US troops dying faster in Iraq...

It took 295 days to reach the benchmark of 500 U.S. dead soldiers from Iraq.

Date 1/9/2004
Total 500
Interval in days 295

242 days would pass before the next 500 death milestone would be reached, the interval in days reduced by 53.

Date 9/7/2004
Total 1000
Interval in days 242

It's now 177 days since we reached the next 500 death benchmark - 1500. The interval in days reduced by 65 from the previous benchmark and by 118 from the first 500.

Date 2/3/2005
Total 1500
Interval in days 177

http://icasualties.org/oif/

nominated

Americans are a scared, foolish lot, no?

That is not what my TV told me last night. It said the 1500 mark shows the insurgents are slowing down and giving up!! That was from pentagon whore DeRita who said that. Natch no one on the TV debunkied his bizarro thinking.

:crazy:

numbers, and as every one of those 1500 deaths is linked on ICCC to the original Centcom/DoD death releases, I'd have to say ICCC is correct, and DiRita is still just a big stupid LIAR.

But then that's no surprise to anyone other than the freeping stupid rethugs who still think Iraq did 911, had WMD that we've already found and the world supports bush's invasion & occupation.

Rightwingnuts; stupidest MFers on the planet.

I would be interested in how these numbers stack up to the first 2 years in Vietnam. These may be good hard numbers to use to convince some stubborn, 50 year family members about the evils of this war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3199622#3200343

Comparison of Vietnam deaths to Iraq war deaths.


http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-... /
This site compares the early years of Vietnam to the Iraq debacle.
The Iraq numbers are higher (granted there were less troops in Vietnam in the early years) but what if a regional conflict breaks out. Should the current war in Iraq be a precursor to a regional war, Vietnam will look like a day in the park incomparison.

First 8 MONTHS of Iraq:

U.S. war dead in Iraq exceed early Vietnam years
November 2003

More US troops have died in Iraq in the eight months since the US war began than were killed during the first three years of the US war in Vietnam.

A November 13 (2003) Reuters analysis of US defence department statistics showed that in Vietnam the US military had suffered 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964...as of December 1, (2003) 437 US troops have died in Iraq since March 20, when the US invasion began.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/memorial/20031113-1423-iraq-usa-vietnam.html

First 2 years of Iraq:



Vietnam went on over 10 years; we've only been in Iraq for 2.

It might and I say "MIGHT" just wake up a couple of freeptards. But then maybe not...

:(

They just focus on the end result of Vietnam, 58,000 US dead, and compare that to the "trivial" 1500 US dead in Iraq.

When told the fact that 'Nam went on for over a decade and that Iraq has only been going for 2 years, they do the usual rethuggery of ignoring that fact totally.

Same as the freeping bastards trivialize & denigrate the deaths of our troops by comparing 1500 dead out of 150,000, to the total number of Americans who die in a year in the entire state of 36+ million in California...because California and Iraq are the same size GEOGRAPHICALLY :eyes: No one does TOTAL STUPIDITY like freeping rethugs.

Try using the very same freeping stupid rhetoric on them about the "measly" 2800 deaths on 911 and how so many more Americans died in WWII than on 911 4 years ago so GET OVER IT already and the FACT that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with those 911 deaths in the first place and watch the rethugs shriek and scream and stamp their feet.

Many who die in California may be 60, 70 or older. I remember reading that perhaps 50% of Iraq's population was under 18 or so.... freeptards are just that,unknowing, uninformed, and uninviting.

They don't compare ALL DEATHS in Iraq to ALL DEATHS in California, and forget the fact that CA has at least 11 million more people than all of Iraq.

They ONLY compare 1500 troops dead out of 150,000 troops in Iraq, to ALL DEATHS in the ENTIRE 36+ million of California.

What REALLY cracks me up is their reason why; coz Iraq and California are the SAME SIZE GEOGRAPHICALLY. ROTFLMAO!!!

