Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

[Ignoramus25883]

There is only one item in this article with which I mildly disagree:

`` There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans of
confident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circles
before the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able to
establish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and that
instead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidly
anti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and never
thereafter be seriously challenged. ''

But... What about me? What about my comment that it was a bad idea to
invade a country where civilians are armed to the teeth? As an NRA
member, I know very well that it is a bad idea, and I was not shy to
communicate it. But no one listened to the poor old Ignoramus!
Everyone thought that they were genius patriots and that Ignoramus
was, well, an ignorant traitor. Now I am in the unfortunate role of a
Cassandra, which American servicemen are getting killed in Iraq for no
good reason.

Article follows:
================================================== ====================

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 (UPI) -- The "death by a thousand cuts"
guerrilla attacks afflicting U.S. forces in Iraq are not the work of
a centralized network of Saddam Hussein loyalists. Would that they
were.
Until now, aggressive U.S. counter-insurgency tactics in
Iraq have been focused on precisely that assumption. And as a
result, U.S. forces have had remarkable success in targeting,
capturing and killing senior figures in Saddam's hierarchy. More
than half the "playing deck of cards" of most wanted men has been
apprehended -- one way or another -- since Baghdad fell four and a
half months ago.
But in the grimly familiar pattern of counter-insurgency
colonial-type wars of pacification, the more battles the Bush
administration has won on the ground, the more it has plunged
towards losing the overall conflict.
That is because the political strategy and the politically
determined intelligence evaluations imposed on the highly
professional, but appallingly undermanned and ill-equipped, U.S.
forces in Iraq were entirely wrong to begin with.
The hands-on policymakers in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense were convinced that 25 million Iraqis loathed Saddam and
would embrace the U.S. Army as their liberators. These policymakers
also ruled out the possibility of serious guerrilla activity
inflicting significant casualties on U.S. forces as defeatist and
not worth even considering. No provisional planning was made for any
such eventuality.
Remarkably, the Pentagon civilian planners did not even make
realistic provisions for restoring power, water and other vital
services to Baghdad and other cities in advance. A succession of
statements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggests that even
when the chaotic results of this blas&233; approach became
manifest, the Pentagon planners did not care anyway.
And neither the Pentagon planners nor their neo-conservative
cheering section in the U.S. media dreamed for a minute that serious
terrorist or guerrilla opposition to the U.S. forces could or would
be able to enjoy any serious constituency or reservoir of support
among the Iraqi people.
There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans of
confident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circles
before the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able to
establish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and that
instead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidly
anti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and never
thereafter be seriously challenged.
But the continued steady stream of fatal attacks on U.S.
troops, the serious sabotage already crippling Iraq's oil pipeline
network, and the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in
Baghdad this week can only be understood within the context of these
unanticipated realities.
Already, U.S. pundits are trying to use released preliminary
forensic findings to revive their tattered old claim that the
guerrilla attacks are almost all the work of Saddam loyalists. The
fact that old Iraqi army munitions appear to have been used to make
the monster bomb that demolished the U.N. compound and killed the
U.N. envoy has been presented as "evidence" of that.
It would be no surprise certainly if veterans of Saddam's
old Republican Guard were involved, nor should it be unexpected that
among the vast piles of munitions that Saddam was believed to have
secreted away, some of them should turn up in terror attacks.
But raw intelligence from U.S. field forces, and the
intelligence assessments of major Middle Eastern, Western European
and South Asian governments all point to a very different and
coherent picture:
Thousands of activists and supporters of al-Qaida and many
other Sunni Muslim jihadist groups have already streamed across the
open, undefended borders of Iraq from Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The
Iraqi Shiites are now not merely organized but in detailed, open
communication with supporters and sympathizers to the east in
neighboring Iran. And, most of all, Iraqis themselves have already
thrown their support in the hundreds of thousands to the rapidly
organizing Sunni and Shiite indigenous forces in Baghdad, the south
and the holy city of Najaf.
Therefore, far from "draining the swamp" of Iraqi extremism,
as proponents of the March-April war claimed it would do, U.S.
success in toppling Saddam has only succeeded in creating the very
Frankenstein monster it was supposed to destroy. The Pentagon
policymakers have only succeeded in opening a bottomless pit from
which the most virulent anti-American and -- as the attack on the UN
compound showed -- anti-Western forces can now flourish and breed.
Far from stabilizing the Middle East, this development poses
a threat to traditional regimes in the region many orders of
magnitude worse than anything Saddam did.
Saudi Arabia and Jordan will be under immediate threat. The
anti-government student protest movement in Iran is likely to be
distracted and even superceded by the return of virulent, Islamist
anti-American sentiments. And, far from knocking the fight out of
Palestinian Islamist terror onslaughts against Israeli civilians,
the growing success of the guerrilla war in Iraq has only emboldened
them, as this week's bombing of a crowded Jerusalem bus the same day
as the destruction of the U.N. compound amply testified.
Ironically, contrary to the received Conventional Wisdom of
successive U.S. governments over the past quarter of a century, a
fiercely anti-U.S. former president of Iran may have had the best
and most realistic constructive advice for U.S. policymakers this
week. On Friday, former Iranian President Ali-Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani called on the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq and
let the United Nations take over.
Rafsanjani's advice will certainly not be heeded, of course.
For the moment, U.S. forces will stay in Iraq, and the list of U.S.
troops killed there will grow inexorably longer with no end or even
improvement in sight. And America will be cast more than ever in the
role of the Great Satan in the eyes of scores of millions of
mainstream Muslims. One does not have to own a crystal ball to be
confident of that.

