1000 days of freedom marching, I say!

To mark what it called the "1000 Days" of the Iraq war, the London daily The Independent offered extensive coverage today, featuring a by-the-numbers approach.

Here are some of their calculations:

$204.4 billion: The cost to the U.S of the war so far.

2,339: Allied troops killed

15,955: US troops wounded in action

98: U.K troops killed

30,000 : Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths

0: Number of WMDs found

66: Journalists killed in Iraq.

63: Journalists killed during Vietnam war

8: per cent of Iraqi children suffering acute malnutrition

53,470: Iraqi insurgents killed

67: per cent Iraqis who feel less secure because of occupation

$343: Average monthly salary for an Iraqi soldier. Average monthly salary for an American soldier in Iraq: $4,160.75

5: foreign civilians kidnapped per month

47: per cent Iraqis who never have enough electricity

20: casualties per month from unexploded mines

25-40: per cent Estimated unemployment rate, Nov 2005

251: Foreigners kidnapped

70: per cent of Iraqi's whose sewage system rarely works

183,000: British and American troops are still in action in Iraq.

13,000: from other nations

90: Daily attacks by insurgents in Nov '05. In Jun '03: 8

60-80: per cent Iraqis who are "strongly opposed" to presence of coalition troops

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659215

12/14/2005 8:45:38 PM

summary:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

12/14/2005 8:48:45 PM

^ good argument ass.

12/14/2005 8:52:59 PM

well, it's about as good as any the administration is giving

12/14/2005 8:57:00 PM

While they forgot to mention where they got their data from, I would say it is safe to assume that they asked those in the Sunni territories

67: per cent Iraqis who feel less secure because of occupation
60-80: per cent Iraqis who are "strongly opposed" to presence of coalition troops

although I would say this is a good stat:
53,470: Iraqi insurgents killed

12/14/2005 9:31:22 PM

oh, they didn't "forget" anything

12/14/2005 9:38:15 PM

as if you don't know that most of that data has been repeatedly posted here and elsewhere, WITH sources

also, as far as your "they asked sunnis" crack:

Quote :

"Iraq leaders came together and announced support for a withdrawal of US forces by the end of 2006. A closing memorandum signed by 100 Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders "demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces," according to the New York Times. The AP reported that Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr confided that,"By the middle of next year we will be 75% done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/international/middleeast/22arab.html?hp&ex=1132722000&en=a8235ec987accd3a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

this is from january 05:

Quote :

"raq’s Sunday elections will be held against a backdrop of deep division between the country’s ethnic groups, with an overwhelming majority of Sunni Arabs refusing to vote in the January 30 elections, a new Abu Dhabi TV/Zogby International poll finds. The poll also finds majorities of both Iraq’s Shiites and Sunnis calling for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from their soil. Zogby International polled 805 Iraqi adults from January 19 to 23, 2005 on behalf of television broadcaster Abu Dhabi TV. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points. The survey, to be released at 5 p.m. ET on Abu Dhabi Television, found three-quarters (76%) of Sunni Arabs say they definitely will not vote in the January 30 elections, while just 9% say they are likely to vote. A majority of Shiites (80%) say they are likely to vote or definitely will vote, as are a smaller majority of Kurds (57%). Majorities of both Sunni Arabs (82%) and Shiites (69%) also favor U.S. forces withdrawing either immediately or after an elected government is in place."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957

12/14/2005 9:47:32 PM

It's worth pointing out that some large percentage of those 15,955 wounded US troops were injured so slightly that they were back at their posts within 24 hours.

Quote :

"30,000 : Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths"

What happened to that 100,000 number?

Oh that's right, it was grossly inflated and ridiculous.

Quote :

"20: casualties per month from unexploded mines"

How many of these were our mines, or even in any way our fault?

12/14/2005 9:57:03 PM

i'm just posting what they posted, which they probably got from iraqbodycount.org

I think that the 100,000 figure was probably just fine, considering htey used the same methods the u.s. military has always used.

we have no way of knowing for sure, since the military refuses to count in this one.

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 10:00 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2005 10:00:05 PM

It just seems to me that if you guys can't pin it down to within 70,000 people it just goes to show that you're practically making shit up.

