US War Dead Hits 4,000

[Irksome]

Article Link

The number of US troops to die in Iraq since the invasion began five years ago hit 4,000 last night after a roadside bomb in Baghdad killed four soldiers.

The morbid milestone will likely strengthen calls for US forces to be withdrawn from the country; a contentious topic in this year's Presidential elections.

A US military spokesman played down the significance of the 4,000th death, which followed a day of bombings and rocket fire across the country that killed at least 60 Iraqis and left many more wounded.

"No casualty is more or less significant than another; each soldier, marine, airman and sailor is equally precious and their loss equally tragic," said Rear Admiral Gregory Smith.

 

[Vegeta897]

In before this inevitably degrades into political arguments.

Dumb statement made by that admiral. That has nothing to do with the fact that "4000 dead" makes for a morbid headline.

 

[Wanted Bob]

I noticed he failed to mention the Iraqis at all.

 

[Beerdude26]

"No casualty is more or less significant than another; each soldier, marine, airman and sailor is equally precious and their loss equally tragic," said Rear Admiral Gregory Smith.

Man, the Iraq war is pretty damn tragic, then. What is it, 400,000 dead or something?

 

[CptStern]

I noticed he failed to mention the Iraqis at all.

"We don't do body counts" - General Tommy Franks


but for the record

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003


4000 dead is a drop in the bucket compared to half a million AND that's what they signed up to do: die for their country

 

[Solaris]

I'd like to think they signed up to free the Iraqi people from facsism, but maybe it was nationalism.

 

[Escaep]

"We don't do body counts" - General Tommy Franks


but for the record

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003


4000 dead is a drop in the bucket compared to half a million AND that's what they signed up to do: die for their country

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

One widely respected tally by Iraq Body Count, which collects figures based mostly on media reports, estimates that 82,349 to 89,867 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in the conflict.

 

[CptStern]

and for the 50th time ..iraqibodycount only reports numbers that have been reported 3 times and the bodies are identified ..it's on their site

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/


oh and the Lancet's methodology is the same that's been in use for decades ..it was used to calculate the number of deaths in rwanda, the aids epidemic in south africa etc ...yet those numbers are NEVER questioned ..it's only ever questioned when it comes to the war in iraq

 

[Escaep]

and for the 50th time ..iraqibodycount only reports numbers that have been reported 3 times and the bodies are identified ..it's on their site


oh and the Lancet's methodology is the same that's been in use for decades ..it was used to calculate the number of deaths in rwanda, the aids epidemic in south africa etc ...yet those numbers are NEVER questioned ..it's only ever questioned when it comes to the war in iraq

yeah, okie dokie there cpt. w/e you say.

 

[CptStern]

is that your best response? no seriously is that the best you could come up with to support your claims?

 

[Ennui]

He's right, the Lancet and other high-estimate body count studies/surveys are methodologically sound and arguably more accurate than things like IBC that only use reported figures.

Escape, try knowing what you're talking about BEFORE you start arguing next time, it will help I promise.

 

[Absinthe]

Do we get a prize or something now?

 

[PvtRyan]

Do we get a prize or something now?

A cake, with 4000 candles. But all of those candles have already been blown out.

</deep>

Also: Rear Admiral Gregory Smith lololololol

 

[CptStern]

A cake, with 4000 candles. But all of those candles have already been blown out.

</deep>

that's sig worthy ..but I like my dolls

 

[Dan]

but we've avenged the 2700 killed in 911.... right, so we can subtract that number and that makes only 2300 killed, right guys, right?

 

[Escaep]

is that your best response? no seriously is that the best you could come up with to support your claims?

So where does the (assuming 600,000 Lancet survey) 520,000 citizen (assuming 80,000 IBC survey) discrepancy come from?


I don't see how there is a 520,000 person difference between the two.

 

[The Monkey]

So where does the (assuming 600,000 Lancet survey) 520,000 citizen (assuming 80,000 IBC survey) discrepancy come from?


I don't see how there is a 520,000 person difference between the two.

IBC only count deaths reported in the international media. And do you seriously think that Iraq, with it's poor infrastructure and communications, can report all that happens to CNN?

 

[Sulkdodds]

The IBC figure is definitely a significant undercount, while the Lancet figure is probably (but to a far lesser degree) an overcount.

 

[CptStern]

So where does the (assuming 600,000 Lancet survey) 520,000 citizen (assuming 80,000 IBC survey) discrepancy come from?


I don't see how there is a 520,000 person difference between the two.

why not do the research yourself,, there's a thought

The IBC figure is definitely a significant undercount, while the Lancet figure is probably (but to a far lesser degree) an overcount.

well the 600K figure was on the low side ..it was up to 1 million ..and this is back in 2006 so projections (based on their first count) should put that figure between 1 million and 1.3 million today

 

[nurizeko]

4000?


4000???




People are gonna start crying its pointless waste of American life over 4000??????????



There was a time when 4000 was a completely accepted casualty rate for a ****ing small scale skirmish!.



4 bloody effin 000 indeed....*snort*.



Us westerners are an odd bunch, we seem to still be war mongering tossers but as soon as one of our lads takes a bullet we start turning into little fairies.

And we wonder why third world combatants think were so easily defeated, how they think a few bombs in our homelands will convince us to so thoroughly chuck i our obvious supremacy at war-fighting (wars we tend to start ourselves to).

