Statistics show its safer to fight in Iraq than live normaly at home...

To count the deaths while in Iraq you'd calculate /120,000 , not 955,000. That'd be 1700/120000 which is a lot higher. That's even with the skewed death count. The real number is arround 9,000 probably. 9000/120000

correct me if im mistaken, but are you referring to the theory of 9,000 US casualites in Iraq?

The following is a list of U.S. Fatalities who have died in hospitals in Germany and The United States. Some have claimed that The Department of Defense does not report these deaths, they are obviously mistaken.
Note: these deaths are included in our overall totals.

icasualties.org...

[edit on 27-8-2005 by evanfitz]

Statistics.... geez.

Figure your statistics as a 19 year old PFC walking point for a squad of USMC. Then decide if that is safer than daily life. If so, why don't you all sign up for some of that "safe" duty? What? No takers!

The same BS you all are spouting was said to be true during Vietnam.

When I was in Vietnam the total USAF, USN, USMC, and USA troop levels were about 400,000. Of that 400,000 there were only 50,000 Infantry in the field on any given day. (Excluding the Helicopter units, Artillery, and heavy armor). Half of those in the field were either guarding a fire base, or maybe standing down for a few days for R&R. So, maybe 20-25,000 Grunts were out on missions. I can't find anyone 35 years later that will say that it was safer to be in the USA than walking point.

Liars Figure, and Figures Lie. Let this thread die.








[edit on 27-8-2005 by RubyRed]

Iraq is not Vietnam, 600 deaths a year in Iraq Vs. 600 in a week for Vietnam. Big difference.

I just wonder... if some think it's safer serving over there than living here, what are you waiting for? Get over there and get to serving before you get hurt!

You guys are missing the entire point.

Of course being in an actual fire fight, or being a member of an active combat team is exponentialy more dangerous than about any other life situation. But being a member of the services who has served in Iraq, as a collective, the chance of you dying is less than if you were living a regular life back home.

Of course there are about 1 billion other factors (as has been mentioned about a dozen times in the thread already). Im certain if one of you rocket scientists wanted to, you could calculate everything out to the nth degree.

Bottom line: If you take the entire group of soldiers who have spent time in Iraq, and compared them to a simularly aged group of civilians, the death rate of the civilians is slightly HIGHER than the soldiers.

Undesputable FACT.

And as I have also metioned in this thread once: Insurgents and terrorists in Iraq should be embrassed as heck, in all your efforts you cant even kill more Americans than they kill themselves enjoying their freedoms back home...

[edit on 27-8-2005 by skippytjc]

Originally posted by skippytjc

Bottom line: If you take the entire group of soldiers who have spent time in Iraq, and compared them to a simularly aged group of civilians, the death rate of the civilians is slightly HIGHER than the soldiers.

Undesputable FACT.

For it being indisputable, I sure see a lot of dispute and no official data, just a group of regular guys throwing numbers around. Which is fine, but hardly "indisputable FACT". Sorry, I don't believe it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

For it being indisputable, I sure see a lot of dispute and no official data, just a group of regular guys throwing numbers around. Which is fine, but hardly "indisputable FACT". Sorry, I don't believe it.

Thats your opinion. Of course this is not an official study, and you are fooled if you think that anything that comes out of an official study is gospel. But I am an analyst in real life and I deal with stratistics all day long, and I can speak on a professional level it doesnt take much to state this as fact.

You only need a few of numbers to come to the conclusion, and those numbers we used ARE OFFICIAL NUMBERS. The math involved is as simple as it can be (U2U me if you dont understand the math, ill explain it to you so you can understand)

Im sorry Ben that this FACT goes against your opinion and you dont like the results, but as long as the numbers we have used here are from your gospel official sources, then our conclusions are as official as any.\


One more time: The death rate among civilians is greater than the death rate of soldiers fighting in Iraq. FACT.

Allow a simple soldier to give his thoughts, perhaps?

The fact is that we are not experiencing casualty rates anywhere near past conflicts, nor for that matter as bad as during peacetime. There were weeks in Vietnam when 350-400 Americans died, and in other wars thousands would die in single battles. Nothing like that is happening now.

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. Yes, that was mostly from accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps. Yet, while protesters in Crawford, Texas and elsewhere would have you think that our military can't survive with the low casualty rates of this war, I wonder why they were willing to accept the much higher peacetime casualty rates of the past? We lost around 3,000 innocent people on September 11, and with four years of war and the toppling of two regimes, we haven't lost that many in combat.

My wife is in the National Guard. Theirs is an interesting experience right now in that there have been more casualties by accidents and reckless behavior off-duty than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are protesters not upset about that? Sadly it appears that much of the media are obsessed with defeatism.

