Posted on 10/23/2005 12:22:39 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Shortly, the 2,000th death of an American serviceman or woman will occur in Iraq. That will generate an orgy of coverage in the American press on how “deadly” the war is. Sidebars will suggest that citizens are becoming “increasingly doubtful” about the conduct of the war. This Newsbusters article denounces that coverage as dishonest, in advance.
I wrote on 24 April, 2004, that the War on Terror is the LEAST bloody war in the history of the United States, measured by deaths per month. This is true going back to the Revolutionary War, even though the nation’s population then was only 1 percent of what it is today. (In impact on the population, every death in the Revolution was equivalent to about 100 deaths today.)
Source: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7041
Now, Dan Hallagan has done the detailed research to put all of America’s wars in context and compared them, by their cost in blood and money, to the nation’s populations and economies when those wars occurred. I had used “deaths.” Hallagan uses the correct military meaning of “casualties” including all those killed and wounded.
His conclusions are that Gulf War I was the least bloody war in our history with a casualty rate of 0.00029 percent of the population at the time. The second least is the War on Terror, with a rate of 0.00529 percent. Third, the Spanish American War, at 0.00551. By contrast, the three bloodiest wars were the Revolutionary War at 0.30351 percent, then World War II at 0.80761 percent, and by far the highest, the Civil War at 2.82865 percent.
Note that Mr. Hallagan uses a total of 2,184 for American troops killed in the War on Terror. This is because he includes all deaths in this war, those in Afghanistan plus a few in other places such as the Philippines, whereas the American press today ignores those other deaths. The not-so-subtle bias is that deaths other than in Iraq are in a good cause, and should be ignored. The effort to delegitimize this war applies only to Iraq.
On the cost of the wars, Mr. Hallagan presents his “War Cost Index” which divides “the average annual cost of a war ... by its ending Gross Domestic Product GDP.” In short, this measures how much of the nation’s total economy is devoted to each war.
The three least expensive wars, by that measurement, are Spanish-American War, War Against Terror, and the Vietnam War, with respective indices of 0.00271, 0.00746, and 0.01132. The three most expensive were WW II, the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War, with respective indices of 0.33676, 0.49069, and 0.59524. Gulf War I and the War of 1812 both move far up the scale compared to their cost in casualties, because these two were fought mostly with more expensive assets, air and sea power.
Source: http://www.logictimes.com/dissent.htm
Mr. Hallagan presents his information both in text and numbers, and in simple, clear graphs. So even the editors and readers of USA Today can read and understand them.
In short, I condemn every reporter and every editor in every media source of all types who reports on the 2,000th American military death in Iraq as professionally incompetent, if they do not put those deaths in context with other American wars. Any competent reporter can click the link above, read Mr. Hallagan’s statistics (and their sources), check his math, and then write an honest and competent story when that “milestone death” in Iraq occurs, which will be soon.
I’m not holding my breath for the American press to become competent overnight on this subject, however.
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
How absolutely disgusting! But then hey they are the lefty libs, out of power, and squealing at anything they can find as an excuse. IMPEACH BUSH is the rant you are going to hear in the near future. It already started last night. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507533/posts
I don't see anything in that link that classifies the events as "parties", or that they are "celebrating" anything. It's events to get together to protest the war.
Criticize organizations like the one you linked to with the facts (It's not hard), not random crap you make up to rile people. Doing the latter just makes you look like a fool.
We give the enemy too much credit when we post the 2,000 mark. Every soldier should be honored that lost their life.
If you take out non-hostile and friendly fire the number is around 1,500.
They include friendly fire as being killed in hostile action.
The media uses 15,000 injured all the time. But half returned to action within 72 hours. There have been around 300 amputee injuries. The vast majority of the 15,000 troops have fully recovered.
Five ghoulish Death Watches planned for Wisconsin so far:
https://www.afsc.org/2000/find_results.php?state=WI&submit=Find+Events
If I eat a part of a cake today, I'm just eating a cake. If it's on the anniversary of my birth and I put candles on it, one for each year, it's a birthday celebration. Here's what they are planning on the day the death toll reaches 2000:
Public actions at congressional offices, federal buildings and other appropriate spaces with 2,000 representations of the lives lost.If it didn't include the candles, you might have a point, as it might just be a "protest" but by planning 2,000 candles, one for each casualty, they are indeed "celebrating" that milestone. And if you gather for a celebration, I call that a "party."This could be 2,000 candles, 2,000 gold stars, or 2,000 placards with the name, rank, age and home state of each casualty with a photo of a pair of boots.
And before you claim they are just honoring the dead, keep in mind that the 2,000 represents only military killed in Iraq. If they are intent on honoring the lives lost, they would include KIA in Afghanistan as well.
It looks like a celebration to me.
Here is an article from the July 2nd issue of world magazine which may be helpful. If you go to www.worldmag.com, click on current issue, click on previous issues and finally on July 2, 2005, you will also see a table comparing U.S. war deaths since the Revolution. Sorry I am not good enough yet to figure out how to post the table as well.
Fatality flaw
The U.S. death rate in Iraq is indeed rising, but some comparisons are still in order | by Joel Belz
Almost two years ago, when the war in Iraq was only four months old, I noted in this space how manipulative the mainstream media had been in their portrayal of the number of American deaths. We ran that column under the headline, "It could be worse"—and provided some historical comparisons to make the point.
Surely enough, in the 700 days since then, things have indeed gotten worse in Iraq. We owe it to careful readers to update our statistics, and we are doing that on this page. We will not bury the fact that the toll in American lives has climbed from 1.4 per day when we first discussed this topic to 2.1 per day over the course of the whole Iraqi war.
