RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,157210,00.html

While true, and from a personal standpoint more gratifying, this number is a better measure of operational success:

quote:

The number of Iraqi civilians killed has declined drastically in the past six months as tens of thousands of Iraqis, mostly Sunnis, have broken with the insurgents and joined U.S.-backed self-defense groups. In November to date, at least 711 Iraqi civilians have been killed or found dead, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press. This compares with 2,155 in May.

That fact that the Iraqi government hasn't taken much advantage of it is discouraging, but even those numbers are very high, after all ... proportionately, given that the US is twelve times the size of Iraq, that is "down to" a mere three 9/11s worth of casualties a month from political violence ... hardly what you might call peaceful. Still, the trend has to be considered encouraging.

yes always good news to hear....

I for one would like to see the numbers come down even more so the Bush Administration can therefore declare victory and bring all the troops home. Sooner the better.

1 death is 1 death to many for a war started for bogus reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by outlaws93:
yes always good news to hear....

Dead GI's is good news? Tell that to the next of kin of those killed. Again, 1 death is 1 death to many for a war started for bogus reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
1 death is 1 death to many for a war started for bogus reasons.

You need to do a google search "Active Duty Military deaths by year" and then explain to me how and why during the eight years that Bill/Hillary Clinton were President/Co-President we lost over 8,000 active duty military men and women....WHO were we fighting then? Most years the death rate was higher than ANY of the years we've been in Iraq....Seems to me (and numbers don't lie) that it's safer to be active duty under Bush than under Clinton....

Duane A. Brinson Kailua-Kona Hawaii
U.S.M.C. 1985-1989

quote:

Originally posted by Proudformermarine:

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
1 death is 1 death to many for a war started for bogus reasons.

You need to do a google search "Active Duty Military deaths by year" and then explain to me how and why during the eight years that Bill/Hillary Clinton were President/Co-President we lost over 8,000 active duty military men and women....WHO were we fighting then? Most years the death rate was higher than ANY of the years we've been in Iraq....Seems to me (and numbers don't lie) that it's safer to be active duty under Bush than under Clinton....

Duane A. Brinson Kailua-Kona Hawaii
U.S.M.C. 1985-1989

Errr, that would be no. As it is, we lose more lives to accidents, in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, than we do do to combat, and that has been true since we have been both places. The frankly bogus DOD report has been taken off-line, and even it showed only a slight increase in deaths between 2001-2004 as opposed to 1993-1996 ... without explaining that there were a lot more people in uniform during Clinton's first term.

Here is the link to the DOD manpower statistics site: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MMIDHOME.HTM

Here is a link to the Congressional Research Service report on military deaths up to 2006, where you should check out Table 4 on page CRS-8: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

The numbers don't bear your claim out.

quote:

Originally posted by oldmole:

quote:

Originally posted by Proudformermarine:

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
1 death is 1 death to many for a war started for bogus reasons.

You need to do a google search "Active Duty Military deaths by year" and then explain to me how and why during the eight years that Bill/Hillary Clinton were President/Co-President we lost over 8,000 active duty military men and women....WHO were we fighting then? Most years the death rate was higher than ANY of the years we've been in Iraq....Seems to me (and numbers don't lie) that it's safer to be active duty under Bush than under Clinton....

Duane A. Brinson Kailua-Kona Hawaii
U.S.M.C. 1985-1989

Errr, that would be no. As it is, we lose more lives to accidents, in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, than we do do to combat, and that has been true since we have been both places. The frankly bogus DOD report has been taken off-line, and even it showed only a slight increase in deaths between 2001-2004 as opposed to 1993-1996 ... without explaining that there were a lot more people in uniform during Clinton's first term.

Here is the link to the DOD manpower statistics site: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MMIDHOME.HTM

Here is a link to the Congressional Research Service report on military deaths up to 2006, where you should check out Table 4 on page CRS-8: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

The numbers don't bear your claim out.

So we should expect the administration apologists to give us accurate numbers after the books were cooked to get us into Iraq to begin with?

Some books are harder to cook than others ... I think that the CRS has come up with something about as accurate as anyone is likely to get, certainly within one percent ... if nothing else, the number of death benefit checks gives a pretty reliable idea of how many people we are talking about.

I simply think that any insinuation that engaging in combat is not costly, by any comparison, is a foul monkeying with numbers, something akin to spurious comparisons to how much safer it is in Iraq rather than in certain cities in the United States.

quote:

Originally posted by oldmole:

quote:

Originally posted by Proudformermarine:

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
1 death is 1 death to many for a war started for bogus reasons.

