11 to 1

[American]

1 U.S. Soldier Killed, 16 Injured; U.S. Kills 11 Iraqi Attackers (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91086,00.html)

It's not about body counts... we all know that. I'm just curious what people think of those figures, and what the enemy might think of them.

11 to 1 was deemed acceptable 30 years ago, in fact it's the exact ratio the air force was using to judge their fighter jet losses. Today, those numbers seem downright egregious.

Why is that? What has changed since then, and how do you view such losses once committed to a mission?

(Not to gloss over "16 injured"; that's 16 too many.)

[Captain_Snort]

Originally posted by American
1 U.S. Soldier Killed, 16 Injured; U.S. Kills 11 Iraqi Attackers (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91086,00.html)

It's not about body counts... we all know that. I'm just curious what people think of those figures, and what the enemy might think of them.

11 to 1 was deemed acceptable 30 years ago, in fact it's the exact ratio the air force was using to judge their fighter jet losses. Today, those numbers seem downright egregious.

Why is that? What has changed since then, and how do you view such losses once committed to a mission?

(Not to gloss over "16 injured"; that's 16 too many.)

12 killed, 16 injured (oh no results on Iraqi injured)

that is 12 too many killed

[American]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort


12 killed, 16 injured (oh no results on Iraqi injured)

that is 12 too many killed

No, I'd have to say it's only 1 too many. Those other 11 were wrong and had to pay. Very, very wrong.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by American
1 U.S. Soldier Killed, 16 Injured; U.S. Kills 11 Iraqi Attackers (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91086,00.html)

It's not about body counts... we all know that. I'm just curious what people think of those figures, and what the enemy might think of them.

11 to 1 was deemed acceptable 30 years ago, in fact it's the exact ratio the air force was using to judge their fighter jet losses. Today, those numbers seem downright egregious.

Why is that? What has changed since then, and how do you view such losses once committed to a mission?

(Not to gloss over "16 injured"; that's 16 too many.)

The 16 US soldiers that were wounded were wounded by mortar fire inside an American base. The 11 enemy killed were shot through the chest with M-16s because they were the ones firing mortar rounds into the American base.

JK

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The 16 US soldiers that were wounded were wounded by mortar fire inside an American base. The 11 enemy killed were shot through the chest with M-16s because they were the ones firing mortar rounds into the American base.

And, what were the Americans doing there in the first place?

These are the causalties of war people like you have been denying would happen all along!

[American]

Originally posted by shanek
And, what were the Americans doing there in the first place?

Something that you don't like, but the general population of iraq needs to survive.

These are the causalties of war people like you have been denying would happen all along!

never denied it. i was counting on it, and i hope we count a few more enemy dead by the time we're finished.

hope, nothing- you can bet on it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by American
Something that you don't like, but the general population of iraq needs to survive.

They, apparently, have a different view on the matter.

never denied it.

Many did, even right here on this very board. It was going to be a quick and easy takeover, with few if any American casualties.

Now, the American causalties number in the hundreds, something we were told before was ridiculous.

i was counting on it, and i hope we count a few more enemy dead by the time we're finished.

Heh...The Iraqis are the "enemy," yet they're the ones we're there to help. I guess killing them is "what they need to survive," right?

hope, nothing- you can bet on it.

Well, I'm glad you take delight in the killing of others...Especially when you're not the one who has to go over there and do it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Many did, even right here on this very board. It was going to be a quick and easy takeover, with few if any American casualties. I was very involved in those discussions and I don't remember anyone making that assertion. Can you cite someone who had that view?

Now, the American causalties number in the hundreds, something we were told before was ridiculous. Hey, I could be wrong but again, I don't remember anyone making this claim.

Heh...The Iraqis are the "enemy," yet they're the ones we're there to help. I guess killing them is "what they need to survive," right? I think the point is that the Baathists who are loyal to Saddam, who kill our soldiers and who oppresed the majority are the "enemy". And no, they do not need to survive. It is the other Iraqis that need to survive.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I was very involved in those discussions and I don't remember anyone making that assertion. Can you cite someone who had that view?

Well, here's a post predicting that the casualty ratio would be 500:1 (he also predicted that WMDs would be found):

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=154194#post154194

There were others, but I haven't taken the time to do an exhaustive search.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, here's a post predicting that the casualty ratio would be 500:1 (he also predicted that WMDs would be found): Somehow I don't think that is the same thing as saying "few if any casualties". Also, I'm quite certain that the casualty rate was quite high on the side of the Iraqis and perhaps higher than 500:1. Do you know the final tally or do you have reason to suspect that it was lower?

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Somehow I don't think that is the same thing as saying "few if any casualties". Also, I'm quite certain that the casualty rate was quite high on the side of the Iraqis and perhaps higher than 500:1. Do you know the final tally or do you have reason to suspect that it was lower?

Well, according to this page:

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-04-022732.asp?reg=MIDEAST

if you consider just the US/UK casualties resulting from combat and attacks, compared to the number of military Iraqis killed, the ratio is 15:1.

For all casualties, as you can see at the site there's no good numbers for the amount of Iraqi civilians killed. But even if we take the highest number given, the ratio of total Iraqi casualties, civilian and military, to the total US/UK casualties, both combat/attack and non-combat, is still only about 40:1.

Not anywhere close to what was predicted.

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, according to this page:

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-04-022732.asp?reg=MIDEAST

if you consider just the US/UK casualties resulting from combat and attacks, compared to the number of military Iraqis killed, the ratio is 15:1.

For all casualties, as you can see at the site there's no good numbers for the amount of Iraqi civilians killed. But even if we take the highest number given, the ratio of total Iraqi casualties, civilian and military, to the total US/UK casualties, both combat/attack and non-combat, is still only about 40:1.

Not anywhere close to what was predicted.

Don’t forget the total Iraqi casualties, civilian and military or Saddam loyalist during Saddams regime is 200.000:1

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
Don’t forget the total Iraqi casualties, civilian and military or Saddam loyalist during Saddams regime is 200.000:1

The 40:1 figure was from total Iraqi casualties, based on the best information available. Where are you getting your figure?

A ratio of 200,000:1 would mean that there were about 5,000,000 dead Iraqis. The population of Iraq is just over 22,000,000. That's a loss of over 22% of the Iraqi population!!!