[erniegalts]

On 23 Aug 2003 01:21:04 GMT, Ignoramus25883
<ignoramus25883@NOSPAM.25883.invalid> wrote:

There is only one item in this article with which I mildly disagree:`` There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans ofconfident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circlesbefore the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able toestablish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and thatinstead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidlyanti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and neverthereafter be seriously challenged. ''But... What about me? What about my comment that it was a bad idea toinvade a country where civilians are armed to the teeth? As an NRAmember, I know very well that it is a bad idea, and I was not shy tocommunicate it. But no one listened to the poor old Ignoramus!

My advice is to "don't worry about it." People often don't listen to
others either.

Anything to say about this, Tim? :-)

Everyone thought that they were genius patriots and that Ignoramuswas, well, an ignorant traitor. Now I am in the unfortunate role of aCassandra, which American servicemen are getting killed in Iraq for nogood reason.

Um, have often felt that way myself, but AFIK the main reference only
technically refers to females and not males.

"However, Cassandra was a prophetess. In Greek legend the daughter of
Priam and Hecuba, gifted with the power of prophecy; but Apollo, whose
advances she had refused, brought it to pass that no one would believe
her predictions, although the were invariably correct. She appears in
Shakespeare's _ Troilus and Cressida_."

.....Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, first published 1870,
Eighth [revised] edition 1963, page 180.

If a Christian, have a look at Luke 7:30-35.

