Occupation death toll of U.S. troops equal to that of war

[Defiant]

I am just curious, I saw on the news last night that on average we are losing 1.2 souls/day in Iraq but in California we are losing 6.6 souls/day.
Mobius in your good conscience, why don't you do a thread on the 6.6 souls/day lost in California.

[Kuciwalker]

We should pull out of California.

[Defiant]

Now there is an idea. Betcha, Davis would like to think that route.

[Defiant]

Hell, when you think about it, our soldiers are probably safer in Iraq then California.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, we should have pulled out of Florida

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Defiant
I am just curious, I saw on the news last night that on average we are losing 1.2 souls/day in Iraq but in California we are losing 6.6 souls/day.
Mobius in your good conscience, why don't you do a thread on the 6.6 souls/day lost in California.

Because no one cares about California.

You know I can't wait until there are 100 soldiers dying every day and the Conservative numbskulls start saying, "Well more people die in Pennsylvania every day".

No integrity or credibility, that's your problem.

[Kuciwalker]

If the one per day has stayed relatively constant, why would you think it would change?

[Defiant]

Agathon,
What if a asteroid hit the earth and we all die, 100/day, what do you base that on, dumbass, rediculous argument.
Here is one for you, we do nothing and they load up a whole lot more planes and we lose thousands more, anything possible in "what if" scenarios.

[SlowwHand]

Stop the war because of casualties.

More people killed every day in auto accidents than the total in this war.
Ban cars.

[MikeH]

YEAH! Ban cars!

[Alexander's Horse]

Re: Re: Occupation death toll of U.S. troops equal to that of war

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Most of the post-May 1 fatalities have been non-combat related. Vehicle accidents, a couple of illness and heat casualties, some ordnance disposal accidents, etc. **** happens on extended deployments, even without the added combat and booby traps from the *******s. If it was easy, then civilians would do it.

That's an interesting point - I saw the full list of causes of Australian deaths in Vietnam. Only about a third to half were directly combat related. The rest were deaths from disease or accidents.

[SlowwHand]

More fat slobs die of congestive heart failure.
Ban damn McDonald's.

[Defiant]

That's also a point, if you take the 150M troops that we have there and brought them home and tag them and watch, I'll bet you will lose some through natural occurances and accidents. I don't know number but that has to be offset by the 1.2/day lost souls.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant
Hell, when you think about it, our soldiers are probably safer in Iraq then California.

Compare the number of people in California to the number of soldiers in Iraq. According to the numbers I've seen in this thread... 1.2 Americans dying in Iraq per day... 6.6 dying in California per day... except there are only about 200k Americans in Iraq compared to what, 30 million in California? In California numbers... there are 150 people dying per day compared to 6.6...

[Alexander's Horse]

My cousin was a chaplain in Vietnam. He told me about one incident where some dozy digger got a grenade caught in his webbing and the pin fell out. The grenade killed several soldiers in the back of the truck he was travelling in. All pretty pointless tragedy.

Another soldier got run over by his own tank

Be aware armies usually don't list suicides as suicides.