Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Middle East Casualities

Middle East Casualities
Thread Tools
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2004, 11:02 PM
 
From Wikipedia

First Gulf War:

Gulf War casualty numbers are controversial. Coalition military deaths seem to be around 378, with US forces suffering 148 battle-related and 145 non-battle-related deaths (included in the 378). The UK suffered 47 deaths. The largest single loss of Coalition forces happened on February 25, 1991 when an Iraqi Scud missile hit an American military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 28 U.S. Army Reservists from Pennsylvania. The number of coalition wounded seems to have been less than 1,000. Iraqi casualty numbers are highly disputed. Some claim as low as 1,500 military killed, some 200,000. Many scholars believe a number around 25,000 to 75,000. The number of military wounded is equally unknown. 71,000 Iraqis were taken as prisoners of war by US troops. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from 100 to 35,000.
Cost:
The cost of the war to the United States was calculated by Congress to be $61.1 billion; two-thirds of that amount was paid by Kuwait, Japan and Saudi-Arabia.
Iraq War (2003-Now)

[quote]As of May 5, 2004, the coalition death toll in this conflict was 870. Out of 870, 764 U.S., 59 UK, 17 Italian, 11 Spanish, 6 Bulgarian, 6 Ukrainian, 2 Thai, 2 Polish, 1 Danish, 1 Estonian and 1 Salvadoran have died. More than 80% of these died after President Bush's announcement on May 1, 2003 that major combat was over.

Troops killed in action account for 640 of the coalition casualties, including 559 of the U.S. casualties.

(...)

Iraqi military casualties:

There are no concrete numbers of dead Iraqi soldiers, although in late May 2003, one reporter for The Guardian estimated that between 13,500 and 45,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed by American and British troops during the six weeks of major combat [3]. (Following that period, the Iraqi military was effectively disbanded.)

A more recent, frequently quoted study published in October, 2003 [4] estimated that there were between 4,895 and 6,370 Iraqi military deaths, while explaining that to arrive at this number, they had "adjusted" the underlying incident reports from the field by reducing each count by anywhere from 20% to 60%, based on their own reliability assessments, in order to "control for casualty inflation -- a prevalent form of bias." Thus, the actual reports they were summarizing must have totalled between 6,119 and 15,925 deaths.

U.S. Central Command has given few figures on the subject, but officials did estimate that 2,000-3,000 Iraqi troops were killed in one day alone during a blitz into Baghdad on April 5, 2003, suggesting that a total in the tens of thousands is not unlikely for the entire 6-week war.
Iraqi civilian deaths: min: 9061, max: 10918

Cost: (estimated) $112 982 050 000 ?

Deaths attributed to Saddam Hussein:
The number of deaths related to torture and murder under the government of Saddam Hussein are unknown, but the numbers of dead from the Anfal campaign against Kurdish civilians is believed to be at least 50,000 and may be significantly more, and there have regularly been reports of widespread imprisonment and torture by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the majority of the cases being in the 1980s and after the rebellion that followed the 1991 Gulf War.
September 11, 2001 casualties: around 3000

Afghanistan war casualties: See that web site.



That is a lot of blood pouring from and for 2 guys, meaning Hussein and Bin Laden.

What do you think?
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2004, 11:12 PM
 
Ahh, Wikipedia. Always the absolute HIGHEST in any estimate... bordering on fiction on most subjects, outright lies in others.

Maybe I should start posting numbers from the CBN/700 Club web site? Would be just as accurate, but only from the OTHER side of the scale.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2004, 11:17 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Ahh, Wikipedia. Always the absolute HIGHEST in any estimate... bordering on fiction on most subjects, outright lies in others.

Maybe I should start posting numbers from the CBN/700 Club web site? Would be just as accurate, but only from the OTHER side of the scale.
Well, instead of spinning on your own, why don't you bring your numbers?

I am not claiming they are exact, and they cover minima and maxima wherever I could find them.

Instead of downplaying what you cannot discuss about, why not make an effort and bring your numbers with your sources?

I am ready to learn from others as long as they bring something credible to support their point of view...
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2004, 11:32 PM
 
What's the point?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BigMeatyChunks
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2004, 12:24 AM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
Well, instead of spinning on your own, why don't you bring your numbers?

I am not claiming they are exact, and they cover minima and maxima wherever I could find them.

Instead of downplaying what you cannot discuss about, why not make an effort and bring your numbers with your sources?

I am ready to learn from others as long as they bring something credible to support their point of view...
This kind of discussion is pointless as nobody knows the true cost in terms of money or lives.
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2004, 06:58 AM
 
Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
This kind of discussion is pointless as nobody knows the true cost in terms of money or lives.
Avoiding discussion?

Numbers too big for you?

Or not enough to make sense?

Not enough means more?