erniegalts

Article follows:========================================== ============================ WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 (UPI) -- The "death by a thousand cuts"guerrilla attacks afflicting U.S. forces in Iraq are not the work ofa centralized network of Saddam Hussein loyalists. Would that theywere. Until now, aggressive U.S. counter-insurgency tactics inIraq have been focused on precisely that assumption. And as aresult, U.S. forces have had remarkable success in targeting,capturing and killing senior figures in Saddam's hierarchy. Morethan half the "playing deck of cards" of most wanted men has beenapprehended -- one way or another -- since Baghdad fell four and ahalf months ago. But in the grimly familiar pattern of counter-insurgencycolonial-type wars of pacification, the more battles the Bushadministration has won on the ground, the more it has plungedtowards losing the overall conflict. That is because the political strategy and the politicallydetermined intelligence evaluations imposed on the highlyprofessional, but appallingly undermanned and ill-equipped, U.S.forces in Iraq were entirely wrong to begin with. The hands-on policymakers in the Office of the Secretary ofDefense were convinced that 25 million Iraqis loathed Saddam andwould embrace the U.S. Army as their liberators. These policymakersalso ruled out the possibility of serious guerrilla activityinflicting significant casualties on U.S. forces as defeatist andnot worth even considering. No provisional planning was made for anysuch eventuality. Remarkably, the Pentagon civilian planners did not even makerealistic provisions for restoring power, water and other vitalservices to Baghdad and other cities in advance. A succession ofstatements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggests that evenwhen the chaotic results of this blas&233; approach becamemanifest, the Pentagon planners did not care anyway. And neither the Pentagon planners nor their neo-conservativecheering section in the U.S. media dreamed for a minute that seriousterrorist or guerrilla opposition to the U.S. forces could or wouldbe able to enjoy any serious constituency or reservoir of supportamong the Iraqi people. There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans ofconfident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circlesbefore the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able toestablish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and thatinstead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidlyanti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and neverthereafter be seriously challenged. But the continued steady stream of fatal attacks on U.S.troops, the serious sabotage already crippling Iraq's oil pipelinenetwork, and the bombing of the United Nations headquarters inBaghdad this week can only be understood within the context of theseunanticipated realities. Already, U.S. pundits are trying to use released preliminaryforensic findings to revive their tattered old claim that theguerrilla attacks are almost all the work of Saddam loyalists. Thefact that old Iraqi army munitions appear to have been used to makethe monster bomb that demolished the U.N. compound and killed theU.N. envoy has been presented as "evidence" of that. It would be no surprise certainly if veterans of Saddam'sold Republican Guard were involved, nor should it be unexpected thatamong the vast piles of munitions that Saddam was believed to havesecreted away, some of them should turn up in terror attacks. But raw intelligence from U.S. field forces, and theintelligence assessments of major Middle Eastern, Western Europeanand South Asian governments all point to a very different andcoherent picture: Thousands of activists and supporters of al-Qaida and manyother Sunni Muslim jihadist groups have already streamed across theopen, undefended borders of Iraq from Saudi Arabia and Jordan. TheIraqi Shiites are now not merely organized but in detailed, opencommunication with supporters and sympathizers to the east inneighboring Iran. And, most of all, Iraqis themselves have alreadythrown their support in the hundreds of thousands to the rapidlyorganizing Sunni and Shiite indigenous forces in Baghdad, the southand the holy city of Najaf. Therefore, far from "draining the swamp" of Iraqi extremism,as proponents of the March-April war claimed it would do, U.S.success in toppling Saddam has only succeeded in creating the veryFrankenstein monster it was supposed to destroy. The Pentagonpolicymakers have only succeeded in opening a bottomless pit fromwhich the most virulent anti-American and -- as the attack on the UNcompound showed -- anti-Western forces can now flourish and breed. Far from stabilizing the Middle East, this development posesa threat to traditional regimes in the region many orders ofmagnitude worse than anything Saddam did. Saudi Arabia and Jordan will be under immediate threat. Theanti-government student protest movement in Iran is likely to bedistracted and even superceded by the return of virulent, Islamistanti-American sentiments. And, far from knocking the fight out ofPalestinian Islamist terror onslaughts against Israeli civilians,the growing success of the guerrilla war in Iraq has only emboldenedthem, as this week's bombing of a crowded Jerusalem bus the same dayas the destruction of the U.N. compound amply testified. Ironically, contrary to the received Conventional Wisdom ofsuccessive U.S. governments over the past quarter of a century, afiercely anti-U.S. former president of Iran may have had the bestand most realistic constructive advice for U.S. policymakers thisweek. On Friday, former Iranian President Ali-Akbar HashemiRafsanjani called on the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq andlet the United Nations take over. Rafsanjani's advice will certainly not be heeded, of course.For the moment, U.S. forces will stay in Iraq, and the list of U.S.troops killed there will grow inexorably longer with no end or evenimprovement in sight. And America will be cast more than ever in therole of the Great Satan in the eyes of scores of millions ofmainstream Muslims. One does not have to own a crystal ball to beconfident of that.

On 23 Aug 2003 02:44:28 GMT, Ignoramus25883
<ignoramus25883@NOSPAM.25883.invalid> wrote:

In article <220820031838129590%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, Tim May wrote:

Okay, so we see a rush of intelligent people trying to establish thatthey, too, warned others about the dangers of this invasion. Andobviously your predictions are well remembered. I just wanted toembellish my own role a little, as that UPI article gave me a perfectchance.The stupid sheople "patriots" who thought themselves to be experts inRealpolitik and salivated at the thought of stolen Iraqi oil, areslowly realizing that something is not quite right. Expect them toblame Bush who "misinformed" them. But make no mistake, they wereintentionally blind to his obvious lies.Even some pro-gun people forgot why the founding fathers intended usto be armed to the teeth, and decided that invading a country withmuch more brutal people who are armed to the teeth with great personalweapons (RPG-7 and AK-47), was a great idea.

and including (despite Iraq's generally secular population) no small
number of people more than willing to glorify themselves and secure
eternal buddy status with Allah by blowing themselves up along with as
many "oppressors" as possible. People so disposed as notoriously hard
to stop. Israel's experiences with them - even after turning their
entire country into a ****ty, repressive armed camp where fear is
constant, torture sanctioned, and freedom basically nonexistant -
should be ample evidence of that.

