The War in Iraq: Discounting success

Discounting Success

Published 1/29/2007

"War Coverage: U.S. and Iraqi troops eliminated several hundred
terrorists on Sunday, but in the twisted view of the establishment
media, this significant victory was outweighed by the deaths of two
Americans.

'Iraqis Raid Insurgents Near Shiite Holy City," says the Washington
Post headline. "U.S. Copter Crash Kills 2 During Fight."

Across the country on the West Coast, the Los Angeles Times was going
by the same book. "U.S. and Iraqi forces thwart 500 fighters
apparently targeting a Najaf shrine," the Times announced in a sub-
headline, but "a helicopter goes down, killing two American troops."

The deaths of the two brave American soldiers who were killed are
tragic. But why lump them in with the successful gains that Americans
and Iraqis are making against the insurgency?

Yes, Americans' deaths are news and their heroism deserves the respect
and gratitude of a nation. But it's cheap journalism to use U.S.
military casualties to dilute the progress being made in Iraq.

It is also misleading. While the media are eager to keep a running
toll of U.S. soldiers' deaths in Iraq, a look at the data shows that
military deaths are not at some all-time high. In fact, they're
roughly similar to military deaths in the first three years of the
"peaceful" Clinton administration. In 1993, 1,213 American service
members died; a year later, 1,075 lost their lives; in 1995, there
were 1,040 fatalities.

Compare those numbers with 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, when
1,410 soldiers died. Or 2004, when 1,887 died.

Or look at it this way. During Clinton's first four years, there were
4,302 active-duty deaths. That number rose to 5,187 during President
Bush's first four years - years that were marked by two wars in
response to the terrorist threat.

Though the establishment media want to filter the struggle in Iraq
through the darkest lens possible, America and its allies are moving
forward. In the raid mentioned above, as many as 300 terrorists were
killed by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Another 60 were wounded, 120
captured. That's no trivial breakthrough. A world with nearly 500
fewer Islamic militants is a better place.

That alone is enough to celebrate. But the U.S. military has had a
number of meaningful successes in recent weeks. On Jan. 9, U.S. and
Iraqi troops killed 50 insurgents. On Jan. 22, 16 terrorists were
killed; a day later, another 30 or so.

If it's body counts the media want, why not compare the few American
troop deaths with the many terrorist deaths? Or would that be too
revealing?"

On 30 Jan 2007 04:01:15 -0800, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote:

Discounting Success

Published 1/29/2007

"War Coverage: U.S. and Iraqi troops eliminated several hundred
terrorists on Sunday, but in the twisted view of the establishment
media, this significant victory was outweighed by the deaths of two
Americans.

'Iraqis Raid Insurgents Near Shiite Holy City," says the Washington
Post headline. "U.S. Copter Crash Kills 2 During Fight."

Across the country on the West Coast, the Los Angeles Times was going
by the same book. "U.S. and Iraqi forces thwart 500 fighters
apparently targeting a Najaf shrine," the Times announced in a sub-
headline, but "a helicopter goes down, killing two American troops."

The deaths of the two brave American soldiers who were killed are
tragic. But why lump them in with the successful gains that Americans
and Iraqis are making against the insurgency?

Yes, Americans' deaths are news and their heroism deserves the respect
and gratitude of a nation. But it's cheap journalism to use U.S.
military casualties to dilute the progress being made in Iraq.

It is also misleading. While the media are eager to keep a running
toll of U.S. soldiers' deaths in Iraq, a look at the data shows that
military deaths are not at some all-time high. In fact, they're
roughly similar to military deaths in the first three years of the
"peaceful" Clinton administration. In 1993, 1,213 American service
members died; a year later, 1,075 lost their lives; in 1995, there
were 1,040 fatalities.

What? Where did you get these numbers for "military deaths" in the
Clinton years? Can you provide any support for them. As I recall,
there was one guy who accidentally exploded a mine in Bosnia, and 18
in the Blackhawk Down incident in Somalia (and one more a few days
later), and the sailors on the USS Cole. Maybe a few embassy guards
in Africa. So who are these other US soldiers who died?



Compare those numbers with 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, when
1,410 soldiers died. Or 2004, when 1,887 died.

Or look at it this way. During Clinton's first four years, there were
4,302 active-duty deaths. That number rose to 5,187 during President
Bush's first four years - years that were marked by two wars in
response to the terrorist threat.

Though the establishment media want to filter the struggle in Iraq
through the darkest lens possible, America and its allies are moving
forward. In the raid mentioned above, as many as 300 terrorists were
killed by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Another 60 were wounded, 120
captured. That's no trivial breakthrough. A world with nearly 500
fewer Islamic militants is a better place.

That alone is enough to celebrate. But the U.S. military has had a
number of meaningful successes in recent weeks. On Jan. 9, U.S. and
Iraqi troops killed 50 insurgents. On Jan. 22, 16 terrorists were
killed; a day later, another 30 or so.

