The surge

Robert Chung said:

William Asher said:

I would think a reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times
as many seriously wounded as killed

That turns out to be a reasonable estimate for US forces in Iraq: the
ratio of dead to (seriously) wounded is about 0.13. During Vietnam,
the ratio for US troops was 0.24.

I don't know if they had a service over there for this guy:

http://tinyurl.com/yymkqe

By the time he died, he had retreated around the globe 73 times. That's
gotta be some sort of a record, even for a Frenchman.

--
Bill Asher

ST said:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9932

That site sez that a total of 16,273 Iraqis died of violence in 2006, for a
violent death rate of 56 per 100,000. Meanwhile, we averaged around 140,000
US forces in Iraq during 2006 with a total of just under 900 deaths, for a
violent death rate of around 600 per 100,000. Yow. The Iraqis are kicking
our butts. And you want to send more Americans over there? FatBoy, why do
you hate America so?

On Jan 16, 12:39 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Takes a lot of guts to name a date, even a year's worth of dates (minus
15, of course) after all the failures to predict correctly down through
the centuries. --D-y

I'll name a date, within a week of an American pullout all hell breaks
loose and what we've seen now isn't even a decent warm-up for what's
going to come.
Good read here. Got to read it all the way through, it's the whole war
in a nutshell.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901373.html
Bill C

Bill C said:

Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
would've died even a decade ago. That's going to give you a much
higher ratio of seriously wounded to KIA. I've seen guesses between
20,000 to 35,000 from sources close to the military, though even they
admit they aren't sure of the numbers.

US non-mortal casualties here:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Nobody knows how many of the Wounded-Medical Air Transport Required are
"Johnny Got His Gun"-badly wounded.

And this is kind of a nice graph on the U.S. death rate as well:

http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm

--
Bill Asher

Bill C said:

Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
would've died even a decade ago.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2471

William Asher said:

Bill C said:

Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
would've died even a decade ago. That's going to give you a much
higher ratio of seriously wounded to KIA. I've seen guesses between
20,000 to 35,000 from sources close to the military, though even they
admit they aren't sure of the numbers.US non-mortal casualties here:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Nobody knows how many of the Wounded-Medical Air Transport Required are
"Johnny Got His Gun"-badly wounded.

And this is kind of a nice graph on the U.S. death rate as well:

http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm

--
Bill Asher

Might be my paranoia, but I'd bet the figures are higher and a lot of
the special ops / covert types arent in there, and neither are the
other "Government Employees" and "Civilian Contractors".
I figure anything coming out of the Pentagon is a lie in some fashion,
it's cultural there I think.
Bill C

ST said:

On 1/15/07 3:54 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Kurgan Gringioni"

Quoted message said:

Andre said:

> Dumbass -
>
>
> No it isn't.
>
> It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
> measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
> measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
> the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
> is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
> the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
> succeed.
>
> The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
> suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
> avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
> avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.
>
> Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
> cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
> a few more troops will somehow solve it.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

Bush doesn't want to solve it. Just wants to make sure he retains all
the stolen oil. The death count does not matter one bit to him. To him
the Iraqi civilians and the invading American soldiers are not people
just numbers.

Dumbass -

If only that were true.

One of the problems with this administration is that they're ideologues
(ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions) and
actually believe they're doing the right thing.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

We were ideologues in WWI & WWII [censored]....
Over there they are major flaming ideologues. Where is the same bashing??

http://news.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2007011617.html

On 16 Jan 2007 13:07:52 -0800, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Jan 16, 12:39 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Takes a lot of guts to name a date, even a year's worth of dates (minus
15, of course) after all the failures to predict correctly down through
the centuries. --D-y

I'll name a date, within a week of an American pullout all hell breaks
loose and what we've seen now isn't even a decent warm-up for what's
going to come.
Good read here. Got to read it all the way through, it's the whole war
in a nutshell.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901373.html

The ending is so depressing.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article <[email hidden]>,

William Asher said:

autocoprophagiasts

Also a first use in rbr. Two in one post - our vocabularies are expanding by the
day. Just like some waistlines (or is that wastelines?).

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Robert Chung said:

William Asher said:

I would think a reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times
as many seriously wounded as killedThat turns out to be a reasonable
estimate for US forces in Iraq: the ratio

of dead to (seriously) wounded is about 0.13. During Vietnam, the ratio for
US troops was 0.24.

Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
would've died even a decade ago. That's going to give you a much higher
ratio of seriously wounded to KIA. I've seen guesses between 20,000 to
35,000 from sources close to the military, though even they admit they
aren't sure of the numbers.
Bill C

I've also seen it reported that a much higher percentage of seriously wounded are
surviving, due to better emergency medical techniques and supplies. But a lot of
those people are always going to be in seriously bad shape. Head injuries are quite
prevalent.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article said:

On 1/15/07 8:01 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, ST <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are many cities were there are more than 5 deaths per day.

Then it should be quite simple for you to name a few. It'll be even more
relevant if these cities have a population of about 150,000.