[Ignoramus24807]

In article <fcqekv4n4bna0hul61uoooak4caom910mf@4ax.com>, leon@skunkers.org (leon skunkers) wrote:

On 23 Aug 2003 02:44:28 GMT, Ignoramus25883<ignoramus25883@NOSPAM.25883.invalid > wrote:

and including (despite Iraq's generally secular population) no small number of people more than willing to glorify themselves and secure eternal buddy status with Allah by blowing themselves up along with as many "oppressors" as possible. People so disposed as notoriously hard to stop. Israel's experiences with them - even after turning their entire country into a ****ty, repressive armed camp where fear is constant, torture sanctioned, and freedom basically nonexistant - should be ample evidence of that.

yep... we should have let them live in their own **** and not try to go
in and steal their oil...

i

[Clete]

Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they
invaded?

[Clete]

No..I was referring to Greylock's post...I agree with your views...



Ignoramus24807 wrote in message ...

In article <vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com>, Clete wrote:

What are you trying to say? That I should cheerfully accept anymilitary misadventure?i

[Dan]

"Clete" <clete88@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com...

Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?

Gunner has stated he would...

Dan

[JSS]

I just wondered how many of the people who are supporting the military
action would still support it if there was a Democrat in the
Whitehouse and not a Republican.

Jeff

On 23 Aug 2003 19:55:33 GMT, Ignoramus24807
<ignoramus24807@NOSPAM.24807.invalid> wrote:

In article <vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com>, Clete wrote:

What are you trying to say? That I should cheerfully accept anymilitary misadventure?i

[Ignoramus24807]

I have no idea, I hate democrats because they want to take away my
guns. I actually voted for that turd Bush.

i

In article <foufkvohdq1mgtnlosrsj8drpndurgr1gu@4ax.com>, jeff s wrote:

I just wondered how many of the people who are supporting the military action would still support it if there was a Democrat in the Whitehouse and not a Republican. Jeff On 23 Aug 2003 19:55:33 GMT, Ignoramus24807<ignoramus24807@NOSPAM.24807.invalid > wrote:

[Tim May]

In article <vkft919e549l89@corp.supernews.com>, Dan
<dchannah@charter.net> wrote:

"Clete" <clete88@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com...

Gunner has stated he would...

Well, there's a certain subbreed of "homo militaricus.'

These are the people who shout "Hoo-rahhh!" at random intervals.

And they talk, in seeming seriousness, about how when their kind ends
up in their version of the Pearly Gates, that some honor brigade of
past soldiers will snap to attention, raise their swords and muskets
and shoult "Yes, Sir!" as they pass.

And they say "My country, right or wrong."

And the call other people "Son."

I am chortling to see the latest disgrace of the American imperialist
state and the foolish cannon fodder material now dying on a daily
basis.

Maybe someday the Constitution and limited government will become
fashionable again and we won't have people posturing as "Gunner" and
saying he'll stomp anyone who questions Our Supreme Commander, Whose
Boots Must Be Licked by Patriots!

"Hoooo-rahhhhh!"


--Tim May

[Ignoramus24807]

Gunner probably has a lot of fond memories from his youth that he
spent in the military, hence his attitude.

i

In article <230820031753440613%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, Tim May wrote:

In article <vkft919e549l89@corp.supernews.com>, Dan<dchannah@charter.net> wrote:

Well, there's a certain subbreed of "homo militaricus.' These are the people who shout "Hoo-rahhh!" at random intervals. And they talk, in seeming seriousness, about how when their kind ends up in their version of the Pearly Gates, that some honor brigade of past soldiers will snap to attention, raise their swords and muskets and shoult "Yes, Sir!" as they pass. And they say "My country, right or wrong." And the call other people "Son." I am chortling to see the latest disgrace of the American imperialist state and the foolish cannon fodder material now dying on a daily basis. Maybe someday the Constitution and limited government will become fashionable again and we won't have people posturing as "Gunner" and saying he'll stomp anyone who questions Our Supreme Commander, Whose Boots Must Be Licked by Patriots! "Hoooo-rahhhhh!"