If it's body counts the media want, why not compare the few American
troop deaths with the many terrorist deaths? Or would that be too
revealing?"


Actually, if you want to talk body counts... remember how ****ed off
and devastated we were after 3000 people were killed on 9/11? Why are
you not similarly ****ed off and devastated that Bush has caused more
than 3000 US military people to be killed?

And when you're remembering how ****ed off we were when we lost 3000
innocent civilians on 9/11 out of a population of 300 million, can you
possibly imagine how ****ed off Iraqis might be after losing 655,000
innocent civilians out of a population of 26 million as a result of
the unnecessary war that Bush started?

"Pajamas O'Donovan" wrote in message news:
...
snip

Back to Story - Help
1-19-07
Reuters

Amsterdam's red-light district will soon get a new attraction: a
statue to honor prostitutes around the world.

The statue, designed by artist Els Rijerse, will likely be unveiled at
the end of March, Dutch news agency ANP reported.

"In many countries, prostitutes struggle and people have no respect
for them whatsoever. The statue is meant to give all those men and
women strength," Mariska Majoor, a former prostitute who commissioned
the statue, told ANP.

From:
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups:
alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
c.travel.europe
Date: 30 Jan 2007 08:28:06 -0800
Subject: The War in Iraq: Discounting success


"Pajamas O'Donovan" wrote in message news:
...
snip

Back to Story - Help
1-19-07
Reuters

Amsterdam's red-light district will soon get a new attraction: a
statue to honor prostitutes around the world.

The statue, designed by artist Els Rijerse, will likely be unveiled at
the end of March, Dutch news agency ANP reported.

"In many countries, prostitutes struggle and people have no respect
for them whatsoever. The statue is meant to give all those men and
women strength," Mariska Majoor, a former prostitute who commissioned
the statue, told ANP.

Asclero, I find your stories such as this one both amusing and informative.
A perfect antidote to the original poster's contributions.

I shall have to go to the Netherlands and see this statue.

Donna Evleth

PJ O'Donovan wrote:

Discounting Success

Published 1/29/2007

"War Coverage: U.S. and Iraqi troops eliminated several hundred
terrorists on Sunday, but in the twisted view of the establishment
media, this significant victory was outweighed by the deaths of two
Americans.

On s'en fout !!!!

"Donna Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
...


From:
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups:
alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
c.travel.europe
Date: 30 Jan 2007 08:28:06 -0800
Subject: The War in Iraq: Discounting success


"Pajamas O'Donovan" wrote in message news:
...
snip

Back to Story - Help
1-19-07
Reuters

Amsterdam's red-light district will soon get a new attraction: a
statue to honor prostitutes around the world.

The statue, designed by artist Els Rijerse, will likely be unveiled at
the end of March, Dutch news agency ANP reported.

"In many countries, prostitutes struggle and people have no respect
for them whatsoever. The statue is meant to give all those men and
women strength," Mariska Majoor, a former prostitute who commissioned
the statue, told ANP.

Asclero, I find your stories such as this one both amusing and
informative.
A perfect antidote to the original poster's contributions.

I shall have to go to the Netherlands and see this statue.

Donna Evleth

PJ O'Donovan schrieb:
Though the establishment media want to filter the struggle in Iraq
through the darkest lens possible, America and its allies are moving
forward.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/an...q_civilwar.htm
The pdf is chilling. Any ideas as to the credibility of that institute?

Volker
--
For email replies, please substitute the obvious.

...While the media are eager to keep a running
toll of U.S. soldiers' deaths in Iraq, a look at the data shows that
military deaths are not at some all-time high. In fact, they're
roughly similar to military deaths in the first three years of the
"peaceful" Clinton administration. In 1993, 1,213 American service
members died; a year later, 1,075 lost their lives; in 1995, there
were 1,040 fatalities.

Compare those numbers with 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, when
1,410 soldiers died. Or 2004, when 1,887 died.

Or look at it this way. During Clinton's first four years, there were
4,302 active-duty deaths...

PeeJay

What? Where did you get these numbers for "military deaths" in the
Clinton years? Can you provide any support for them.

Wilbur Slice

http://www.willisms.com/archives/200...bit_o_150.html

Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 151 -- Peacetime Military Casualties.

War and Peace-

From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages
to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and
Afghanistan each year.

Read Sgt. Joe Roche's entire op-ed in The Washington Times.

On 30 Jan 2007 12:35:20 -0800, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote:


...While the media are eager to keep a running
toll of U.S. soldiers' deaths in Iraq, a look at the data shows that
military deaths are not at some all-time high. In fact, they're
roughly similar to military deaths in the first three years of the
"peaceful" Clinton administration. In 1993, 1,213 American service
members died; a year later, 1,075 lost their lives; in 1995, there
were 1,040 fatalities.

Compare those numbers with 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, when
1,410 soldiers died. Or 2004, when 1,887 died.

