Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Since they don't keep statistics

May 31, 2006 12:46AM PDT

US deaths in Iraq 2470,........ injuries 18,184

Iraqi deaths 38,059........ injuries ???

18184 / 2470 = 7.36 Injuries for every US death

7.36 * 38,059 = 280,114 injuries

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
And your statistical figures
May 31, 2006 12:57AM PDT

with number of Iraqi deaths after four years still don't come even close to the 100,000 that Lancet claimed almost immediately after we entered Iraq.

Now, the claim will be as usual that the injuries and deaths to Iraqis would not have happened if we weren't there to begin with.....however, Saddam would have still been killing his own secretly and the number would have been far higher after four more years of uncontrolled carnage to his own people.

TONI

- Collapse -
Lots of different stats, Toni.
May 31, 2006 11:25PM PDT

Rob is quoting the official US government stats, I believe. They're almost certainly too low -- to be included, a death has to be reported (by name) by two different WESTERN journalists. That rarely happens, especially latey with the increased risk to journalists (and in many cases, their being actively targeted Sad ) To put things in perspective, for at least the last year there have been 25 or more Iraqi deaths reported on the news (most by car bomb) on the majority of days. 25x365 = just over 9,000 per year. And those stats also ignore the Iraqi soldiers killed in the invasion's inital stages; while the Republican Guard and irregulars tend to be dedicated, most of the regular units were conscripts who really didn't want to be there, but had no alternative.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Statistics...
May 31, 2006 1:16AM PDT

Just dropped in to see what was being peddled today.

There is no reason on earth to think that the ratio of deaths to injuries would be the same for "Iraqi civilians" as it is for American soldiers. So your arithmetic is meaningless.

And what does your "Iraqi civilians" group include? Insurgents who have been killed by Americans, actual Iraqi civilians who were caught in some crossfire, or Iraqi civilians who have been targetted or assassinated by insurgents? If you are lumping them all together that is not an honest assessment.

Back to work.

- Collapse -
Even IF it included ALL of your 3/4 groups
May 31, 2006 2:05AM PDT

280,000 is a lot of people.

- Collapse -
That assumes that I accept your figures..
May 31, 2006 2:10AM PDT

which I don't, unless they are backed up better.

But SOME of those people most likely deserved to die.

- Collapse -
and so are the killings we found
May 31, 2006 5:43AM PDT

in mass graves that good ole saddam killed

but thats ok as it was his people hes allowed to kill and terrorizeSad

- Collapse -
hes allowed to kill and terrorize
May 31, 2006 11:35AM PDT

Perhaps you should start to "tone it down a bit", just incase some of the stories that are going around, prove to be true.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) saddam did kill all those people nothing to tone down
May 31, 2006 11:36AM PDT
- Collapse -
There is no reason
May 31, 2006 10:11PM PDT

on earth to think that the ratio of deaths to injuries would be the same for ''Iraqi civilians'' as it is for American soldiers.

You are correct in that statement.

American soldiers are all wearing bullet proof vests and helmets heavy boots.

Civilians are wearing sandals and street clothes, not very good at stopping bullets or shrapnel, which would increase injuries and deaths.

So the ratio would be much higher.

- Collapse -
If so...
May 31, 2006 10:51PM PDT

your total killed and injured would be much lower.

But you don't know. Your numbers are useless.

- Collapse -
total killed and injured would be much lower.
May 31, 2006 11:02PM PDT

I'm not sure which statement "if so" applies to, but are you saying

If they have less protection, they are less likely to be killed or injured?


IF that is what you are claiming, I would like to hear an explanation

- Collapse -
You said...
May 31, 2006 11:22PM PDT
So the ratio would be much higher.
Lots killed, not so many injured? Is that how you are defining a high ratio?

American soldiers have more protective gear and get better medical care when hit by enemy fire. Many soldiers who would not have survived their injuries in earlier wars now do. Not so of Iraqis in general.

So the total would be lower: Same amount Iraqis killed, fewer injured.

BUT...bottom line:

You DON'T KNOW.
- Collapse -
In the last few posts
May 31, 2006 11:46PM PDT

You started talking about the ratio of deaths and injuries between Military and civilian NOT only the ratio about of deaths and injuries.