[Joe Kultgen]

In article <vkhefp1fqk0q53@corp.supernews.com>,
richj@remove.this.tairedd.com says...

"erniegalts" <erniegalts@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:75fgkvo7dkv4ha35b66kgfb2472uu8p0iq@4ax.com...

Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of operations either. Vietnam...B.S.

IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on
American highways. I've also never met *anyone* who says we lost the war
in Vietnam to a superior military force. In fact, I've met a few who say
we never lost. We just found a better use for the troops and withdrew
them from that theater of operations. Care to make any predictions on
our exit strategy for Iraq?

Later,
Joe

[Casey]

Joe Kultgen said for all posterity...

richj@remove.this.tairedd.com says...

IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on American highways.

Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents.
This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think.

I imagine that only a small minority of the population is aware of
this statistic.



Casey

"It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

[Doug Anderson]

Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes:

Joe Kultgen said for all posterity...

Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents. This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think.

Actually, there has been a lot of variation. The "fatalities per mile
driven" has been decreasing steadily for quite a long time. It is now
less than 1/3 of what it was in 1957!

The fatalities per year peaked at about 55,000 per year in 1972, and
1973, and then declined sharply. (Can you say "gas lines" and
"national 55 mph speed limit?") It is now, indeed near 40,000
fatalities per year, as it was 40 years ago, but with many more miles
driven!

[Casey]

Doug Anderson said for all posterity...

Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes:

Actually, there has been a lot of variation. The "fatalities per mile driven" has been decreasing steadily for quite a long time. It is now less than 1/3 of what it was in 1957!

Yes, I know. The aggregate number of deaths has remained fairly
constant even though the number of drivers has steadily increased.
I was just remarking on the magnitude of the total number in
relation to combat casualties.

The fatalities per year peaked at about 55,000 per year in 1972, and 1973, and then declined sharply. (Can you say "gas lines" and "national 55 mph speed limit?") It is now, indeed near 40,000 fatalities per year, as it was 40 years ago, but with many more miles driven!

True. As I said above, I was just pointing out that (roughly)
40,000 die from something that most people don't give a lot of
thought to.


Casey

"It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

[Ignoramus1543]

400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans...

that's 133 per 100,000 people per year.

American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declared
in april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's
480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerous
that driving cars.

i

[Gunner]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:13:47 -0700, "Dan" <dchannah@charter.net>
wrote:

"Clete" <clete88@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com...

Gunner has stated he would...Dan

Cites?

Gunner

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better,
on average, than the citizens of Baltimore.
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee,
but why this is more stylish than
sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."
-- P.J O'Rourke (1989)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gunner]

On 24 Aug 2003 19:38:15 GMT, Ignoramus1543
<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote:

400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans...that's 133 per 100,000 people per year.American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declaredin april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerousthat driving cars.i

Assuming the numbers do not decline as more of the Tangos get waxed.

Gunner

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better,
on average, than the citizens of Baltimore.
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee,
but why this is more stylish than
sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."
-- P.J O'Rourke (1989)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Brian]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:24:29 GMT, Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> wrote:

Doug Anderson said for all posterity...

Yes, I know. The aggregate number of deaths has remained fairlyconstant even though the number of drivers has steadily increased.I was just remarking on the magnitude of the total number inrelation to combat casualties.

True. As I said above, I was just pointing out that (roughly)40,000 die from something that most people don't give a lot ofthought to.Casey"It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

Jesus.. I go away for good three weeks and you people are STILL
talking about Iraq. Bleck!

--Brian

[Doug Anderson]

Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes:

Doug Anderson said for all posterity...

Yes, I know. The aggregate number of deaths has remained fairly constant even though the number of drivers has steadily increased. I was just remarking on the magnitude of the total number in relation to combat casualties.

