Article

2006-08-28 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-08-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Keep reminding the crazies that the great majority of all of those deaths were caused by an armed and hostile enemy. The memory of the dead should be judged by the measure of their sacrifice.

The left wants to use casualty figures against any sitting adminstration as though command caused the deaths not an armed enemy.

I won't let the left's use of American military dead to dishonor their sacrifice or the the mission of those who are and who have been on the line be diminished by the insanity of our fifth column left.

Posted by badanov 2006-08-28 00:34|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2006-08-28 00:34|| Front Page Top

#2 Another graph should be produced to adjust the figures for duration of combat.

I would bet that the Iraq war casualty rate is less than the WW2 friendly fire rate!

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2006-08-28 07:21|| 2006-08-28 07:21|| Front Page Top

#3 And how many die every year on our roads and highways? And of those, how many involve someone DUI? Where's the alarm and hand wringing?

Oh, that's right, nothing to be gained politically. Never mind, move along.

Posted by Glinert Cromogum8898 2006-08-28 09:06|| 2006-08-28 09:06|| Front Page Top

#4 Ah, the answer to THAT, GC, is right at my fingertips (more or less):

Presently, something over 40,000 are killed on our highways every year, and who knows how many injuries....

At the time of the Vietnam war (the one were we lost 55,000 folks, more or less) something close to 55,000 were being killed on our highways each year.

It's a tribute to our great highway engineers, (which business I only fool around in from time to time) that we have (something like) doubled the miles driven but significantly reduced the fatalities.

Unless, of course, it's all due to the 55 mph speed limit....

Posted by Bobby 2006-08-28 10:28|| 2006-08-28 10:28|| Front Page Top

#5 Disc brakes, radial tires, and better suspensions in small cars and trucks allow us to recover from a variety of traffic incidents without an accident. Also, cars are constructed with survival of the inhabitants in mind. Air bags and compartment strength of the peopled area have also contributed.
Finally, Governor Rendell's removal of the motorcycle helmet law just to get elected has contributed. Phalking democraps. Anybody who votes democrap deserves to choke on a rubber chicken.

Posted by wxjames 2006-08-28 11:33|| 2006-08-28 11:33|| Front Page Top

#6 Bright Pebbles,
Actually the friendly fire rate in WW2 was fairly high. A study in the 1990's said it was up to 25% of ground casualties. So our casualties in Iraq are substantially less than friendly fire in WW2.

One thing that is true is that being a soldier in Iraq is safer than living in many inner cities in the US.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al">Frozen Al 2006-08-28 12:24|| 2006-08-28 12:24|| Front Page Top

#7 Part of the reason why our recent wars have such a low death rate is that our total population has bloomed substantially

But the vast majority of the reason is the capital intensity of our military. We have invested consistently and significantly in equipment and training for those we do send to war. Thus far fewer need to be sent to war to accomplish a given task and they are far liklier to prevail before their enemy has a chance to engage them effectively.

This is also the reason occupation has proven and will continue to be so difficult for us. Occupation is a labor intense activity and the application of capital to it does not yield significant improvements in productivity. The same thing is true of education and, to a lesser extent, health care.

Keep reminding the crazies that the great majority of all of those deaths were caused by an armed and hostile enemy.

Ultimately that is true, but prior to WWII the majority of the deaths were due to poor sanitation, poor food and easily transmitted diseases. Soldiers have traditionally had more to fear from their bivouac than the enemy. The improvement in these factors have also made a significant contribution to the reduction in the lethality of war in recent years.

Note also that the analysis, reasonably, ignores what was probably the bloodiest war in American history, King Philip's War, 1675.

Finally, the wars with the highest death rate have been the ones fought with the greatest religious fervor. If you have not read it, see The Cousins' Wars for a hint of what Islam is getting itself into. Note also the progression of dates of the major wars, 1675, 1775, 1861, 1941; 100, 86 and 80 years apart. Somebody's in for a real asskicking soon.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-28 13:20|| 2006-08-28 13:20|| Front Page Top

23:57 11A5S
23:55 Zenster
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:46 Seafarious
23:42 Chuck
23:41 Shush Sholuth7794
23:39 Shush Sholuth7794
23:31 Barbara Skolaut
23:26 Barbara Skolaut
23:24 DMFD
23:23 Swamp Blondie
23:13 mhw
23:11 Swamp Blondie
23:05 JosephMendiola
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:57 Barbara Skolaut
22:56 Phineter Thraviger1073
22:56 Pappy
22:54 Frank G
22:52 Frank G
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:38 Fred
22:37 Phil