Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (99493)	5/30/2003 1:42:56 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<What reliable sources to you use to prove your numbers are correct????> Reliable? I can't find sources from the pro-war press, because they think Iraqi lives are so trivial, so valueless, they aren't even worth counting. No articles, no attempt to assess the cost. I don't think most pro-war writers even think of Iraqi dead as a "cost". Endless fascination with a fantasy story about one blonde female American casualty/POW, and no interest in thousands of Them who died. Is a left-wing British newspaper "reliable"? Message 18981638 Iraqi civilian toll as between 5,425 and 7,041 Extrapolating from the death-rates of between 3% and 10% found in the units around Baghdad, one reaches a toll of between 13,500 and 45,000 dead among troops and paramilitaries. The heaviest fighting took place around Baghdad and in a few places on the route from the south. The overall casualty rate may lie closer to the lower figure. Using the low end of the range, for both civilian and military casualties, is where I get my total 20,000 deaths. It's a guess, a crude approximation. If you use the 10% death rate for military units, you get about 50,000 dead total. We'll never know exactly. And, apparently, we don't much care.