Iraq-2,000 American Service Men and Women Dead

[CptStern]

I agree, accidents do happen ..but judging from past experience I dont necessarily believe it was a priority or even a concern

 

[Absinthe]

Why has it always got to be Iraq, ffs, look u mite av a problem with the coalition forces, so y not pack ur bag & join the militants, cos at the end of the day, the militants r wrong & we are right.

Don't you have a can of repellant you should be sucking on.

 

[Top Secret]

:upstare: why didnt you at least look at links I provided? It would have saved you from asking the more obvious questions. To reiterate: the 30,000 figure is highly accurate ..that is a certainty ..BUT they only tally deaths of those they can verify. The Lancet figure of 100,000 is a projection based on field case studies. It is as accurate as can be, based on a sample portion of the population to predict numbers of deaths in the whole population

Thank you for proving my point. 30,000 is a guess of deaths. How many did they miss? 100,000 is a projection. A year old one at that.

YOU DON'T KNOW STERN. Like I said, could be 200k. All I'm saying is, stop making up numbers.

btw, I asked you for a US tally because I know there isnt one ..take the time to stop and reflect on why there isnt one

Then it was pretty stupid to ask it, no? I don't need to *reflect* on why there isn't one. You're babbling on, directly avoiding my point. As usual.

and you dont seem to understand the whole "jump in mid thread" comment ..it's not referring to physically jumping in mid thread by being the 34th person to reply (arbitrary number picked at random) but rather jumping in without having read the previous 34 posts ...I really dont see why you think it's such a big deal (have it in your sig, you've mentioned it a few times) ..it reveals your inability to comprehend a simple statement rather than making me look like a fool

And yet this reveals your inability to understand a joke. Stop flaming me, when you don't get it.

Ah, so these are just random statistics. They're just being pulled out of an asshole. They mean nothing. I see now. How convincing

They're a year old. Nice job.

I couldn't give a rat's ass if you're a right wing nutjob or not. My issue is that you want to play down valid statistics for some unknown reason. The best I can guess is that you simply don't like them because of what they represent. I don't know. Perhaps that's your way of maintaining some kind of tinted perception of the conflict.

Such an idiot. The statistic is A YEAR OLD. You think there are still 100k deaths? (Assuming the statistic is real?)

Like I said, you get poked at, and suddenly you whip out. When really, I want an un-tinted view. Stop shoving me into the group of moronic people that want to think everything is "just swell" and our soldiers are going around handing out cupcakes to the silly brown people. Idiot.

If that's not the case, then please, do explain why you have issue with them.

1. IT'S OLD
2. IT'S A PROJECTION

 

[Absinthe]

They're a year old. Nice job.

O NOES THEY ARE A YEAR OLD?!?! WELL OBVIOUSLY THAT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A MILLENNIA AND AFTER THAT SPAN OF TIME THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THEY ARE EMBARESSINGLY OFF THE MARK AND HAVE NO VALIDITY. MY PEA-SIZED BRAIN TOLD ME SO.

Such an idiot. The statistic is A YEAR OLD. You think there are still 100k deaths? (Assuming the statistic is real?)

Read above.

Like I said, you get poked at, and suddenly you whip out. When really, I want an un-tinted view. Stop shoving me into the group of moronic people that want to think everything is "just swell" and our soldiers are going around handing out cupcakes to the silly brown people. Idiot.

The best you can come up with against the statistics is that they are aged by a year. Is that it? Who's really the idiot here? You even have the gall to term them as "made up". I didn't pigeonhole you into any stereotype that you were already heading into yourself, moron. A projection? WELL NO SHIT, SHERLOCK. BUSH & CO. DON'T DO BODY COUNTS. What, because it's a projection it's suddenly meaningless? What do you think they base it on? You're so full of shit. You want an untinted view and then you call bullshit on the relevant numbers. Drop the facade, jerk.

 

[Top Secret]

The numbers are wrong. Deal with it.

 

[lister]

none of this concersn us so why get all hyped up about it. The End!

 

[Absinthe]

The numbers are wrong. Deal with it.

You're right. I give up. Victory is yours.

 

[Top Secret]

You're right. I give up. Victory is yours.

Damn, that was easy.

 

[CptStern]

Thank you for proving my point. 30,000 is a guess of deaths.

it's like talking to a freakin wall! I just finished explaining that the 30,000 figure is a certainty, it's not a guess, it's not a projection, it's not a fanciful story ..it's verfied numbers

How many did they miss? 100,000 is a projection.

sigh, it's not a projection based on available facts ..it's not like they're picking an arbitrary number out of the thin air

A year old one at that.

meaning there's certainly more dead civilians now ...not that it matters in least because numbers go up not down

YOU DON'T KNOW STERN. Like I said, could be 200k. All I'm saying is, stop making up numbers.

it's like I'm talking in a foreign language and your translator's batteries just died ...it's not a guess, it's not a random number, I didnt make up the numbers, I didnt pull them out of a hat ...the numbers are based on real world facts (30,000) and estimatimations based on real world analysis used successfully in rwanda, bosnia and other theaters of war to assess civilian casualties ...it's the Lancet for christ sakes at least learn the subject matter if you're going debate the issues.

Then it was pretty stupid to ask it, no? I don't need to *reflect* on why there isn't one. You're babbling on, directly avoiding my point. As usual.

WHAT POINT? you never have a point! please direct me to this mysteious point of yours

And yet this reveals your inability to understand a joke. Stop flaming me, when you don't get it.

flaming you? I'm making an observation ..and by your reaction I'm assuming it's the correct one

 

[satch919]

I just read an article in the Los Angeles Times which stated the following:

"Thousands of Iraqis on both sides have been killed as well, with the best "guesstimate" of civilian fatalities being somewhere between 26,000 and 30,000 according to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington."

So take that and do with it whatever you want. Seemed like a relevent piece of information in this thread.