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: mistermj who wrote (211572)	1/2/2007 3:58:24 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes. I understand you have numbers- but the numbers aren't related by anything that makes sense. I will say again, the numbers lost in Iraq are in excess of the numbers lost to other things (so in the Clinton admin what you mostly have are these background noise deaths, which you still have in the Bush admin, only you also have escalating deaths due to hostilities). According to your numbers the numbers of fatalities are going up- and we have 3 years of data (NOT speculative, actual data, which you posted- 2002, 2003, 2004) which show a rather dramatic increase in deaths, OVER and ABOVE what you could call the normally occurring background deaths which you see in the military anyway. So, I'm not sure it matters that you can show the numbers of Iraq deaths at this moment, if you average them, are the same as regular deaths (still occurring now, and not in your graph) during Clinton. What matters is the % death rate over all, and the amount it is increasing across the various categories, if you want to compare year to year. There are many strange graphs we could make using different chunks of data from that set, but they would mean nothing if the relationship between the numbers doesn't make sense. If I showed you there were more suicides in the military than bee stings in the US in 2005, I could graph that, but it wouldn't mean anything. If you are just trying to be annoying by posting your nonsensical graph over and over again, that's fine- just let me know, and I won't try to understand your point, since there wouldn't be one. But if you are trying to make some point, with your cold hard facts, could you put it in to words? I mean is it simply that "We haven't lost that many men in Iraq"? If that's your point, I agree that it's not a huge number, yet, but any men lost when they didn't have to be (and when we could prevent it) is too many, especially when you're losing them to accidents, and suicides and other things anyway. But if that's your point, fine- just say it.