Or look at it this way. During Clinton's first four years, there were
4,302 active-duty deaths...

PeeJay

What? Where did you get these numbers for "military deaths" in the
Clinton years? Can you provide any support for them.

Wilbur Slice

http://www.willisms.com/archives/200...bit_o_150.html

LOL!! wow...

First of all, this is just some stupid blog. ANYbody can put up a
blog and say ANYthing. I could put up a blog and claim that there
were only 10 active duty soldiers who died in the whole Iraq War so
far, and then I could cite that blog in an argument against you, and
it would have the same amount of validity as this guy's blog does.
(i.e. *none* )

Second, the blog doesn't even say what you claim it says. It does NOT
say that " During Clinton's first four years, there were 4,302
active-duty deaths..." At *best*, it says there was an average of
1300 a year between 1983 and 1996 (and I seriously doubt that number).
But if we accept that number, the figure for Clinton's first 4 years
would be (calculated from averages), 5200, not 4302 as you claimed. So
at best, your math skills are very suspect.

And third, the opinion piece (read: unsubstantiated numbers) from the
Washington Times (read: LOL!) admits: "Yes, that was mostly from
accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps."

Soo... you're counting drunk driving accidents?

blinkblink

Seriously - do you have *any* support for these numbers? Members of
the military are, almost by definition, young and healthy - and
therefore have very low mortality rates. Even including drunk driving
accidents and other accidents, I *seriously* doubt that 1300 soldiers
die every year (on average) in peacetime.



Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 151 -- Peacetime Military Casualties.

War and Peace-

From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages
to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and
Afghanistan each year.


Just up above in your post, you say:

Compare those numbers with 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, when
1,410 soldiers died. Or 2004, when 1,887 died.

1300 a year is *not* far more than 1410 and 1887.

Seriously, man - your math skills suck.



Read Sgt. Joe Roche's entire op-ed in The Washington Times.

"Wilbur Slice" wrote in message
...
On 30 Jan 2007 12:35:20 -0800, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote:


...While the media are eager to keep a running
toll of U.S. soldiers' deaths in Iraq, a look at the data shows that
military deaths are not at some all-time high. In fact, they're
roughly similar to military deaths in the first three years of the
"peaceful" Clinton administration. In 1993, 1,213 American service
members died; a year later, 1,075 lost their lives; in 1995, there
were 1,040 fatalities.

Compare those numbers with 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, when
1,410 soldiers died. Or 2004, when 1,887 died.

Or look at it this way. During Clinton's first four years, there were
4,302 active-duty deaths...

PeeJay

What? Where did you get these numbers for "military deaths" in the
Clinton years? Can you provide any support for them.

Wilbur Slice

http://www.willisms.com/archives/200...bit_o_150.html

LOL!! wow...

First of all, this is just some stupid blog. ANYbody can put up a
blog and say ANYthing. I could put up a blog and claim that there
were only 10 active duty soldiers who died in the whole Iraq War so
far, and then I could cite that blog in an argument against you, and
it would have the same amount of validity as this guy's blog does.
(i.e. *none* )

Second, the blog doesn't even say what you claim it says. It does NOT
say that " During Clinton's first four years, there were 4,302
active-duty deaths..." At *best*, it says there was an average of
1300 a year between 1983 and 1996 (and I seriously doubt that number).
But if we accept that number, the figure for Clinton's first 4 years
would be (calculated from averages), 5200, not 4302 as you claimed. So
at best, your math skills are very suspect.


So the number of deaths pre-invasion was even higher than O'Donovan said,
and his argument is even stronger than he said.

And third, the opinion piece (read: unsubstantiated numbers) from the
Washington Times (read: LOL!) admits: "Yes, that was mostly from
accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps."

If it was from the Washington Times, it won't be unsubstantiated. This isn't
some user blog.


Soo... you're counting drunk driving accidents?



Sure, why not. The military deaths in Iraq include similar accidents -
helicopters crashing. Kovco etc. Being in Iraq probably decreases your
chance of death from drunk driving, but increases your chance of dying from
helicopter crashes. I think that one of O'Donovan's points is that double
standards are used in both comparing current military deaths to previous
military deaths, and comparing them to insurgent deaths.

And he is clearly right.

blinkblink

Seriously - do you have *any* support for these numbers? Members of
the military are, almost by definition, young and healthy - and
therefore have very low mortality rates. Even including drunk driving
accidents and other accidents, I *seriously* doubt that 1300 soldiers
die every year (on average) in peacetime.



Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 151 -- Peacetime Military Casualties.

War and Peace-

From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages
to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and
Afghanistan each year.


Just up above in your post, you say:

Compare those numbers with 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, when
1,410 soldiers died. Or 2004, when 1,887 died.

1300 a year is *not* far more than 1410 and 1887.

Seriously, man - your math skills suck.



Read Sgt. Joe Roche's entire op-ed in The Washington Times.