So Iraq under Hussein was just as democratic as California under bush, because after all, they're THE SAME SIZE GEOGRAPHICALLY.

We can't get through to the closed minds who idiolize * and think he's the second coming.

Facts are nothing to them.

its not your son ,daughter ,brother or sister. Or a young child who has never had the oppertunity to even know his own parents ! This whhole thing disgust me beyond words. The way some people talk about these deaths as if there was no soul behind each #. Then to add insult to the whole ugly truth ,to cliam the one responsible is a man of God ,doing the work of the Lord, makes this war even more disgusting. Iam ashamed that at this point in history ,our country is now the aggresser, in a never ending circle of death and destruction. The war pigs now are in control , and I fear there is more death and suffering coming our way. Lets not forget the inocent Iraqie people ,who like us love there children and family members ,and how many have died and suffered because of this unnesassary war ! ITS SICK
NicRic

...unless one of them is being shot at.

If it was correlated to relative troop strength, then it would be more apt and less disingenuous.

War is war. If this occupation continues, the Iraqi combatants will grow in size and the American deaths will increase. I don't care how the numbers correlates. This graph just shows that over time more resistance from the Iraqis could cause greater death to American soldiers. Also, it shows that many more deaths are on the way if Bush let's this turn into another Vietnam.

It makes no difference whatsoever if one year correlates to 10 times as many troops in-country as another year. :eyes:

MORE troops should mean LESS DEATHS.

When there are MORE troops in-country, there should be LESS deaths, but in Iraq there are more troops than were in 'Nam the first few years and yet MORE deaths.

MORE troops = MORE protection, MORE strength, and LESS DEATHS.

Except in Iraq it doesn't.

The graph shows NUMBER OF TROOPS KILLED. It does not matter if there are 10 troops, 10,000 troops or 100,000 troops in-country; FACT IS more troops have been killed in Iraq in the past 2 years than were killed in 'Nam in the first 6 years.

The graph is comparing ONE DEAD BODY to ONE DEAD BODY.

And again, as military people know, MORE troops should equal MORE protection, MORE strength, and LESS deaths.

Which is why the military brass said we didn't have enough troops; which is why we've been increasing troop levels.

Or do you think if we only had the 30,000 troops Rumsfailed wanted in Iraq this past year we would have had LESS troops killed?

Just as other people in this thread have compared the disingenuity of comparing Iraq to California due to differences in population, such is the same for this graph.

The highest troop strength during the first few years in Vietnam was something like 6,000. There is no way you can compare that to 150,000.

This is just basic statistics, folks. You have to use per-capita rates.

to ONE DEAD BODY.

The number of living bodies is IRRELEVANT other than in fact MORE TROOPS means MORE PROTECTION, MORE STRENGTH and LESS DEATHS when all else is equal.

More troops does NOT mean more protection, only more TARGETS.

I'm beginning to think that you don't even believe the words your write...

Uh huh.

You're entitled to your own opinion.

Have a good weekend. :)

:)

Did the number of American troops killed in Vietnam increase or decrease when troop levels rose?

-Make7

There goes your bullshit. ;)


And my "bullshit" as you put it, dear, comes right from US military strategic studies officers (ForceCom). The advantage of being married to the US military. Although really, common sense should have told you that;

2 identical wars; one has less troops, and one has more troops. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the war with LESS TROOPS will have HIGHER CASUALTIES.

In Vietnam we sent more troops BECAUSE WE ESCALATED THE FRIGGING WAR, and that's why we then lost more troops.


Now if you know better how to do it than ForceCom, perhaps you should join the US Military yourself and put them straight! ;)

Compared to when the troops levels were lower?


MORE troops = MORE protection, MORE strength, and LESS ^more DEATHS

---

Yes, when we have two identical wars with all things being equal except troop levels, we can make a useful comparison. (Let me know when that happens, so I don't miss it.) Iraq and Vietnam seem very different to me.

