47, 400 or 117,100

[13Gigatons]

U.S. military amputeed, wounded, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 47,400; Iraqi civilian dead, 117,100.




http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=489


....

 

[Pabster]

Links?

Looking at The McLaughlin Group's Home Page yields nothing on that.

 

[charrison]

These folks keeping a running count


linkage

 

[TNM93]

It's ok, because at least Iraq is "free" and "democratic" now.

/sarcasm off

 

[Specop 007]

Ficitious numbers. Those are always the preferred numbers to use when pushing an Anti War agenda.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Ficitious numbers. Those are always the preferred numbers to use when pushing an Anti War agenda.

The numbers are real and JOHN MCLAUGHLIN worked for Nixon and Ford.

http://www.mclaughlin.com/about/bio.asp?pid=6

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: charrison
These folks keeping a running count


linkage

thats much more informative than the Op's link. As for the Op's link, HUH?

 

[Red Dawn]

[NeoCon]Hey the number of Iraqis killed could be a million and it wouldn't matter as long as they were Iraqis opposed to us being there[/NeoCon]

 

[techs]

I have seen these numbers about the U.S. wounded in many places. It is the official U.S. count.
I am not sure if the Iraqis dead count is from the U.S. or Iraq or the news media but I seem to remember it is now coming from the Iraqis who took over the tallying from the U.S.

When Mclauglin started posting these numbers they did a little piece on how the dead and wounded were being counted by the US government. Seems if you are wounded in Iraq and evacuated out of the country and die anywhere outside of Iraq (say in Kuwait or in an American hospital) you are only counted as being wounded not killed in Iraq.

Anyway, the huge U.S. military amputeed, wounded, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 47,400 number is, imo, due to the advances in medical care. However, the people we can now keep alive are far more seriously injured than in say, Vietnam, and many of the "merely" wounded are so seriously impaired that their lives will be lived out tragically with multiple limb loss, connected to machines, in comas etc.
If you could look at the number of those who will be confined to bed or machines, etc it would look quite different.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Ficitious numbers. Those are always the preferred numbers to use when pushing an Anti War agenda.

The numbers are real and JOHN MCLAUGHLIN worked for Nixon and Ford.

http://www.mclaughlin.com/about/bio.asp?pid=6

Sure they are. I'm sure there 100% real and verifiable arent they?
Different numbers

So who do you want to believe.
28,000, or 100,000+?
Well, whats your agenda. You've chosen the highest possible number you can find, so you dont need to tell us. Your agenda is VERY apparent. While your numbers are completely fictitious, your agenda is clear as day.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: charrison
These folks keeping a running count


linkage

thats much more informative than the Op's link. As for the Op's link, HUH?

OP's link

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He let him get away without even mentioning his name.

Okay, the human toll: U.S. military dead in Iraq, including suicides, 1,983; U.S. military amputeed, wounded, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 47,400; Iraqi civilian dead, 117,100.

Exit question: If Saddam was still in power, would there be 30,000 insurgents in Iraq today and al Qaeda in Iraq today? Pat Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: No way.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: No way. Eleanor.

 

[RightIsWrong]

For more accurate totals, might I suggest this site? They only track totals from the DoD as to Coalition wounded/killed and you can filter the data.

This site keeps track of Iraqi civilians. It lists the total, at the time of typing, between 26732 and 30098.

 

[Harvey]

Do the actual numbers even matter? Death and injury are a sad but expected part of combat.

Even assuming the lowest published numbers for those killed and wounded, the more important question is whether, in retrospect, we can see them as an acceptabl cost for a justified end.

Sadly, the war in Iraq is based on Bush's lies, and the lives of the dead and injured have been needlessly squandered.

 

[Kibbo86]

I'd just like to point out that the 30k number is limited to deaths reported in the media. That is a very conservative methodology.

And yes, Harvey, the numbers do matter. Here's a quick, shallow calculus:

Bush: 2.5 years, 30 000 civilians dead. = 12 000 per annum
Saddamver 20 years, and the rhetoricians bandy about a number of 200k civilians slaughtered. Ball park, under 10k dead a year

Point being, it would be hard for Bush to say he's improved things over there.