 

[CptStern]

4000?


4000???




People are gonna start crying its pointless waste of American life over 4000??????????



There was a time when 4000 was a completely accepted casualty rate for a ****ing small scale skirmish!.



4 bloody effin 000 indeed....*snort*.



Us westerners are an odd bunch, we seem to still be war mongering tossers but as soon as one of our lads takes a bullet we start turning into little fairies.

And we wonder why third world combatants think were so easily defeated, how they think a few bombs in our homelands will convince us to so thoroughly chuck i our obvious supremacy at war-fighting (wars we tend to start ourselves to).

it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the war is a ****ing sham ..no that couldnt be it

 

[SAJ]

So where does the (assuming 600,000 Lancet survey) 520,000 citizen (assuming 80,000 IBC survey) discrepancy come from?


I don't see how there is a 520,000 person difference between the two.

To expand on what the Monkey said;

The IBC represents a baseline minimum casualty count, it can be no lower than the figures they provide. That has always been one of their objectives.
That is also the only real use of IBC figures. Given that IBC only record media confirmed civilian deaths by violent means (most often military/insurgent action of one sort or another) they do not, and can never hope to record or extrapolate a nation wide figure for excess deaths in Iraq.

The other counts are survey based , where they interview a small number of household in different "clusters" around the country. These survey figures are scaled up to match the population size of the country (in this case, Iraq) and a baseline pre-invasion deathrate is subtracted, giving you an "excess" mortality number .
Its also important to note that the surveys(Hopkins atleast) do not distinguish between civilians and insurgents/resistance/terrorists , nor are the numbers limited to violent deaths, just an overall pre/post war excess

 

[Irksome]

4000?


4000???




People are gonna start crying its pointless waste of American life over 4000??????????



There was a time when 4000 was a completely accepted casualty rate for a ****ing small scale skirmish!.



4 bloody effin 000 indeed....*snort*.



Us westerners are an odd bunch, we seem to still be war mongering tossers but as soon as one of our lads takes a bullet we start turning into little fairies.

And we wonder why third world combatants think were so easily defeated, how they think a few bombs in our homelands will convince us to so thoroughly chuck i our obvious supremacy at war-fighting (wars we tend to start ourselves to).

It might have something to do with the fact that people don't like seeing their men and women, killed and maimed for a cause they don't see worth fighting for. Thats what separates us from the other non-Western countries, is that we value the lives of the humans who fight for us, and not treat them like some expendable commodity.

And 4,000 was never an accepted number, EVER. It was tolerated but never accepted, and only tolerated because they believed that person died for a cause worth fighting for.

 

[Escaep]

To expand on what the Monkey said;

The IBC represents a baseline minimum casualty count, it can be no lower than the figures they provide. That has always been one of their objectives.
That is also the only real use of IBC figures. Given that IBC only record media confirmed civilian deaths by violent means (most often military/insurgent action of one sort or another) they do not, and can never hope to record or extrapolate a nation wide figure for excess deaths in Iraq.

The other counts are survey based , where they interview a small number of household in different "clusters" around the country. These survey figures are scaled up to match the population size of the country (in this case, Iraq) and a baseline pre-invasion deathrate is subtracted, giving you an "excess" mortality number .
Its also important to note that the surveys(Hopkins atleast) do not distinguish between civilians and insurgents/resistance/terrorists , nor are the numbers limited to violent deaths, just an overall pre/post war excess

Ahh i see now. Thank you for actually taking the time to explain something instead of pulling the "research it yourself" line.

I still find it hard to believe that 1,000,000 Iraqis have died.

 

[No Limit]

I can't believe all Monday all we heard about those 4,000 that have died. Having 4,000 americans die for nothing is a terrible thing, I would not want to be a family member of any of those soldiers. But for ****sake, how come when the death toll of Iraqi civillians reaches 100,000 we don't hear a ****ing thing about it? When it is reported that over 600,000 have died why all we hear is a bunch of idiotic pundits claiming those numbers are false. How do we sleep as a country knowing all this?

Only half of people polled could correctly say how many americans have died. Why did they not do the same poll about Iraqi deaths? This whole thing is so ****ed up I can't believe it.

 

[Danimal]

So many lives.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

but we've avenged the 2700 killed in 911.... right, so we can subtract that number and that makes only 2300 killed, right guys, right?

Multiply by the patriotic quotient of 45.3 relating to fighting for your country and you have democracy equals invasion times oil.

:dork:

 

[Eejit]

Ahh i see now. Thank you for actually taking the time to explain something instead of pulling the "research it yourself" line.

Yeah the moral of the story is that if you're lazy and make the same uninformed statements enough times someone will actually explain it in simple terms for you instead of doing anything yourself. You've been provided with links explaining all this before you just cba clicking.

/facepalm

Well hopefully you'll act like someone who can actually debate now.

I still find it hard to believe that 1,000,000 Iraqis have died.

Based on what? It seems higher than you "expected"? Well that's why they do those surveys, so we don't have to rely on guesswork.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

4000 dead is a drop in the bucket compared to half a million AND that's what they signed up to do: die for their country

Yes, thats right CptStern! /evil maniacal laugh MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

Uhm, I don't think anyone ever really thinks about the, "sacrifice part" anymore. Needless to say, 4,000 dead is a lot less then our KIA from Vietnam or hell, World War 2 or the Civil War. /seriousd