Casualties in Iraq.

[Jon_in_london]

So, we hear much about US and British casualties in Iraq these days, but arent informed of the totals.

Now I know for a fact that more than 30ish US troops have been killed in Iraq after the 1st of May and more towards 60ish but I keep hearing people on the news saying the number of US fatalities is more 20ish. So wtf?

In fact, I have counted 75 US fatalities since 1st May (as of yesterday). Bump that up to 81 if you include 6 British Militray Police killed a few weeks ago.

Quite a high number, is it not?

Now, what I want to know is not just fatalities but casualties.

I would guess total casualties are around 500 since 1st May but cant find any more info on this, I think we need to know.

[rwald]

What's the difference between a fatality and a casualty? If you're including injuries of any kind, exact numbers are going to be very hard to come by.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Quite a high number, is it not?


As compared to?

I think the key is finding Saddam or his remains. Panama quieted down after we drug Noriega in his red bikini briefs into custody.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by rwald
What's the difference between a fatality and a casualty? If you're including injuries of any kind, exact numbers are going to be very hard to come by.

Fatalities+wounded=casualties.

I think 'wounded' would be defined as being no longer fit for duty rather than 'just broke fingernail'

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by corplinx


As compared to?

I think the key is finding Saddam or his remains. Panama quieted down after we drug Noriega in his red bikini briefs into custody.

81 deaths post end-of-major-combat-operations (aka the end of the war) is quite a high number in absolute terms IMHHO.

[reprise]

One of the US media networks keeps a count of the statistics, I'll see if I can track down a link over at the SDMB.

[reprise]

Reuters stats (http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-06-121522.asp?reg=MIDEAST)

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/188/nation/A_look_at_U_S_daily_casualties:.shtml)

[DialecticMaterialist]

High number? John isn't much for conserving his estimates. Name another (Non-US) war where that few people died John.

And how many died under Saddam? A lot more I bet.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
High number? John isn't much for conserving his estimates. Name another (Non-US) war where that few people died John.

And how many died under Saddam? A lot more I bet.

Why so defensive?
I wasnt intending to be aggressive here, just wanting answers that arent being provided.

And its Jon. Not John.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Why so defensive?
I wasnt intending to be aggressive here, just wanting answers that arent being provided.

And its Jon. Not John.

You did have another thread just a few weeks ago praising US deaths in Iraq why complain now?

[Jon_in_london]

From reuters:

U.S. AND BRITISH TROOPS KILLED:
COMBAT/ATTACKS
United States 143 (29)
Britain 14 (6)
NON-COMBAT
United States 66 (42)
Britain 29 (4)
IRAQIS KILLED:
MILITARY 2,320#
CIVILIANS +

numbers in brackets indicate post 1st may fatalities.

Yet the Boston globe indicates 69 as of monday which ties in better with my estimate of 75 since tues. Obviously my count includes 'non-combat' deaths. That would explain it.

Reuters defines non combat as "accidents, U.S. or British fire killing/wounding their own troops or other incidents unrelated to fighting."

Dont the figures for non-combat deaths seem rather high as well? How have 46 of our troops been killed in 8 weeks in non-combat situations?

Yes, I know Im asking lots of questions but Im curious.

Still no mention of total casualties though, just fatalities.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Baker


You did have another thread just a few weeks ago praising US deaths in Iraq why complain now?

Im a stirrer. Sometimes a devils advocate is needed to juice things up a bit and get some lively discussion going.

[Drifterman]

DialecticMaterialist challenged:
High number? John isn't much for conserving his estimates. Name another (Non-US) war where that few people died John.


The Falkland Islands War in 1982 - 255 deaths

Death Toll (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat7.htm#Falkland) by Matthew White (Historical Atlas of the 20th Century)

The numbers are still rising in Iraq - the war's not over yet.

[Jon_in_london]

I found this published almost 1 month ago:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-iraq-attacks0611,0,3673781.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines

Since the war in Iraq began, 209 members of the U.S.-British forces have died, 139 killed by hostile fire, and 627 others wounded or otherwise injured, according to the Central Command. Among the Americans, hostile fire has accounted for the deaths of 56 Marines, 59 soldiers and one sailor.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Why so defensive?
I wasnt intending to be aggressive here, just wanting answers that arent being provided.

You stated this was quite a high number. Just because you put a question mark a the end doesn't mean you fooled anybody. The "question" was obviously innuendo.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


You stated this was quite a high number. Just because you put a question mark a the end doesn't mean you fooled anybody. The "question" was obviously innuendo.


So?

[DialecticMaterialist]

So "Jon" it means that you are making claims that you don't seem willing to back up with any solid evidence, just questionable conjecture.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So "Jon" it means that you are making claims that you don't seem willing to back up with any solid evidence, just questionable conjecture.

What claims?

[DialecticMaterialist]

That it was quite a high number with all that is likewise implied.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That it was quite a high number with all that is likewise implied.

It does seem like a high number to me and I was asking if anyone else agreed. What exactly do you feel is "likewise implied"

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
So, we hear much about US and British casualties in Iraq these days, but arent informed of the totals.

Now I know for a fact that more than 30ish US troops have been killed in Iraq after the 1st of May and more towards 60ish but I keep hearing people on the news saying the number of US fatalities is more 20ish. So wtf?

In fact, I have counted 75 US fatalities since 1st May (as of yesterday). Bump that up to 81 if you include 6 British Militray Police killed a few weeks ago.

Quite a high number, is it not?

Now, what I want to know is not just fatalities but casualties.

I would guess total casualties are around 500 since 1st May but cant find any more info on this, I think we need to know.

In terms of a war, the number of US and it's allies casualties is incredibly low. Compare these numbers to other wars such as Vietnam, Korea, etc. (Forget the diversions such as Granada).

Now, the Republicans are paying the penalty for their political opportunism when they made so much of the US casualties in Somalia. A conflict that was killing and harming many innocent people saw the US forces leave as soon as Clinton saw the political writing on the wall.

And what does GWB say now, 'bring em on'.

If Clinton had said that, he would have been toast.

[DialecticMaterialist]

And the Republicans would have been wrong. Had Clinton ramped up his Somalia capmaign, I would have been behind him totally. I think Clinton was a great president and the Republicans tied his hands on a lot of issues. Especially the issue concerning Osama, as Clinton wanted to take him out a long time ago.

[DialecticMaterialist]

It does seem like a high number to me and I was asking if anyone else agreed. What exactly do you feel is "likewise implied"


Ok but that's merely a statement made in a vacuum, not comparative therefore not well grounded given what we are examining.

And what you implied was that the war was a bad idea, american/british troops are incompetent, the "real war" is about to begin, we should leave the region etc.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

And what you implied was that the war was a bad idea, american/british troops are incompetent, the "real war" is about to begin, we should leave the region etc.

I was not implying anything about our troops (our as in US, UK, Aus). They have a very difficult job to do under very dangerous circumstances.

No, Im not blaming anything on the troops, I think the blame for whats happening in Iraq, and is getting worse from day to day, lies somewhat further up the chain of command.

I honestly dont think leaving Iraq at this point would be a very good idea.

But really, I also wanting to know, and bring to light the actual number of casualties, not just the number of deaths. Total casualties tend to mean big numbers and big numbers mean a twitchy public and I wonder if thats why they arent being reported.