You need to do a google search "Active Duty Military deaths by year" and then explain to me how and why during the eight years that Bill/Hillary Clinton were President/Co-President we lost over 8,000 active duty military men and women....WHO were we fighting then? Most years the death rate was higher than ANY of the years we've been in Iraq....Seems to me (and numbers don't lie) that it's safer to be active duty under Bush than under Clinton....

Duane A. Brinson Kailua-Kona Hawaii
U.S.M.C. 1985-1989

Errr, that would be no. As it is, we lose more lives to accidents, in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, than we do do to combat, and that has been true since we have been both places. The frankly bogus DOD report has been taken off-line, and even it showed only a slight increase in deaths between 2001-2004 as opposed to 1993-1996 ... without explaining that there were a lot more people in uniform during Clinton's first term.

Here is the link to the DOD manpower statistics site: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MMIDHOME.HTM

Here is a link to the Congressional Research Service report on military deaths up to 2006, where you should check out Table 4 on page CRS-8: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

The numbers don't bear your claim out.

There you go again, using actual facts to refute silly arguments based on misapplication of statistics.

I notice this article is from the Associated Press.

You know, that bastion of the "liberal media".

The "liberal media" that only reports BAD news, right?

When the fighting in Iraq was more intense and dozens of Iraqis were being kidnapped, tortured and killed and the US was suffering higher casualties, "the media" REPORTED it.

And people moaned about how "slanted" the reporting was.

Now that the situation has improved, "the media" is REPORTING it.

And some folks have now decided that "the media" is OK, after all.



IF the situation in Iraq does deteriorate again, and the media REPORTS it, I'm sure we'll be hearing about how "the media" hates America and wants it to lose the war.

quote:

Originally posted by Dublin1916:
I notice this article is from the Associated Press.

You know, that bastion of the "liberal media".

The "liberal media" that only reports BAD news, right?

When the fighting in Iraq was more intense and dozens of Iraqis were being kidnapped, tortured and killed and the US was suffering higher casualties, "the media" REPORTED it.

And people moaned about how "slanted" the reporting was.

Now that the situation has improved, "the media" is REPORTING it.

And some folks have now decided that "the media" is OK, after all.



IF the situation in Iraq does deteriorate again, and the media REPORTS it, I'm sure we'll be hearing about how "the media" hates America and wants it to lose the war.

It's called "Freedom of the Press," guaranteed by our US Constitution. You don't like it, move to Cuba.

Why do we have a military force? Because to protect our freedoms there will be war sometimes. This world is not a fruitopia, theres always someone plotting and planning to take those freedoms away. Remember "Freedom" isnt free. I'm definitely not in a hurry to kill anyone or see anyone on my side be killed. But I'll do it, because I understand to keep our freedoms, and as a last resort war is inevitable. And If as a country we have exhausted all areas of compromise with another country, then war is war, that means I'm wiping out your whole country, because whether people want to believe it or not, theres kids out there who's father lead up some type of resistance against our nation, and now there dead, but years later who's holding that gun and leading a revolution against our freedoms, the child who grew up with nothing but revenge on his mind, that's the type of stuff war brings. So if you dont want to go to war, or have anything to do with protecting this country. Dont join the Armed Forces, get yourself a nice desk job in a cubicle. Because just like the Roman empire, this world is built on war, and just because everyone wants a fruitopia, it will never happen. There are always those behind the scenes plotting and planning. I'm glad my Grandfather sat us down, and explained reality to us, hes an old WWII veteran, and made sure we all realize what our freedoms have cost us, and will continue to cost us in the future. Hoo-Yah!!! God Bless America.

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:

quote:

Originally posted by Dublin1916:
I notice this article is from the Associated Press.

You know, that bastion of the "liberal media".

The "liberal media" that only reports BAD news, right?

When the fighting in Iraq was more intense and dozens of Iraqis were being kidnapped, tortured and killed and the US was suffering higher casualties, "the media" REPORTED it.

And people moaned about how "slanted" the reporting was.

Now that the situation has improved, "the media" is REPORTING it.

And some folks have now decided that "the media" is OK, after all.



IF the situation in Iraq does deteriorate again, and the media REPORTS it, I'm sure we'll be hearing about how "the media" hates America and wants it to lose the war.

It's called "Freedom of the Press," guaranteed by our US Constitution. You don't like it, move to Cuba.

It seem you missed the point of my comments, jack.

My point is that the media is lambasted when it reports "bad" news (accurate or not) and is heralded when it reports "good" news.

And no, I don't want to live in Cuba.