Right. But in relation to the combat casualties, it appears that the
fatality rate per mile driven in the late 50s in the US was
unacceptably high to _someone_, as mandatory seat belt and safety
requirements have reduced that rate to about 1/4 of where it was then.

So if the point is "why should we care about combat fatalities when we
tolerate such a high number of highway fatalities" I think that point
is a bit off base. The evidence is that we (or at least our
government) cares enough about the highway fatality rate to institute
mandates that have cut it significantly.

But it is true that most people don't use that number to scale things,
which isn't surprising since most people don't seem to be aware of the
notion of relative risks.

[Tim May]

In article <bib477$bn5$2@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus1543
<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote:

400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans... that's 133 per 100,000 people per year. American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declared in april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's 480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerous that driving cars.

And as others have pointed out, more people were dying per week, in
total, during the Vietnam years. But about 8,000 deaths per year during
the peak 5 years (1966-71) were enough to alarm Americans.

Our local newspaper is reporting a local Aptos man (my old
neighborhood) was one of those killed a few days ago when an SUV was
stopped in traffic and grenades were tossed in, killing 3 soldiers and
severely injuring a fourth.

Sentiment is turning even more sharply against Bush's Folly.

--Tim May

[Tim May]

In article <bib477$bn5$2@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus1543
<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote:

400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans... that's 133 per 100,000 people per year.

Are you talking about traffic deaths per year? If so, your number above
is 10 times too high. About 40,000 Americans die per year in traffic
accidents.

American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declared in april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's 480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerous that driving cars.

40,000 deaths per 300,000,000 Americans.

4000 per 30 million

400 per 3 million

40 per .3 million

13 per 100,000

If the death rate in Iraq equalled the U.S. traffic death rate, one
would expect about 18-20 deaths per year per 140,000 troops.

We're seeing that many deaths in less than a month.

And the car bombings are just starting...


--Tim May

[JSS]

Look at it this way, if there were only one death that would be too
much is that person was your husband, wife, sister, brother, father,
mother, and so on.

I think the real question is if we can prevent more deaths by having
more troops, a different mix of troops, whatever. If they are causing
more deaths because they don't want to spend the money or have more
troops there just because of political reasons.

No matter what has happen the administration has stated that they have
the right amount of troops, right mixture and so on. If they are
allowing more troops to die so they can say that their predictions
were correct, that would make the deaths useless.

Jeff

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 01:08:34 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes:

Right. But in relation to the combat casualties, it appears that thefatality rate per mile driven in the late 50s in the US wasunacceptably high to _someone_, as mandatory seat belt and safetyrequirements have reduced that rate to about 1/4 of where it was then.So if the point is "why should we care about combat fatalities when wetolerate such a high number of highway fatalities" I think that pointis a bit off base. The evidence is that we (or at least ourgovernment) cares enough about the highway fatality rate to institutemandates that have cut it significantly.But it is true that most people don't use that number to scale things,which isn't surprising since most people don't seem to be aware of thenotion of relative risks.

[Doug Anderson]

jeff s <onlyjunkmail@email.com> writes:

Look at it this way, if there were only one death that would be too much is that person was your husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, and so on.

Yes, indeed.

I think the real question is if we can prevent more deaths by having more troops, a different mix of troops, whatever. If they are causing more deaths because they don't want to spend the money or have more troops there just because of political reasons.

I think they have no idea what they are doing. It is hard for me to
believe there will be fewer deaths with more troops. And as much as I
detest this administration and its policies, it's still necessary
for governments to make cost/benefit ratio calculations, and those
calculations might dictate _not_ sending more troops.

No matter what has happen the administration has stated that they have the right amount of troops, right mixture and so on. If they are allowing more troops to die so they can say that their predictions were correct, that would make the deaths useless.

I suspect that all these deaths will prove to be useless anyway,
unfortunately.

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:28:47 -0700, Tim May
<timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote:

In article <bib477$bn5$2@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus1543<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote:

And as others have pointed out, more people were dying per week, intotal, during the Vietnam years. But about 8,000 deaths per year duringthe peak 5 years (1966-71) were enough to alarm Americans.Our local newspaper is reporting a local Aptos man (my oldneighborhood) was one of those killed a few days ago when an SUV wasstopped in traffic and grenades were tossed in, killing 3 soldiers andseverely injuring a fourth.Sentiment is turning even more sharply against Bush's Folly.

