US deaths in Iraq pass 2000

[Patroklos]

About a quarter to one third of our dead in Vietnam weren't actually killed in battle.

Proof?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Cite? Where's the thread?

It's in here somewhere...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
AH:

IIRC you are / were in the military.
Do you really think that smiley is appropriate?

He's used that exact same smilie in his posts for the last 5 years, regardless of their content.

[MOBIUS]

We could always do some more preditions by extrapolating the ratio of average casualties per month with the date outlined for the US exit strategy...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
It's in here somewhere...

Then you should post a link if you expect us to believe you. It's not our job to back up your claims.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
We could always do some more preditions by extrapolating the ratio of average casualties per month with the date outlined for the US exit strategy...

Which would be useless since presumably we'd leave once the situation is more under control, which would imply a drop in the casualty rate.

[Drake Tungsten]

Interesting piece I stumbled on...

Of course, there is a clear moral difference between "ordinary" deaths and military deaths in war. So let us draw a comparison to the statistics on American military fatalities in modern wars. According to a site that tracks such information, the fatalities rates, including killed-in-action and non-battle deaths, were:

For World War I, over 6,100 per month.
For World War II, over 9,200 per month.
In Korea, over 900 were killed each month (non-battle death information is not available).
For Vietnam, over 600 per month.
For Gulf War I, almost 300 in one month.

The first Gulf War was noted for its remarkably low casualties. Some even observed that the death rate for the deployed American military personnel was lower then than that during peacetime, making it "safer to be at war than at home" for the soldiers. In comparison, an average of 53 died each month in this war.

http://www.rosenblog.com/2004/05/29/us_deaths_in_iraq_a_historical_perspective.html

More at the link. It's a bit old, but the basic point still stands.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


One of the most heroic battles in history. The Spartans were outnumbered, by some accounts on the high end, 1,000,000 to about 300. Others have it at 250,000 Persians against 300 Spartans and 1,500 allies. The odds seem pretty ridiculous either way.

The Spartans held until a local Greek traitor showed the Persians a path thru the mountains around the Spartan line. Are Persians Wolverines?

While the 300 Spartans were eventually defeated due to the traitor, most accounts have them kiling 100,000 - 250,000 enemy soldiers including the infamous "immortals"

Anyways the 300 Spartans held long enough to secure a Greek victory in the battle, the future development of Greek culture and most importantly, the end of the Persian military threat.

Now tell me, what better team mascot is there than t Spartans?

GO STATE!

[DanS]

The big problem that I have with these figures is that we should have been better prepared technologically for IEDs and other low tech weapons and methods. Our gee whiz technology cupboard was bare. The WaPo reports that about half of the fatalities were due to IEDs.

We're starting to address this technologically, but we're about 1,000 deaths too late.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin


When was the last time the US bombed anything in Iraq? It would certainly be a very uncommon event.

Last week or something. Almost a 100 dead. US is still using airstrikes against insurgents, causing a lot of colateral damage.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Cite? Where's the thread?

Can you recall a time where MOBIUS hasn't been laughed at for the stuff he posts?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Can you recall a time where MOBIUS hasn't been laughed at for the stuff he posts?

Yep, an occupational hazard when the people you are arguing against are incapable of an intelligent and coherent response...

So according to CNN another 60+ US soldiers have died in a little over 2 weeks (2065 now), or about 4 per day...

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Which would be useless since presumably we'd leave once the situation is more under control, which would imply a drop in the casualty rate.

Well by looking at the US casualty trends from the CNN figures, it seems like that drop in the casualty rate remains a distant pipe-dream...

[Jon Miller]

Mobius.. I agree that the drop in casualty rate is a distance pipe-dream

but that is a BS graph

JM

[Jon Miller]

(the line that is)

JM

[MOBIUS]

It is a trendline taking into account the available data from March '03 to Oct '05. What is wrong with that?