How are you defining escalate? Do you agree that there were more troop deaths in Vietnam when the troop levels were increased? Here is a chart to see what correlation there might be, if any.

year   troops    deaths  rate per 1000 troops
1961     3205       16     4.99
1962    11300       52     4.60
1963    16300      118     7.24
1964    23300      206     8.84  
1965   184300     1863    10.11
1966   385300     6143    15.94
1967   485600    11153    22.97
1968   536100    16592    30.95
1969   475200    11616    24.44
1970   334600     6081    18.17
1971   156800     2357    15.03

MORE troops = MORE protection, MORE strength, and LESS ^more DEATHS

-Make7

If we had the same level of field medicine today that we had 30 years ago the number of KIAs would probably be more like 5000. The estimate is that up to half of the wounded in Iraq would have died from their wounds in Vietnam. Remember, these are very traumatic wounds caused by IEDs and rocket propelled grenades.

Improved medicine has reduced the number of deaths; that means more kids are going home as multiple amputees or quadriplegics. Another factor is body armor which protects area of the vital organs; but, not the arms and legs.

if you believe the "polls". :eyes: Yep, 54% think things are getting better and better all the time. Even progressives like Jon Stuart are beginning to drink the Kool-Aid and are thinking bush's ever changing reasons for invading Iraq are bearing fruit!

The propaganda's working on most of them I guess. I think they really, really WANT to believe in their hearts that their pResident isn't a stupid, little, war monkey, but the facts just don't back that up. It's my opinion that you can't force your system of beliefs on people, especially when the backbone of that system is greed.

How many MORE deaths will it take until they realize this "Democratization" of the world is a failed concept? Your guess is as good as mine.

Until then, I'm not drinking ANYTHING the government offers me. I DO hope some good comes out of this debacle, that all of these lives haven't been wasted on the whims of a stupid, little, wannabe cowboy. However, I'm not ready to jump on that rickety band wagon just yet. Things have to drastically change before that happens.

just a few days ago..

number of dead; ie troops who would have died from their injuries during 'Nam are now "alive" due to advances in medical technology, ability in Iraq to get troops faster to medical care facilities, and better (for those who have any) body armor.

But doctors say the injuries troops are suffering in Iraq are far more horrendous than 'Nam. There are an estimated 2000 US troops now "alive" but brain-dead.


Amputation Rate for US Troops Twice That of Past Wars

US troops injured in Iraq have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars, and as many as 20 percent have suffered head and neck injuries that may require a lifetime of care, according to new data giving the clearest picture yet of the severity of battlefield wounds.

The data are the grisly flip side of improvements in battlefield medicine that have saved many combatants who would have died in the past

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1209-06.htm

Army Doctors Scrambling, Report Says

Although at least as many US troops have been wounded in combat in the Iraq war as in the first five years of Vietnam, 90% are surviving compared with 76% in Vietnam.

Other experts also have credited superior body armor and equipment for improving combat injury survival. But the survivors often have injuries so severe that their future prospects are uncertain, Gawande writes.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121104A.shtml

Iraq service linked to brain trauma, suicide

US casualties in Iraq may be suffering a greater share of brain injuries

The war has seen unusually high rates of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

TBI rates in previous wars have been estimated at about 20 percent. In July, a San Francisco Chronicle survey of troops being processed through Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital in Washington DC indicated that as many as two-thirds of all soldiers wounded in Iraq suffer from the condition.

http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/0904/1124.shtml

with today's improvements in surgery and rehabilitation, many, many soldiers that would have died in Viet Nam are now kept alive. They're vegetables, their country is turning it's back on them when they return home in a wheelchair, but they're alive.
Their former lives will never be regained, they'll have no future except for pain and their wheelchair, but they're alive. In the loosest form of the term.

Many have said that they'd rather have been killed than what faces them in the present and future. But they aren't on the "list" of KIAs, and that's what makes the Army happy.

