Newspaper Marks 1000 Days of Iraq War with Key Stats

NEW YORK To mark what it called the "1000 Days" of the Iraq war, the London daily The Independent offered extensive coverage today, featuring a by-the-numbers approach.

Here are some of their calculations:

$204.4 billion: The cost to the U.S of the war so far.

2,339: Allied troops killed

15,955: US troops wounded in action

98: U.K troops killed

30,000 : Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths

0: Number of WMDs found

66: Journalists killed in Iraq.

63: Journalists killed during Vietnam war

8: per cent of Iraqi children suffering acute malnutrition

53,470: Iraqi insurgents killed

67: per cent Iraqis who feel less secure because of occupation

$343: Average monthly salary for an Iraqi soldier. Average monthly salary for an American soldier in Iraq: $4,160.75

5: foreign civilians kidnapped per month

47: per cent Iraqis who never have enough electricity

20: casualties per month from unexploded mines

25-40: per cent Estimated unemployment rate, Nov 2005

251: Foreigners kidnapped

70: per cent of Iraqi's whose sewage system rarely works

183,000: British and American troops are still in action in Iraq.

13,000: from other nations

90: Daily attacks by insurgents in Nov '05. In Jun '03: 8

60-80: per cent Iraqis who are "strongly opposed" to presence of coalition troops


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659215

A fine upstanding christian conservative member of the community informed us in writing that "we should be thankful there were no WMD."
Yes, the latest in a series of right wing talking points passed to the lemmings to repeat. However, based on the other notes in your post, that ZERO for WMD has gained cosmic gravitas. Thankful indeed! Just think, If I were a conservative, I wouldn't give a fuck about those other numbers either. Oh, and by the way, Happy Holidays!

Thanks for the link

:hi:

No WMD is their claim to fame? Interesting.

I wonder what the distinguishing characteristic is that delineates "civilian" from "insurgent"? And why are civilian deaths only an estimate, but insurgent deaths are so precise?

An interesting little list; it raises many, many questions in my mind. Good thing I'm not a reporter, huh?

I suggest we throw that into a letter to editors. It amazes me how this administration continues to get a free pass. It pisses me off, in fact.