Considering that out of a population of 285 million, less than one-tenth of one percent are going to war right now, and considering the huge impact we are having on the world, this is a wonderful time to be a soldier in the U.S. Army.

'Wonderful time to be a soldier'

I am quite sure that this will simply be dismissed, as anything else that is viewed as contrary to the views of those who are against this war.






seekerof

So can anyone explain why this counterintuive "fact" is "true"?
What exactly accounts for a lower deathrate for soldiers then for common citizens?

Seek, already did that, and you are right: Its was dismissed by the "crew"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The reason that the majority of military in any war zone (that are not humping for an infantry squad, or clearing highways in Iraq) may be dying at a rate lower than the general population is easily explained:

Most military personnel are in the prime of their healthy years, they exercise daily, they are not overweight, their diet is good, they abstain from from most illegal addicting drugs, they are not at the wheel on a highway daily, and they have better medical care than the average person.

See, statistics can be deceiving. The real questions should be: How many 18-25 healthy US civilian males were killed by guns, mortars, bombs, or mines last year? How many cilvilian males 18-25 volunteered to be shot at?And how many were killed under these circumstances in a smaller geographic area? And, what are the odds of an 18-25yo being killed in an in-theater combat infantry unit during a 1 year period vs. the odds of being killed as a civilian male 18-25 here at home (by violent means).

I will say it again: Even during the peak of Vietnam, the odds of dying in the USA were higher than for those serving in the Vietnam theater. That's because it's just general statistics. The odds of dying as an 18-25 year old male in a Vietnam Combat Arms unit (Artillery, Infantry, Armor, Assualt Helicopter) vs dying in the USA at that age were brutal.

Your numbers for the general population are high because of the massive numbers of people that die of age, disease, drugs, accidents, suicide, etc are in the millions.

Beware of statistics. And "West Pont"... walking point into a fire fight is deadly no matter what war it is.

Peace, V.


[edit on 28-8-2005 by RubyRed]

Originally posted by skippytjc
The reason why I want this is so I can calculate the percentage of dead vs. served. If I measure against the amount on the ground right now, I get about .1%, or 1 in a 100.

.1% is 1 in 1000, not 1 in 100. Further, to get a real handle on how dangerous being in combat in Iraq is You need to factor out the approximate number not in combat. If past conflicts are any indication, then about 3/4ths of the 955,000 were not in combat. Let's round off to a number of 250,000 troops who actually saw combat (or at least were in a job where combat was a real possibility). Now if you do the math, you come up with a death rate of about .8%--or roughly 4 times as high as being at home. I believe you'll find the above numbers to be more accurate and representative of the real danger of serving, in combat, in Iraq. However, even this number underestimates the real danger because the "at home" group includes the sick, lame, lazy, & stupid people who couldn't get into the military if they tried, not the mention the fact that the troops are in the prime of their lives and generally in excellent physical condition. If you factored all these things in (if that's even possible), then you would probably end up with a number showing Iraqi combat to be around 10 times as dangerous as staying at home.

I'm not trying to pour water all over your general theme, but it's preposterous to think that being in a place where people are actively trying to kill you is safer than not being there.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by skippytjc
You only need a few of numbers to come to the conclusion, and those numbers we used ARE OFFICIAL NUMBERS.

Since you do this kind of thing all day, and only a few numbers are needed, would you mind stating those numbers here in an easily readible and understandable format? In other words:

Soldiers in Iraq die at a rate of X to Y, making the death rate 1 in XX
Similar age cililians die at a rate of Z to Q, making the death rate 1 in YY

Something like that, just so my mind can wrap around it.

Im sorry Ben that this FACT goes against your opinion and you dont like the results,

That's not actually why I don't believe it. The reason I'm skeptical is that I don't know that we have enough information to determine this death rate. I would be glad to know that the soldiers in Iraq are safer than I think they are and I would appreciate any help in believing it myself. Thanks.

I know there not real people an all but what about the thousands of civilians who have died? Should they be included in the fighting figures, since while they wernt voluntary combatants they have been draged into the war.

All im saying is that this thread is sicjk since people here only seem to care about US casualties.

What about the innocents that have been shattered? For that matter what about UK troops or Japanese troops or Polish troops?

Theres more to this war than US forces.

Do the figures take into account only the dead or the many more seriously maimed, suffering psychological problems and the possibility of an early death due to the effects of DU?

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
All im saying is that this thread is sicjk since people here only seem to care about US casualties.
Theres more to this war than US forces.