Your statement

There is no reason on earth to think that the ratio of deaths to injuries would be the same for ''Iraqi civilians'' as it is for American soldiers.


My statements

I said you were correct

American soldiers are all wearing bullet proof vests and helmets heavy boots.

Civilians are wearing sandals and street clothes, not very good at stopping bullets or shrapnel, which would increase injuries and deaths

SO

So the ratio would be much higher.

I'm talking about the ratio of Military and civilian.

I'm getting off the bus now.

- Collapse -
My point was...
Jun 1, 2006 12:15AM PDT

your total (dead and injured) would be LOWER than you seem to think.

I explicitly said the ratio of deaths to injuries for Iraqi civilians would NOT be the same as the ratio of deaths to injuries is for American soldiers.

You based your math on he assumption that the ratio would be the same.

You seem to be saying that because they have less protection there would be more deaths AND more injuries among Iraqi civilians. I am saying no, more likely there would be comparatively fewer injuries. More protection means someone who would otherwise be killed is injured instead.

- Collapse -
You based your math on he assumption
Jun 1, 2006 12:21AM PDT

That's correct

I was being generous/lenient.

- Collapse -
But you can't use that number (7.36 )...
Jun 1, 2006 12:30AM PDT

Experience in past wars has been that the number of injured was LOWER in comparison to the number of deaths for the reasons I mentioned. So you weren't being generous or lenient...YOU DON'T KNOW.

- Collapse -
The bus
Jun 1, 2006 12:35AM PDT

has pulled away, and I'm walking towards my destination.

- Collapse -
I guess when you fail to spin it your way...
Jun 1, 2006 12:40AM PDT

walk away.

- Collapse -
some walk
Jun 1, 2006 12:47AM PDT

Just dropped in to see what was being peddled some pedal today.

- Collapse -
And some peddle..
Jun 1, 2006 1:03AM PDT

and then walk when their woof tickets go unsold.

- Collapse -
these folks do
May 31, 2006 1:18AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Deaths...Yes. ........Injuries ?
May 31, 2006 2:03AM PDT
- Collapse -
still way off
May 31, 2006 5:45AM PDT

not near 100,000

and how many died in ww2? korea? nam?

- Collapse -
And your point is...WHAT?
May 31, 2006 6:14AM PDT

Combat by definition tends to cause casualties (from minor scrapes such as the self inflicted "wounds" of J "F'n" Kerry up to total disintegration) on both sides and normally includes inadvertent collateral damage and injuries to non-combatants too.

When compared to any previous military actions the US has engaged in, the percentage of casualties to total forces involved in Iraq and Afghanistan is considerably smaller.

The numbers missing in action and numbers captured are also notable for their small numbers.

Those who leach off the deeds and sacrifices of others should not be complaining or even considered in discussions of military action.

- Collapse -
Perspective
May 31, 2006 7:01AM PDT

In the National Cemetery in Honolulu, known as the Punch Bowl, there is a monument to about 28,000 American servicemen from WWII and Korea whose bodies were never recovered or buried at sea.

Tom

- Collapse -
my uncle's name is on that monument wwII
May 31, 2006 10:27AM PDT

I am named after him.

- Collapse -
Monument
May 31, 2006 10:32AM PDT

Wanted to say something funny, but WWII vets and all have my respect. Sometimes wonder how I would have handled being on Iwo, or a floating metal bucket and no where to run or rock to crawl under. What a generation.

Tom

- Collapse -
tom all vets get respect
May 31, 2006 10:46AM PDT

some more than others Happy

- Collapse -
my uncle was a p-38 pilot
May 31, 2006 10:47AM PDT

was in illinois army national guard on maneuvers for two weeks in texas. they were activated and he went to flight school. he always wanted to fly. he didn't come home until training complete. sent to alaska and was lost in bering sea valentine's day 1944. 26 years old. his mom buried an empty casket. never met him. this year I surprised my mom with a permanent white wooden cross, honoring her brother, this memorial day. local vets have 289 crosses and stars of david in a perfect grid like a mini arlington. they list the name, what war and branch of service. no rank, all are equal in the field. any one can honor their loved ones, nobody cares where they were born. it's an idea I highly recommend for other towns.

- Collapse -
sounds nice
May 31, 2006 11:14AM PDT

i allways like the p 38
allso like the wart hog