It isn't just Bush's folly. It's the American Folly, ever since 1898.
Bush doesn't know it, but his predecessors didn't either.

--
Robert Sturgeon
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge

Proud member of the vast right wing
conspiracy and the evil gun culture.

[erniegalts]

On 25 Aug 2003 03:23:18 GMT, Ignoramus1543
<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote:

thanks for the correction, apparently I worked with an incorrectnumber.

You aren't the first to be a decimal point off, I assure you. :-)

I didn't want to correct you until was sure just what figure you had
in mind, and no time to check.

So chose to indicate it indirectly by pointing out in post that all
accidents only wiped 181,232 in all "accidents."

Of course, depends a lot on how one wants to define the word
"accidents".

If one chooses a risky adventure "sport" such as "white water rafting"
and gets killed, is that an "accident"?

If one chooses to get pregnant and dies is that an "accident"?

If one wants to join the military and gets killed is that an
"accident"?

To me, none are. All are deliberate assumptions of un-necessary
risks. Others would differ in their risk assessments of course.

In article <240820031840481497%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, Tim May wrote:

Unfortunately, the "car bombings" might be the least of the potential
risks.

Hm, if I were running the security services in Australia or the US
would be asking people to contribute info on potential risks on a
completely secure link.

Any reasonable "generalist" should be able to provide at least some
suggestions that they hadn't thought of before, and a valid security
service shouldn't have any great problem accessing me by e-mail with
proof that they are who they say they are. :-)

erniegalts

[JSS]

Remember we have only been in Iraq for 5 months or so and not 5 plus
years that we would have been in Vietnam by 1996. If I remember
correctly the 1st American troops started showing up in the late
1950's.

I do not believe that we will ever have the number of deaths in Iraq
like we did in Vietnam. The terrain of the country is very different
plus the American people will never allow it.

Jeff

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:28:47 -0700, Tim May
<timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote:

In article <bib477$bn5$2@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus1543<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote:

And as others have pointed out, more people were dying per week, intotal, during the Vietnam years. But about 8,000 deaths per year duringthe peak 5 years (1966-71) were enough to alarm Americans.Our local newspaper is reporting a local Aptos man (my oldneighborhood) was one of those killed a few days ago when an SUV wasstopped in traffic and grenades were tossed in, killing 3 soldiers andseverely injuring a fourth.Sentiment is turning even more sharply against Bush's Folly.--Tim May

[JSS]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 02:31:48 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

jeff s <onlyjunkmail@email.com> writes:

Yes, indeed.

I think they have no idea what they are doing. It is hard for me to

I think they do know what they are doing but they are blinded by
political beliefs and the economics of the oil business.

believe there will be fewer deaths with more troops. And as much as I

It is the same thinking as having more police on the streets will
lower the crime rate.

detest this administration and its policies, it's still necessaryfor governments to make cost/benefit ratio calculations, and thosecalculations might dictate _not_ sending more troops.

I suspect that all these deaths will prove to be useless anyway,unfortunately.

Jeff

[Jake Nichols]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:20:26 -0700, "Dan" <dchannah@charter.net>
wrote:

A military has few compunctions about firing on armedcombatants, but is more reluctant about doing so on unarmedcivilians.

Kent State University

[Tim May]

In article <cjtjkvcfuvbh1mj2anusffao858iv1n3sq@4ax.com>, jeff s
<onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote:

Remember we have only been in Iraq for 5 months or so and not 5 plus years that we would have been in Vietnam by 1996. If I remember correctly the 1st American troops started showing up in the late 1950's.

So? I correctly cited the pick death years as being 1966-71. This was
all I was doing, not describing the tricke during Eisenhower's years,
then the larger trickle during Kennedy's years.

For what it's worth, I was born in 1951, and thus saw the buildup in
Vietnam in the early 60s. I was in France in 1964 and the role was
still mainly for advisors, a matter of thousands, not tens of thousands
and certainly not hundreds of thousands.

It took the then-version of "weapons of mass destruction, oh my!!" for
that period, the fabricated event involving the Gulf of Tonkin in 1965,
for LBJ to order wide deployment of regular Army into the country.


--Tim May