The whole point of this thread is to show that fighting conditions can be safer than the average joe in america.
The casual citizens of Iraq aren't involved in direct fighting with a target.

The title of the thread hasnt pointed out any nationality in particular but it was directed for US military.

www.obleek.com...
watch this then erase the US and look that the deaths.

watch this then erase the US and look that the deaths.

And? Thousands have died who didnt deserve to. Its not safer to fight in Iraq unless you are part of the coalition.

Originally posted by Britguy
Do the figures take into account only the dead or the many more seriously maimed, suffering psychological problems and the possibility of an early death due to the effects of DU?

I really dont want to get into a flame, and I know the arguement has been repeated over and over; but DU hasn't been proven for the causes of most deformed and bizarre chemical changes for the people of Iraq and United States.

Critics have attempted to attribute an alleged increase in the rate of birth defects in the children of Gulf War veterans and in Iraqis to depleted uranium. A report written by an Irish petrochemical engineer stated that in Iraq, death rates per 1000 Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 2.3 in 1989 to 16.6 in 1993 and cases of leukaemia have more than quadrupled in areas where DU was present. Dr Richard Guthrie, an expert in chemical warfare at Sussex University, argues that due to the fact that no pathological evidence exists linking depleted uranium to birth defects, a more likely cause for this increase in birth defects was the Iraqi Army’s use of mustard agents during its war with Iran. Sulphur mustard is also known to cause cancers, leukaemias and birth defects, even for relatively low exposures levels. The children of the residents of Halabja as well as those of Iranian veterans of the Iran Iraq war have developed cancers and birth defects.

Further studies by the New England Journal of Medicine analyzing 34,000 babies of Gulf War veterans [5], as well as by the Department of Veterans Affairs [6] found no evidence of an increase in the risk of birth defects among the children of Gulf War veterans.

Gulf War Syndrome

Gulf War syndrome is the name given to a variety of psychological and physical symptoms suffered by veterans of the Gulf War (although it is not clear that any of these symptoms are related to Gulf War service, or to each other). The symptoms have been remarkably wide-ranging, and sometimes somewhat ill-defined, but typically include chronic fatigue, loss of muscle control, diarrhea, migraines, dizziness, memory problems and loss of balance.

- Depleted uranium poisoning
- The side-effects of drugs given for protection against nerve agents
- Autoimmune diseases induced by squalene, an adjuvant used in anthrax vaccines to speed up the development of anthrax immunity.
- Parasites.
- Biological or chemical weapons including the nerve gas sarin.
- Exposure to pesticides
- Fumes from oil well fires
- Exposure to inhibited red-fuming nitric acid (IRFNA), a rocket fuel/oxidizing agent used in SS-1 Scud (and derived) ballistic missiles, SA-2 Guideline surface-to-air missiles and possibly other pieces of Iraqi military technology.
- Mass hysteria

The study is the first to suggest a direct link between military service in the Gulf and illnesses suffered by veterans of that war and directly contradicts previous theories which had suggested GWS was not a physical illness, but a response to the stresses of war. Similar syndromes have been seen as an after effect of many conflicts - for example, 'shell shock' after World War I, and post-traumatic stress disorder after the Vietnam War.

DU is resposible for long term serious health issues such as cancer; but theirs not much evidence to support that it causes masses of deformed men and women, nor gulf war syndrome.

Can someone be kinda enough to give me a source to see if the Soviet Union used any DU during the Afghan war?

en.wikipedia.org...
and
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 28-8-2005 by evanfitz]

If it is so safe over in Iraq then how about you enlist? Personally I am alot happier living my life outside of the government mess. Sure the "war" still affects me but alot more indirectly than those that sign their life over to killing. Anyone thinking that they are joining the Military Industrial Complex to protect the safety of their country at this point IMHO is very confused.

Well well well, the official stats that PROVE my theory.

The death rate during war time is not a great deal differemt than at peace time among active duty US soldiers.


web1.whs.osd.mil...

In the 5 years prior to 9/11 the death rate did decrease to about 50-60% of current war time statistics, but prior to that, back into the 80's it was double some years!! In peace time too!!! What does that mean? The Iranian/Syrian backed insurgent fighters in Iraq dont make life more dangerous for US soldiers than peace time or a night out on the town back in Smalltown USA. They are pretty patheitic huh?

Bareknuckles politics broke it out by president:

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

Ron Reagan killed two thirds as many as both Bush's did combined with no war at all, in just one of his terms!

And again, its is statistically safer to be a US soldier right now than almost any other time in the last 25 years, and nearly as safe as being a complete civilian.



[edit on 26-3-2006 by skippytjc]