September 07, 2004

• So if 1 American = 10 Trrrsts, and we lost 3000 on 9/11, then by my calculations... hmm... (3000 + x) × 10 = x and solving for x... about 2333 American deaths to go before we break even. Therefore the war is still just. QED.
• Fuyugare, I hope you are being ironic. The Giant Squid didn't mention terrorists. If you look at the site it says Iraqi civilians. By your math we should just carpet bomb any ol' country until we kill enough folks to make it even.
• PS- Giant S, dig your handle ;-)
• OK, so you want content. Fine, in that case let us assume the usual aghast expressions at this flurry of statistics as read, and concentrate on what's really important — the distinction between 'combat death' and 'casualty'. The two terms might as well be synonymous the way TGS phrased it, yet every dictionary I have access to begs to differ. In fact, TGS's first link points out a figure of about 3840 wounded, which is the true 'casualty' figure (separate from deaths). Want to bet if the media will make this distinction, or if they will blithely call it '1000 casualties'?
• 1001 isn't too bad ... the war would have to continue for another 85 years to have the same effect as Vietnam (assuming 58198 were killed in Vietnam)
• And let's call civilians, civilians not terrorists.
• That's one way of looking at it niccolo. Another way is to note that for the first 4 years of Vietnam (1961 -65) US casualties = 1864.
• OK, either I am terrible at communicating mood, or you are being obtuse, squidranch. Do you not see that my use of "Trrrst" there is intended as (dark) humour? Tell me and I'll keep my wisecracks to myself— I shouldn't have to explain myself in this much detail!
• Cool, if Bush wins we can start an Iran casualties list and a Syria list and so on and so on.
• Perhaps a bit of both Fuyugare.
• "Beyond the Euphrates began for us the land of mirage and danger, the sands where one helplessly sank, and the roads which ended in nothing. The slightest reversal would have resulted in a jolt to our prestige giving rise to all kinds of catastrophe; the problem was not only to conquer but to conquer again and again, perpetually; our forces would be drained off in the attempt." Emperor Hadrian AD 117-138
• Something else to remember, niccolo. The soldiers that were fighting in Nam didn't have half the armor , nightvision, and gps technology that soldiers today have. Equipment, improved discipline, and improved tactics have saved a whole lot of lives in Iraq.
• have saved a whole lot of lives in Iraq. No offence intended, shawnj, but I'd read that sentence again.
• Shawnj's point is unassailable (insofar as the execution of the war goes), but it has a flipside: a whole lot of veterans are going to be coming home with fewer limbs, duller senses, or diminished sanity. I hope the government is doing everything it can to let them live out their lives in relative comfort and dignity!
• No offence intended, shawnj, but I'd read that sentence again. I'm not sure I follow you. Without those advances, the death toll would have been much higher.
• Iraqi lives? Maybe.
• Is an Iraqi life equivalent to an American one? Your call.
• O-kay. We were discussing the affect of technology on the casualty rate of US soldiers. We weren't making a judgement call over whose lives are more important than the other. It's not like I was giving a wholesale thumbs-up to the killing of innocent civilians or making it out to be something worthwhile. I was merely making the point that if it weren't for the advances that we've seen in recent years with the US military, that we would have been talking about 1000 dead a year ago or so.
• polychrome, you're right. We just have to hope that the scale of the war does not change.
• I understand where Shawnj is coming from. It's not a judgment call on which life is more worthy than which. He's right, the tech of the day has saved a lot of lives. Of course, a lot of those lives are still irrevocably changed because though the tech may have saved thier lives, it hasn't kept them whole. A side effect of the body armor the soldiers are using is record numbers of wounded with missing limbs, lost eyesight, etc. Also, the list of dead only includes thos that actually died in Iraq. Not the soldiers that were mortally wounded and died after being medevacced out of country to places like Germany.
• It may be of interest that the official deathtoll for the twin towers now stands at 2752, of which about 500 were non-US nationals. So the US is almost halfway to losing as many again as it did in the WTC attack.
• GO USA! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! Wait a minute...
• Medical evacuations reach 18000 in March. About 33000 Afghanistan and Iraq veterans have sought treatment at VA facilities.
• Sorry for one especially unreasonable comment upthread. Occasionally (ha!) my outrage at this insane and ill-starred adventure leads me to a not very attractive place. Regular readers of these pages are aware that I am a maniac. Not that that's an excuse in any way. *waves small apologetic maniac flag, especially at shawnj*
• War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000: Higher than the U.S. estimate, the tally likely is undercounted. Proportionately, it is as if 570,000 Americans were slain in three years.
• Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west. Health workers there are unable to compile the data because of violence, security crackdowns, electrical shortages and failing telephone networks. The Health Ministry acknowledged the undercount. In addition, the ministry said its figures exclude the three northern provinces of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan because Kurdish officials do not provide death toll figures to the government in Baghdad. Although I disagree with the use of the "proportionately" argument on the grounds that it's simply a numbers trick and not an effective argument. How would a journalist make a moral argument though? Or would they need a moral argument to to make the case they seem to be making . . .
• What “Making Progress In Iraq” Means I knew there must have been a nice "positive reinforcement propaganda campaign" in the works when I heard all that chatter in the media last week about "July deaths down..." And then this comment brought it home: Worth noting US casualties for this and previous Julys, to illustrate the kind of progress America’s making: July 2007: 80 July 2006: 43 July 2005: 54 July 2004: 54 July 2003: 48 Deadliest July in Iraq for American troops so far.
• If ever I would leave you...it would never be in Summer...