Tech Support Guy banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 2591 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,427 Posts
I think this guy is a little over the top on some matters, such as abortion, but the numbers presented are correct:

Oh, but they keep on whining about how many soldiers have died in Iraq. Here's some stats they won't want to see and wouldn't want you to see...

[* source] Length Combat Deaths
War of Independence* 6 years 8 months 4,435
World War I* 1 year 7 months 53,513
World War II* 3 years 8 months 292,131
Korean War* 3 years 1 month 33,651
Vietnam War 7 years 6 months 47,369
Iraq War (as of 1/8/2007) 3 years 9 months 2,415

So why is it we're expected to believe that this war is so much more "costly" than any other?

I know the 3,000 plus number is being bandied about but the Media and the Dims count all troops who have lost their lives, as if being in combat means nothing can kill you except the enemy. There have been 585 non-hostile deaths among the troops, and given that there are somewhere around 150,000 of them, that's not a large number. The current death rate for all Americans is 8.26 deaths/1,000 people/year. 8.26 times 150 times 3.75 would be 4,646.25. Hmm, that means even including the combat deaths, the life expectancy of a US soldier in Iraq is greater than the average US citizen. Dang, send me over there!

Obviously the demographics are different. All US citizens would include senior citizens, who...well, tend to die at a fairly high rate.

So let's look at the mortality rate for people aged 25-34 (I couldn't find the one for just men, so since women tend to outlive men, this is still lower than it should be for a comparable demographics of our troops, since they are mostly men) The CDC puts the death rate for 25-34 year-olds at 103.6 per 100,000. So multiplying 103.6 time 1.5 (150,000 troops) times 3.75 (been there 3 years 9 months) we get 582.75. How many non-combat deaths have there been in Iraq? Wasn't it 585? Hmmm.

But, here's something else to note...

The overall demographic would exclude those inconvenient, unborn babies Liberals are so fond of slaughtering by the millions each year. Each year it is estimated that about 25 out of every 100 pregnancy is aborted. That makes the death rate for unborn babies 250 for every 1,000—25,000 for every 100,000.

Are you paying attention? An unborn baby in America is 125 times more likely to be murdered by its own mother than a US soldier has of being killed by an insurgent in Iraq! If our soldiers died at the rate we slaughter unborn children, in the 3 years and 9 months of the Iraq war we'd now have 140,625 dead, not just 2,415.

Democrats certainly have a problem with numbers.
Remainder of article here>http://jacklewis.net/weblog/archives/2007/01/dems_dim_on_num.php
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,427 Posts
poochee said:
Comparison of deaths in other wars, does not matter. Too many of our people are dying in this ill-conceived war!:(
Would appear that the analysis went right over your head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,427 Posts
poochee said:
Statistics don't impress me when people are needlessly dying.
Just more proof that the analysis went over your head. Can you give me an example when people need dying?
 
1 - 20 of 2591 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top