I'm willing to bet that the KIA numbers would be somewhere around 3,000 or so without today's medical technology, soldiers that would have died in Viet Nam.

I've a friend who got his left hand blown off in Viet Nam. Before he was drafted he was a great musician, organ, piano, drums......he was definitely top of the chart material. Now, not a day goes by that he doesn't wonder what might have been. He curses the day he let them draft him and says he should have gone to Canada. He feels that his loss was for nothing, nothing at all. He works now, at a job that barely pays the bills, spends his free time as an activist, trying to keep other young men from making the same mistake. Many won't listen though, you're bullet proof when you're young. Immortal.

So, yes. Many more are being sent home who would have ordinarily died, but sent home to what?

For your info, here's an article that discusses the escalating war in Iraq...

http://www.freedomliberationmovement.com/cms/article289.html&mode=&order=0&thold=0

National Guard troops walk alongside a hearse as they pass outside Morris Elementary School enroute to the church for the funeral of Staff Sgt. David Day, Thursday, March 3, 2005 in Morris, Minn. Day, a Minnesota National guardsmen killed in Iraq (news - web sites), was a police officer in St. Louis Park, Minn. (AP Photo/Jim Mone)

U.S. Army Spc. Lizbeth Robles, 31, of Vega Baja, Puerto Rico is shown in this undated handout photo provided by her family on Wednesday, March 2, 2005. Robles died on Tuesday in an Army hospital in Tikrit, Iraq (news - web sites) from injuries suffered in a vehicle accident this week. She was part of the 360th Transportation Company, in Fort Carson, Colorado. (AP Photo/El Nuevo Dia)


I am betting it is not. RIP Lizbeth... :(

We count EVERY SOLDIER who dies from injuries from WHATEVER CAUSE in Iraq, WHEREVER they actually die.

Fatalities By MonthSelect Month 3-2005 2-2005 1-2005 12-2004 11-2004 10-2004 9-2004 8-2004 7-2004 6-2004 5-2004 4-2004 3-2004 2-2004 1-2004 12-2003 11-2003 10-2003 9-2003 8-2003 7-2003 6-2003 5-2003 4-2003 3-2003 Month Summary Chart
Date Total Name Place of Death Cause of Death
02-Mar-2005 3 | US: 3 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (central part) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (central part) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Robert Shane Pugh Iskandariyah (near) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
01-Mar-2005 1 | US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Specialist Lizbeth Robles Tikrit (228th Cmd. Spt. Hosp.) Non-hostile - vehicle accident
Total 4 | US: 4 | UK: 0 | Other: 0

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=3-2005

there seem to be an ungodly number of traffic accidents in Iraq. How many of them occur when the driver is going pedal to the metal to get out of an ambush? When the driver is ducking bullets and runs into a wall, so it doesn't count at a 'combat fatality' because it was a wall, not a bullet that gets them?

I wonder about that.

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1390.htm

U.S. Military Personnel who die in German hospitals are not counted in Iraq death totals.

There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded, this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 1,400+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources.

...more...

###


I'm obligated to remind you that this author is making a hypothesis and I can't vouch for the source.

It's interesting to note how the corporate media is focused on the makeup of Jackson's jury, while independent citizens are engaged in actual investigative journalism.

We count EVERY SOLDIER who dies from ANY injuries sustained in Iraq WHEREVER they may actually die.

As does Centcom and the DoD.

Everything out of this administration is spun and whittled to put the best possible face on it.

They are not above lying and under reporting troop deaths either. Take the official numbers with a grain of salt.

The numbers are correct.

It would be next to impossible to hide a dozen troop deaths; hiding hundreds or thousands would be totally impossible.

I said I couldn't vouch for the source, but it's an interesting hypothesis.

I don't know if the article is true either but I am past trusting ANYTHING official and so anything is possible. The * Administration lies. Period.

Here's what the owner says about himself:
"Contrary to the hysterical views of rabid trailer park Bush supporters, I was not suckled by a werewolf and I am not a member of the far left. In point of fact, I am a very disillusioned moderate Republican whose family were bankers, brokers and CEOs of various nice companies."