12/14/2005 10:02:04 PM

Well, like dg said, it's hard for civilians to do it when the government refuses.

But I don't have any sort of solid position one way or the other about it.

12/15/2005 12:07:51 AM

Hahaha...making shit up.

Hi, pot, met kettle?

12/15/2005 12:20:42 AM

I thought the 100,000 was criticized when it came out by people who said the number was probably closer to 70,000-80,000? As far as I know, the first I heard of this 30,000 number was earlier this week or last week when Bush used it in a speech. I have no idea where he got his number from. So... it's anyone's guess who's making shit up, I suppose. Probably somewhere in between.

But even if it's only 30,000... 30,000 civilians dead compared to 53,470 insurgents killed? That seems like a pretty alarming ratio to me if we can't even kill 2 insurgents without a civilian dying. I know that the majority of the civilians are killed by insurgent attacks rather than accidental casualties during troop operations, but still, damn! That shows how many strides we still have to make as far as security goes in the country.

12/15/2005 2:43:29 AM

I find it funny that some here seem to be taking this 30,000 number as the gospel truth. Where exactly did this number come from again? Oh, right...Bush's own mouth. The same pathological liar who has lied to the American people over and over and over again about the facts related to this war.

But let's just assume that the 30,000 figure is accurate.

As I recall, the 100,000 estimate made no distinction between civilians and "insurgents"

So...~30,000 civilians + 53,470 "insurgents" = 83,470 killed (not too different than the 100,000 estimate)


[Edited on December 15, 2005 at 8:12 AM. Reason : `]

12/15/2005 8:05:24 AM

Quote :

"t just seems to me that if you guys can't pin it down to within 70,000 people it just goes to show that you're practically making shit up. "

i don't know who you mean by "you guys," but there have been several studies by several groups on several different occasions who are affiliated with different ideologies. This "you guys" you're somehow including me in doesn't exist.

The Lancet UK medical journal did the study that came up with the 100,000 figures, and again, they used the same methods the us used to decide how many civilians were killed in bosnia and many other situations.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ has been doing a count using a pretty good methodology:

Quote :

"The project takes as its starting point and builds upon the earlier work of Professor Marc Herold who has produced the most comprehensive tabulation of civilian deaths in the war on Afghanistan from October 2001 to the present, and the methodology has been designed in close consultation with him."

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.htm#methods

Quote :

"Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication."

Their count is currently 27383 - 30892.

12/15/2005 10:51:30 AM

and its the 'fox news watchers' that spin facts

12/15/2005 11:02:49 AM

excuse me, but could you tell me where the spin is? firstly, I'm just telling you what I've been told. I'm not trying to spin anything. I don't do that. I try to be as honest as possible.

12/15/2005 12:56:50 PM

I'm looking at the 30,000 number as "Bush will publicly say it's 30k." Not "well, he says it's 30,000, so that's what it must be."

12/15/2005 1:13:39 PM

Im looking at the 30,000 as the best possible estimate out there...and thats why Bush says it

12/15/2005 1:41:40 PM

You do realize that it is in Bush's own interests to support the lowest number possible, right?

12/15/2005 1:54:38 PM

How anyone could just believe anything coming from the Bush Administration without verifying it is incomprehensible. How many times do they need to lie to you before you wake up and see that they are lying scum?

12/15/2005 2:03:20 PM

They missed a few:

100: Percent of Iraqis who no longer live under the rule of Sadam or his family.

72: Percent of eligible voters who turned up for the first democratic elections in 50 years

12/15/2005 3:07:30 PM

Quote :

"Hi, pot, met kettle?"

True enough, but just because my side made some shit up doesn't mean you get a "Pull figures out of our ass with impunity" card.

Quote :

"i don't know who you mean by "you guys,""

Yes, you do. Quit acting like you're above pigeonholing. You're in the anti-war crowd, both in the general sense and with specific regards to Iraq.

Quote :

"I'm looking at the 30,000 number as "Bush will publicly say it's 30k.""

I'm not sure why you'd say that, since it's the obviously anti-war newspaper that introduced the figure to this thread.

12/15/2005 3:49:50 PM