What is so bad in looking back and see some results, good AND bad?
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Tokencon
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2004, 07:42 AM
 
This kind of discussion is hardly pointless. What may MAKE it pointless is the left's absolute refusal to believe ANY numbers that fail to support it's anti-American, win-the-presidency-at-any-cost-to-America perspective.

This is a war. The left seems to believe you can fight a war without casualties and for free. So, they harp of the costs in lives and treasure and spin it out of all context, and when someone offers ACTUAL stats on both of these and a comparison to the costs (at least in lives) on the other side, the left pooh-poohs it, claims the numbers are cooked and/or rapidly changes the subject.

Those on the left are desperate to inflate US casualty numbers, desperate to see piles of Iraqi bodies (a la Vietnam), desperate to convince middle America that this war IS another Vietnam and all of this desperation is borne of the insensate hatred of GW Bush and the left political machines desperate need to return to the power they held for nealy 50 straight years so that they can continue to destroy America.

Smarmy dismissals of the facts are fun, but serve only to illustrate exactly how corrupt and demogogic is the left--if the facts fail to live up to the left's expectations and desires...they dismiss them as being part of the VRWC.

Tokenconservative
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2004, 07:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Tokencon:
This kind of discussion is hardly pointless. What may MAKE it pointless is the left's absolute refusal to believe ANY numbers that fail to support it's anti-American, win-the-presidency-at-any-cost-to-America perspective.

This is a war. The left seems to believe you can fight a war without casualties and for free. So, they harp of the costs in lives and treasure and spin it out of all context, and when someone offers ACTUAL stats on both of these and a comparison to the costs (at least in lives) on the other side, the left pooh-poohs it, claims the numbers are cooked and/or rapidly changes the subject.

Those on the left are desperate to inflate US casualty numbers, desperate to see piles of Iraqi bodies (a la Vietnam), desperate to convince middle America that this war IS another Vietnam and all of this desperation is borne of the insensate hatred of GW Bush and the left political machines desperate need to return to the power they held for nealy 50 straight years so that they can continue to destroy America.

Smarmy dismissals of the facts are fun, but serve only to illustrate exactly how corrupt and demogogic is the left--if the facts fail to live up to the left's expectations and desires...they dismiss them as being part of the VRWC.

Tokenconservative
Interesting that you criticize the numbers (dismissing it for a leftist conspiracy against the actual President) but at the same time, criticize the post for not bringing ACTUAL stats, which you are not yourself bringing.

You a leftist by any chance?
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
BigMeatyChunks
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2004, 11:51 AM
 
Originally posted by Tokencon:
This kind of discussion is hardly pointless. What may MAKE it pointless is the left's absolute refusal to believe ANY numbers that fail to support it's anti-American, win-the-presidency-at-any-cost-to-America perspective.

This is a war. The left seems to believe you can fight a war without casualties and for free. So, they harp of the costs in lives and treasure and spin it out of all context, and when someone offers ACTUAL stats on both of these and a comparison to the costs (at least in lives) on the other side, the left pooh-poohs it, claims the numbers are cooked and/or rapidly changes the subject.

Those on the left are desperate to inflate US casualty numbers, desperate to see piles of Iraqi bodies (a la Vietnam), desperate to convince middle America that this war IS another Vietnam and all of this desperation is borne of the insensate hatred of GW Bush and the left political machines desperate need to return to the power they held for nealy 50 straight years so that they can continue to destroy America.

Smarmy dismissals of the facts are fun, but serve only to illustrate exactly how corrupt and demogogic is the left--if the facts fail to live up to the left's expectations and desires...they dismiss them as being part of the VRWC.

Tokenconservative
What is it about statistics? Oh, yeah: three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2004, 01:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Tokencon:
This kind of discussion is hardly pointless. What may MAKE it pointless is the left's absolute refusal to believe ANY numbers that fail to support it's anti-American, win-the-presidency-at-any-cost-to-America perspective.

This is a war. The left seems to believe you can fight a war without casualties and for free. So, they harp of the costs in lives and treasure and spin it out of all context, and when someone offers ACTUAL stats on both of these and a comparison to the costs (at least in lives) on the other side, the left pooh-poohs it, claims the numbers are cooked and/or rapidly changes the subject.

Those on the left are desperate to inflate US casualty numbers, desperate to see piles of Iraqi bodies (a la Vietnam), desperate to convince middle America that this war IS another Vietnam and all of this desperation is borne of the insensate hatred of GW Bush and the left political machines desperate need to return to the power they held for nealy 50 straight years so that they can continue to destroy America.

Smarmy dismissals of the facts are fun, but serve only to illustrate exactly how corrupt and demogogic is the left--if the facts fail to live up to the left's expectations and desires...they dismiss them as being part of the VRWC.

Tokenconservative
Wow, that post had a 'left'-to-sentence ratio of 1:1. Way to come off objectively
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2004, 04:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Tokencon:
This is a war.
Interesting. I thought it was a liberation.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:42 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,