So, stop saying that!!

cow

Just a guestimation, haven't worked it out.

Using the data from above I projected a trend line excel with a polynomial projection to 12/2006. It shows the logarithmic scale that the casualty rate is showing. So. If you went out to ten years like the Viet Nam war we could have another 65000 troops killed in a meaningless war.

Looks pretty linear to me. Neither axis is logarithmic.

What is/was the the reason for this war? for these deaths? for these severe injuries? for Iraqi citizen deaths & injuries? for the devastation of this country? What was the reason? I hope & pray someone is held accountable. & Michael Jackson continues to be the headline. Where is the OUTRAGE??!!??

kind of like afghanistan - they had their elections, nothing to see now - move along....

meanwhile the drums are beating about syria and iran...

sigh. so predictable.

move on to Martha, Jacko, Baretta, etc.

They might be upset that the "insurgency is failing" is a tad shy of reality.

paraded around on the deck of an aircraft carrier with his testicles pulled up to his belly button?

Thank you for posting. I hope you don't mind I ported it over to DKos . . .

Talk doesn't cook rice
-- Chinese Proverb

I have come up with 3 projection of how many more day for the next 500 to die.
145 days 242/295=.82 127 days 177/242=.73
113 days 82-73=9 73-9=64 for .64
or in other words 4 to 5 months. _____ I wish I could stop this.
We do not need another Vietnam.

the mess hall bombing, and the helicopter crash on 1/26/05- all of which happened after 9/7/04:

Fallujah:
3 11/16/04 6 0 0 6
3 11/15/04 12 0 0 12
3 11/14/04 4 0 0 4
3 11/13/04 10 0 0 10
3 11/12/04 11 0 0 11
3 11/11/04 8 0 0 8
3 11/10/04 9 0 0 9
3 11/09/04 14 0 0 14
3 11/08/04 11 1 0 12
Mess Hall:
3 12/21/04 15 0 0 15
Stallion 'copter Crash:
3 01/26/05 37 0 0 37

The average for the period was about 3/day.
The 10 days listed above account for 104 deaths above that average.
Averaged out to 3 per day, it should have taken another 35 days to reach 1500 total.
This would still be a faster rate (500 deaths in 212 days) than the previous period to reach this mark.
So even accounting for those 3 events, your point is correct.
Things have gotten worse.

that their will not be another mess hall or helicopter crash etc. in the next 4 to 5 months. But as long as are troops are targets that possibility exist.

Link: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You support the war from the comfort of your keyboard only, right? 1-800-GO-ARMY.


And if you believe this war was about anything other than oil and the petrodollar, well I have a bridge to sell you if you're interested...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Seems you don't know that you're posting to someone whose brother was in the Marines and is subject to recall. And the OP's husband is currently IN IRAQ. And there are plenty of posters here who are former and current active duty members of the service. But yes, you go on thinking that Dems hate the military. :eyes:

And what branch of service are you in? You haven't volunteered for Iraq yet? Why not? You do realize that they are recalling even certain Navy personnel for service in Iraq, right? So your branch of service is no excuse for not going over there.

You see, I keep asking this of republicans and "independents" who cheerlead for this war because I don't want my brother to have to die in your place. You want it, then you go fight in it. My brother was smart enough to know it was BS from the beginning. Sorry that you can't see that too.


And while I didn't call you a stupid American, I would call you sadly mis/uninformed. Know anything at all about the petrodollar? Or are you just going to bury your head in the sand and avoid the real issues behind the war? Know anything about the UN approval of Iraq switching to the Euro? About OPEC's threats to do the same? About Iran's agreements with the EU? Or Iran's plans to implement its own market for oil sales- which transactions will be made in the Euro? Do a little research into the petrodollar issues before you make assertions of our invasion being for democracy in the Middle East. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.