result of Hostile Actions and Terrorism. That means that there should be a large spike in a graph that shows deaths related to those in the last two years.

That large difference from the norm makes this a big deal and not typical amounts of military deaths.
 

·
Smell it, fools...
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Ben said:
Secondly, from the first sentence of that articlethat shows that more than 800 deaths during that period (starting around March 2003) are a result of Hostile Actions and Terrorism. That means that there should be a large spike in a graph that shows deaths related to those in the last two years.

That large difference from the norm makes this a big deal and not typical amounts of military deaths.
It says that the deaths occurred during the time of the insurgency, not by the insurgents.
 

·
Fibre Customs
Joined
·
14,959 Posts
Democrats could find a way to complain about anything....if we only had 1 soldier die, they complain we didn't have enough being killed...as rediculous as that sounds the Dems would not surprise me. :rolleyes:
 

·
Smell it, fools...
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Anyone remember the begining of the war?

"Our soldiers are going to have many obstacles. One of them being the desert heat and Saddam's forces' proficiency in desert war."

We beat the crap out of them. Then...

"Our sodiers did very well, but now they have to go inside bagdad, where Saddam's elite forces will ambush them and casualties will skyrocket because of the urban war."

We beat the crap out of them. Now...

"The insurgents (read: terrorist from other countries and some saddam loyalists) are turning the country into a chaos zone and it seems our forces will not be able to secure peace."

:rolleyes:
 

·
Smell it, fools...
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
Discussion Starter #18

·
Smell it, fools...
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Of course not....

These deaths are a big deal because it's an election year. Plain and simple.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top