 

[Pabster]

Well, for those who now try to spin "the numbers don't matter", I'll direct you back to a thread where (many of you) had quite a different POV.

Here.

Amazing how times change so quickly.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Do the actual numbers even matter? Death and injury are a sad but expected part of combat.

Even assuming the lowest published numbers for those killed and wounded, the more important question is whether, in retrospect, we can see them as an acceptabl cost for a justified end.

Sadly, the war in Iraq is based on Bush's lies, and the lives of the dead and injured have been needlessly squandered.

Bush needed to lie to get the American public behind the war.
I support the War on Terror, not necesarily the War in Iraq. 2 different things, those.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Harvey
Do the actual numbers even matter? Death and injury are a sad but expected part of combat.

Even assuming the lowest published numbers for those killed and wounded, the more important question is whether, in retrospect, we can see them as an acceptabl cost for a justified end.

Sadly, the war in Iraq is based on Bush's lies, and the lives of the dead and injured have been needlessly squandered.

Bush needed to lie to get the American public behind the war.
I support the War on Terror, not necesarily the War in Iraq. 2 different things, those.

This I agree with..

The war in Iraq has sucked our war coffers DRY .. to the tune of what $200,000,000,000

I constantly wonder if that cash could have made more of a difference used in some besides defense spending...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dahunan
The war in Iraq has sucked our war coffers DRY .. to the tune of what $200,000,000,000

I constantly wonder if that cash could have made more of a difference used in some besides defense spending...

Sticking strictly to the financial aspect of this, what do you honestly think would happen if $200 billion were all of a sudden dumped in and available for Congress to spend? The highway pork bill was what $286 billion?

If you are arguing what COULD the money have been used for, OK. But what likely WOULD have happened I think we both know the answer.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dahunan
The war in Iraq has sucked our war coffers DRY .. to the tune of what $200,000,000,000

I constantly wonder if that cash could have made more of a difference used in some besides defense spending...

Sticking strictly to the financial aspect of this, what do you honestly think would happen if $200 billion were all of a sudden dumped in and available for Congress to spend? The highway pork bill was what $286 billion?

If you are arguing what COULD the money have been used for, OK. But what likely WOULD have happened I think we both know the answer.

It was a could.. .in a more spiritual sense.. something our politicians cannot comprehend.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Harvey
Do the actual numbers even matter? Death and injury are a sad but expected part of combat.

Even assuming the lowest published numbers for those killed and wounded, the more important question is whether, in retrospect, we can see them as an acceptabl cost for a justified end.

Sadly, the war in Iraq is based on Bush's lies, and the lives of the dead and injured have been needlessly squandered.

Bush needed to lie to get the American public behind the war.
I support the War on Terror, not necesarily the War in Iraq. 2 different things, those.

This I agree with..

The war in Iraq has sucked our war coffers DRY .. to the tune of what $200,000,000,000

I constantly wonder if that cash could have made more of a difference used in some besides defense spending...

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the War in Iraq.
1) It lures out terrorists. Just look, even all these years later they are still figthing insurgents. Which means now instead of these terrorists getting sent around the world their getting sent to Iraq.
2) It gives us an excellent base of operations to monitor and control the Middle East if needed. Theres speculation that Saudia Arabia could become a destabilized region, so having forces in the Middle East makes sense
3) Its convienently located to strike at multiple other countries. Ties in with #2.

Course, the cons are its not directly related to the War on Terror, the other reasons listed are more long term reasons to be there and its a massive drain on our finances.
Now my biggest complaint is the whoel real reason for being in the area to keep it stabilized is oil. I think with what we've spent on oil we could have invested that in other technologies and resouce pools and be "Middle East" free as it were.

Course, in the end you have to remember one thing. We're there, directly or indirectly, for oil. And I've seen veeeery few Americans make any changes in their lifestyle whatsoever to live a more oil free live.
Which means regardless of what Americans SAY to you, their ACTIONS support the war in Iraq. And the funny thing is, everytime I point that fact out to those bleeding heart liberals I get a deer in the headlights look. Because they know I'm right.
Shuts up the anti war protestors real fast.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Ficitious numbers. Those are always the preferred numbers to use when pushing an Anti War agenda.