You can obviously make the argument, if that is your purpose, that an increase from 1.4 to 2.1 is a ghastly 50 percent increase in the daily death rate. And statistically, of course, that is indeed the case.
But a good analyst looks for comparisons in more than one dimension. That's why I think it's so suspect that no other reporter I can find has made the historical comparison with other U.S. wars—or with other causes of death.
For while a jump from 1.4 to 2.1 seems huge, the daily 2.1 figure remains startlingly low by historical standards. Only the Revolutionary War and the much more recent Gulf War dipped below that absolute figure—and when adjusted for the nation's population at the time of those wars (note the last two columns), the present death rate equals the lowest on record.
We also noted here a couple of years ago the importance of keeping war deaths in perspective with other causes of dying. Throughout the United States, 115 people die every single day from motor vehicle accidents. Another 37 people die every day simply from falling, and 35 more from accidental poisoning. Still 15 people more (that's seven times the current death rate in Iraq) die daily from suffocation, 10 from fire and burns, and nine from drowning. At least two dozen separate causes of death are statistically more dangerous than the war in Iraq.
Opponents of the war, of course, argue—with some merit—that comparing accidental deaths with preventable deaths is specious. "We may not be able to stop traffic accidents," such people say, "but we can demonstrably eliminate 2.1 deaths every day just by ending the war in Iraq."
Which takes us right to the core of the issue. Somewhere in this statistical maze you also have to tally in the 3,000 Americans who died on a single day in September 2001, along with some kind of estimate as to how many more might have perished at the hands of terrorists since then if a stiff response had not been mounted. And then how do you figure in the 30 Iraqis who have been dying every single day since the war to liberate their country started 27 months ago? No one knows for sure, but almost certainly, more than 25,000 men, women, and children have been wasted by the terrorists. Fewer than a third of those have been in the military or in law enforcement; most were civilians. Such awful wantonness—of both the New York and the Baghdad variety—will only continue if the perpetrators are not restrained. In context, that makes the 2.1 figure look small indeed.
And yes, I have considered how big even 1.0 would look if it were a member of my family. My son-in-law, the father of five of my grandchildren, serves in Iraq right now—and I think about the risks several times every day. That's precisely why all of us have got to see the numbers in perspective. •
Copyright © 2005 WORLD Magazine
July 2, 2005, Vol. 20, No. 26
The song takes the sting right out of the media's message. I've posted it on the online music sites that host my music and now I have it in a podcast on iTunes. I'm hoping I can reach as many people as possible to make them think and then realize that the media has been trying to play us all for fools.
One good thing, a little 365 type radio station picked it up and added it to their 200 song one time play line up last night. I may not be able to head the media off at the pass but I've sure been trying LOL!!
bttt
ping
Don't forget that the attack on Pearl Harbor only lasted two hours, yet it cost the lives of 2,403 Americans.
I've always wondered what the death rate during an equivalent period of time to the War on Terror would be for men, say 18 to 35, if they had not been in the service.
This would include accidents, murders, etc.
I'm sure there is a way to look it up, but I haven't found it.
Well .. let's make sure we remind the MEDIA it was Cronkite and his willing accomplices in the media who caused the deaths of an additional 48,000 Americans in Vietnam - by LYING ABOUT VIETNAM.
Just type up a standard statement - you can use mine - and send it to every media who tries to paint 2000 deaths as the be all end all. Of course, it's sad that 2000 of our best and brightest have had to lose their lives - but 50,000,000 people live in FREEDOM because of it.
"...When fellow citizens are asked to sacrifice their lives as our representatives in the defense of our liberty, there is a special obligation placed upon us to support that ultimate effort and to minimize empowering the enemy. The time for dissent is in the lead up to war as the people, through their representatives, publicly debate the threat and carefully decide to commit the lives of its military men and women to a just cause..."
WWII is called "the good war" by Democrats. But of course, FDR was in power over almost exactly the same span of time as was Hitler; to the extent that Churchill was right that WWII was "the unnecessary war," FDR was as responsible as anyone for failing to preempt it. Which hardly covers FDR with glory - had he thought like Churchill he might have taken action which prevented not only Hitler's aggression but FDR's own reelection. That would have been an honorable way to "fail" . . .And even tho we've suffered more casualties since then than before it, the official position of the US should be that we have not been in a "war" since Bush declared "major" combat operations to be over. And most especially since the administration ceded sovereignty to the Iraqi government. What state would we be at "war" with? "Terrorism?"
Are we obligated to treat prisioners according to the Geneva Convention when they are soldiers of no state, and they violate the Geneva Convention with their every operation?
Short answer: yes. We are obligated to treat prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, but that does not mean granting them "prisoner of war" status which confers on them all kinds of priviledges like a monthly stipend, or freedom from interrogation, or allowing them to keep their command structure. They are not "prisoners of war."
There were quite a few people who thought like you, during the American Revolution. They were called "Tories." Many of them fled to Canada because they disagreed with most Americans. You are welcome to do the same, if you persist in your geopolitical ignorance, which you share with much of the American press.
John / Billybob
Anyone interested in saving the lives of Americans in the military would INSIST that these men and women be overseas in a very low-grade war like this one, rather than at home. There are many ways to demonstrate the political bias and historical ignorance of much of the left, including much of the press. What you suggest is yet another way to show that point, in addition to the one that I chose.
John / Billybob
These and other facts disqualify them from protection under the Conventions. Instead, they are subject to the Law of War, as explained clearly by the US Supreme Court in the Quirin case in 1942. They are subject to "drum head trials" and execution if found guilty.
See, for example, the trial and execution of Major John Andre by the Americans or the trial and execution of Nathan Hale by the British. In understanding what is going on now, a study of history is your friend. None of this is new.
John / Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.