Iraq War hardly costing any casualties

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Tens of thousands of innocent lives, you dick!

Also we may have lost a regime in the region which was a steadfast adversary of Iran and al qaida and which kept such a tight lid on it's population that it would be quite challenging to base terrorist operations from there. not so any more.

(all this to address the fact that wiggy probably couldn't be arsed one way or the other about any foreigners who die in iraq).

[Gibsie]

I had a long argument with an American right-winger on another forum where I stated that the pro-armed forces right are far less likely to care about the deaths of American soldiers... this thread provides all the proof I need. Thanks Wiggy

[GePap]

A Casualtie includes everyone who dies, everyone who is injured, captured, or goes missing.

Therefore to say we have only had 3000 or so casualties is incorrect. We have only had 3000 fatalities. People need to learn their damned terminology before they try make arguements.

MOBIUS's chart is the only accurate one of casulties.

As for how assenine the comparisons are sometimes:
Modern medicine removes deaths from infectious disease, which were the primary killers in all campaigns prior to WW1.
Modern medicine means many of the soldiers injured in Iraq who would have been fatalities become "simply" injured.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Since apparently I need to make an appearance in this thread before it fills 2 pages, for some reason I can't quite understand, here I am to respond to Zkribbler's bull****.

The point is that there is media bias that focuses not on progress, but on 2 troops dying who probably would have been hit by a bus back at base camp in Florida anyway. The casualties are not wasted, they were inevitable anyway. Might as well spend them somwhere. Granted, we have also lost a lot of Iraqi civilians, but that NUMBER IS IN GREAT DISPUTE UNLIKE THE US CASUALITY NUMBER.

Also: we screwed up a country, fine, but we at least tried. It was awful before and a threat. What was lost...?

By your notion, the greatest threat to Americans remains other Americans. "Terrorist" have killed what? 7000 or less Americans in the last 6 years? (assuming we attribute all deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan to terrorists). How many were murdered in just 2006? So why should we care about terrorist attacks- if they didn;t get blown up, they might have dies just as well in car accidents, being murdered, or heart disease, and a dead person is a dead person, right?

[Drake Tungsten]

As for how assenine the comparisons are sometimes:

[Wezil]

Originally posted by LordShiva


We're still on page 1, n00b.

Wiggy

[Impaler[WrG]]

As GePap points out People who would have died outright in past wars are still losing limbs at a rapid clip, were ending up with a lot of "Star Ship Trooper" Vets (in more ways then one). A more use full breakdown reflecting modern wars would be

Killed or MIA
Permanently Disabled mentally or physically
Injured but recovered to normal life again mental of physical

[Patroklos]

As GePap points out People who would have died outright in past wars are still losing limbs at a rapid clip,

Just as many, probobly more, are ending up perfectly fine.

Mobius's chart is using casualties. Those who mistakenly used that term for their numbers have already corrected themselves, so their numbers are valid to the OP.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Just as many, probobly more, are ending up perfectly fine.

Ah, the pull statistics out of your ass method.

Still, if casualties are lower, its based on improved medical care, and says little about the intensity of combat or the pervasiveness of injury.

There are other factors of course, our enemies in Iraq have much lighter weaponry than our enemies in Vietnam or Korea, have smaller numbers, plus the total force engaged is much smaller on our end.

Anyone have the percentage of casualties specifically amongst rifle companies and those few troops that do engage in most of the actual leaving of fortified bases to roam around in Iraq?

[Patroklos]

Ah, the pull statistics out of your ass method.

Did you reference anything in this thread? Point stands, using the same logic you did to convert deaths into injuries, alot of injuries would be converted to full recoveries. Pretty self destructive criticism on your part.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Did you reference anything in this thread? Point stands, using the same logic you did to convert deaths into injuries, alot of injuries would be converted to full recoveries. Pretty self destructive criticism on your part.

Fully recovering from an injury is still having been injured, having been a casualty. If a guy gets shot in the shoulder, and four months later he is fully healed..well, you know what genius, he was still a casualty, and was out of combat for many months.

I am sure though that the military probably keeps statistics about the number of injured soldiers able to return to active duty.

[Patroklos]

Fully recovering from an injury is still having been injured, having been a casualty.

Did I say they weren't?

I was responding to this...

As GePap points out People who would have died outright in past wars are still losing limbs at a rapid clip

Which may be true, but so would the instance of people who would have previously been permanently disabled making a full recovery.

I am sure though that the military probably keeps statistics about the number of injured soldiers able to return to active duty.

They do, like that ridiculous benchmark of "returned to duty within three days," which allows media and statistic mongers to assume everyone else is a limbless or other wise disabled casualty. Hell, the trip to the aid station and back can take more than three days if three days depending on helo/convoy schedules.