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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (107672)	4/4/2005 4:00:22 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793912

I certainly don't see a downward trend here, and certainly not one as dramatic as you see. Really? From 3/04 until now, 3/05 showed the least amount of total fatalities with varying amounts reflecting the strength of the insurgency. The fatalities in 2/05 were one half of those in 1/05. We are getting reports of less fighting, so naturally the casualty figures are lower. But the best indicator of lower casualties are the statistics on the wounded, which are clearly and unequivocally trending down, though you have to scroll down your link to find them.

To: JohnM who wrote (107672)	4/4/2005 8:45:13 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793912

John, you've been around for awhile...so have I. Have we EVER had in any war an average of 6.1 people killed per month since the onset of the war. To date your chart shows 1538 killed since 3/03, and there are 26 months since then. What was the lowest total of our people killed in WWII? What was the average per month? Or the Korean War? Or VietNam? It is terrible that even one is killed in any war. And it is equally terribly to understand why anyone was killed before the war actually started. Both Hitler and Stalin killed Millions of civilians...both before the WWII, and during WWII.