The numbers are real and JOHN MCLAUGHLIN worked for Nixon and Ford.

http://www.mclaughlin.com/about/bio.asp?pid=6

Sure they are. I'm sure there 100% real and verifiable arent they?
Different numbers

So who do you want to believe.
28,000, or 100,000+?
Well, whats your agenda. You've chosen the highest possible number you can find, so you dont need to tell us. Your agenda is VERY apparent. While your numbers are completely fictitious, your agenda is clear as day.

The DoD purposely leaves people off their records especially the wounded. They did a whole program about this. The DoD had the wounded at 14, 000 at the time but the REAL number was 32,000.

They get away with this through creative accounting.

They talked with one soldier who was really angry about this because it meant he couldn't get the benefits he deserved.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: techs
I have seen these numbers about the U.S. wounded in many places. It is the official U.S. count.
I am not sure if the Iraqis dead count is from the U.S. or Iraq or the news media but I seem to remember it is now coming from the Iraqis who took over the tallying from the U.S.

When Mclauglin started posting these numbers they did a little piece on how the dead and wounded were being counted by the US government. Seems if you are wounded in Iraq and evacuated out of the country and die anywhere outside of Iraq (say in Kuwait or in an American hospital) you are only counted as being wounded not killed in Iraq.

This is false. If you take a look at the link I posted above you can clearly see that those that died because of injuries received in Iraq, but died elsewhere are being counted iraq deaths.

Anyway, the huge U.S. military amputeed, wounded, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 47,400 number is, imo, due to the advances in medical care. However, the people we can now keep alive are far more seriously injured than in say, Vietnam, and many of the "merely" wounded are so seriously impaired that their lives will be lived out tragically with multiple limb loss, connected to machines, in comas etc.
If you could look at the number of those who will be confined to bed or machines, etc it would look quite different.

Given the terrible error made above and stats that say otherwise, it looks 47k is likely wrong as well.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: techs
I have seen these numbers about the U.S. wounded in many places. It is the official U.S. count.
I am not sure if the Iraqis dead count is from the U.S. or Iraq or the news media but I seem to remember it is now coming from the Iraqis who took over the tallying from the U.S.

When Mclauglin started posting these numbers they did a little piece on how the dead and wounded were being counted by the US government. Seems if you are wounded in Iraq and evacuated out of the country and die anywhere outside of Iraq (say in Kuwait or in an American hospital) you are only counted as being wounded not killed in Iraq.

This is false. If you take a look at the link I posted above you can clearly see that those that died because of injuries received in Iraq, but died elsewhere are being counted iraq deaths.

Anyway, the huge U.S. military amputeed, wounded, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 47,400 number is, imo, due to the advances in medical care. However, the people we can now keep alive are far more seriously injured than in say, Vietnam, and many of the "merely" wounded are so seriously impaired that their lives will be lived out tragically with multiple limb loss, connected to machines, in comas etc.
If you could look at the number of those who will be confined to bed or machines, etc it would look quite different.

Given the terrible error made above and stats that say otherwise, it looks 47k is likely wrong as well.

The 47,400 is a real actual counted number of all the soldiers that are wounded, injured, mentally ill and all out of Iraq. They have the names on a list.


The 117,100 is an estimate of how many Iraqi's have been killed. No estimate for how many are wounded but it would be 1000's.


----

 

[jpeyton]

We are doomed to fail in Iraq. You can't kill as many civilians as we did and hope the society will forgive and forget.

Make no mistake, we destroyed Iraq and now we want flowers from its citizens as repayment.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons


The 47,400 is a real actual counted number of all the soldiers that are wounded, injured, mentally ill and all out of Iraq. They have the names on a list.


The 117,100 is an estimate of how many Iraqi's have been killed. No estimate for how many are wounded but it would be 1000's.


----

And I'll bet dollars to donuts a grossly inflated estimate at that.