Quoted message said:

Here ya go Professor Ass Bag........

http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg

I guess you didn't get the point. Robert's chart is about the deaths of US
troops. That's the point I'm making: there is a population of about 132,000 US
troops (not the 150,000 I mentioned, sorry for the error) and there are times when 5
of them have died in a day. Are there any cities in the US with a population of
about 132,000 that has a death rate that high? Of course not. Secondly, the charts
provided by your source are highly questionable, at best. The morgue in Baghdad
reported 16,000 bodies were brought in during '06. But that is likely very much a
short count, as many people found the body of a family member and took care of it on
their own because going to the morgue proved to be a danger: the militias hung out
by it and killed people who came to deliver or pick up bodies.

Anyway, the UN now says the totals reported have all been way too low. They said
today that more than 34,000 Iraqis had been killed in 2006.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0116/iraq.html?rss

As far as it being, as you seem to be implying, "not that bad," I believe that if
there were a city in the US that had a death rate as high as it is in Iraq, you'd be
complaining about how bad it was and blamng it on "liberals coddling criminals."

You mentioned to JT that if he didn't like things, then he should vote. Well, I
suspect he did. So did a lot of people. And on November 7, 2006, the people spoke.
While Iraq was but one part of the reason for it, the people seemed to repudiate the
Bush policy rather hard. Check the polls, Steve. They show a 70% disapproval rate on
Bush's Iraq policy. They also show he has a job approval rating in the very low 30%
area - and it's been there for many months. Lots of presidents get into those
numbers for short periods, but never for extended stays. The guy is unpopular for a
reason, Steve.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

I guess you didn't get the point. Robert's chart is about the
deaths of US troops.

You know, I'm actually kinda surprised that no one saw what I saw. I thought
the point of the graph was seasonality in US deaths. Since neither our
government nor the Iraqi government appear to be interested in knowing the
toll of the war, one of the few ways to assess the toll is by the deaths of
coalition forces. The President is sending in more troops and I wonder
whether the administration will point to any reduction in American deaths as
a justification for the escalation.

ST said:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg

Interesting links. However, estimates for deaths in Iraq have always
been wildly inconsistent. Here's an estimate that's double that used on
these pages:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything here, just noting that the
truth is hard to get at. Churchill once said that during wartime the
truth was such a precious commodity that it had to be accompanied by a
bodyguard of lies. Or something like that.

ST said:

An admission?
There culture is backwards and screwed up.

What does it mean if you're correct? I'm honestly trying to understand
your position.

If their culture is backwards and screwed up, then I guess we have
someone to blame for the deaths over there. OK, got that.

But if their "culture is backwards and screwed up", how is the US
military supposed to fix that? Wasn't it the knowledge that we couldn't
fix it the reason George H.W. stopped Schwarzkopf from visiting Baghdad
in the early 90's?

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.

Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

Quoted message said:

You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.

Robert Chung said:

Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?

So Osama is FDR reincarnated. Instant karma is gonna get you.

Robert Chung said:

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.

Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?

He didn't want to sound like a nutbar.

--
Bill Asher

On Jan 16, 6:46 pm, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:
I've also seen it reported that a much higher percentage of seriously
wounded are

Quoted message said:

surviving, due to better emergency medical techniques and supplies. But a lot of
those people are always going to be in seriously bad shape. Head injuries are quite
prevalent.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

More good news, just from today:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,122282,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl
Military Faces Mental Crisis
USA Today | January 17, 2007
An experienced Navy psychologist warns that the U.S. military does not
have enough mental health professionals to meet the growing number of
emotionally damaged war veterans.

Moreover, Navy Cmdr. Mark Russell says, many of the mental health
professionals on staff lack formal training in core therapies for
post-traumatic stress syndrome. Russell predicts a "perfect storm" of
dire health care consequences.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,122281,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Commander Wants Afghan Tours Extended
Associated Press | January 17, 2007
KABUL, Afghanistan - The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Tuesday
he wants to extend the combat tours of 1,200 Soldiers amid rising
violence, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was "strongly
inclined" to recommend a troop increase to President Bush if commanders
believe it is needed.

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,122269,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Shi'ite-Doomed Surge
Ivan Eland | January 16, 2007
Although President Bush's escalation of the Iraq War has been opposed
by a substantial majority of the American people, many generals, the
Iraq Study Group, and most Democrats and some Republicans in Congress,
the most important opposition may come from Iraqis.

So tell me again how an overextended, almost mentally broken, under
equipped force with it's hands tied, that's being killed daily by
terrorists being protected by the government they are supposed to be
helping, and we are supporting, is supposed to continue to extend and
"surge" with no end in sight?
You know how big a cost to the troops, that's not being reported in
the mainstream press, in suicides, divorces, alcoholism and all the
other good things that hit stressed to the edge and over people who
have no way out, is out there.
Combine that with a totally SNAFU military mental health system which
IMO causes more problems than it fixes, Commanders who equate mental
health problems with failure to do the duty and abuse and prosecute
people rather than lose the body. I can't even begin to tell you how
low my opinion of the military's mental health service is.
Bill C

Robert Chung said:

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.

Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?

LOL. I was leaving that for Krugman and path dependence. Oh wait, FDR
wasn't a republican, but a democrat. Nevermind.

Donald Munro said:

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

Quoted message said:

You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.

Robert Chung said:

Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?

So Osama is FDR reincarnated. Instant karma is gonna get you.

Please don't confuse Osama with Obama.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3969