Lies about Iraq? What do you think of these facts?

Question

1. Bush lied? These people must have lied too, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE )

2. Are our soldiers are dying at an unacceptably alarming rate?
In 4 years of war, about 3200 out of about 130,000 have been killed. The annual death rate is 6.15 per 1000 soldiers.

The death rate for the civilian population in the United States in 2005 was 8.25 per 1000 people.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/us/popula.html )

So a US soldier has a better chance of survival in Iraq than a randomly selected US citizen "safe" at home in the United States. Granted most soldiers are young and healthy, but this gives some perspective.

So the fact that the death rate is 35% higher in the US than in Iraq doesn't suprise you?
Paul I, do your own research. I already did mine. I'd be interested in what you find.
It's always apples and oranges when you don't like what the comparison shows.

kr, all I did was give you facts. And the numbers aren't fabricated. If you don't believe me, check them out for yourself.
What is going on in the liberal brain? I recommend you sign up for a course in logic. I suspect it will be very difficult for you, but may be of great benefit to you if you apply yourself.

Lexus, if it doesn't work out with your fiancee..... ;)

kr, did i not say originally "granted the troops are mostly young and healthy, but this gives some perspective"?
My point is this. Think of all the people you know. If you knew the same number of soldiers in Iraq, there is a smaller chance that one of the soldiers will die this year. In a war effort that is conventionally thought of as a disaster, partially because of "the wholesale slaughter of our troops", I think most Americans would be suprised to learn that the death rate isn't even as high a the general US population. I was suprised. Were you not? I intentionally pointed out the general youth and health of the troops in order to NOT be misleading (to those that wouldn't realize this on their own).
By the way, I already made an A in logic. It was in the Philosophy dept. if you're interested in signing up.

kr, just a final note. Actually I don't think you disagree with me about the facts I presented. How can we have a difference of opinion about facts? If you thought the facts were wrong, you would be wrong.
The point is to counter some of the common mistaken ideas about the war in Iraq; that Bush lied about WMD's and that our soldiers are being killed at a high rate (Try comparing this war to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam....for more perspective). These are things that seem to be accepted by the general public without question. I think the video and data I presented give good reasons to seriously question both of those common beliefs.
I didn't say anything about the current situation or whether we should leave or stay. Nor did I say I am conservative. You just assumed that. Which is fine, if that's the best you can do.
I'm just razzing you a little more. I get the feeling you're upset, which I hope you won't be.
Seek 1st to understand, then to be understood. Advice 4 U & me.

kr, I would seriously question wherever it is you get information.
Assuming your correct about 50 billion in budget for Iraq in '09, where did you hear that Bush promised to pull out by the time he leaves office? I have never heard him say anything close to that. All I hear him say is "no deadlines for withdrawal. We'll leave when the job is complete. No artificial deadlines."
Hence, another lie???? What? If my mouse was sharp I'd stab myself with it.

Answer 1

No it gives absolutely no perspective because there are a lot of old, sick and disabled here. The troops are young and healthy and cleared from all if not most medical conditions. Your point is moot, sir.

Answer 2

Even though I don't quite agree with how the facts are presented. I have to say the video was done quite nicely. Also, people must realize that facts do not equal the truth. Truth have many faces, which are called facts. Grabing a small piece of fact and claiming to know everything is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Yes, the democrates voted for the war as a calculated move, forced upon them by Bush. Bush might not have pressured intelligence community to oversell Iraq's WMD, but certainly showed preference for it. Bush had to take the blame for taking the interpretation and running blind with it.

The death rate might not be that significant, but comparing with previous wars or death rates in America. Yet, we do have better medical care then before. There are a lot of poor people and less fortunate people in America. It would not surprise me if an American's living standard as an African in his own war-torn country.

Lastly, for those who still believe US should stay in Iraq no matter what, let's think about what that actually means instead of an general idea. For the success Bush is talking about, US needs to stay in Iraq for at least 50 years, or for a generation of Iraqis to grow up, and rebuild their country, and that is being optimistic, with aggressive diplomatic efforts no less.

If not ready for 50 years of much more spending and more troops, there is no point of dragging it out. Might as well pull out. Makes no difference anyway. If 51% iraqis believe killing American troops is justified, what is the point of staying?

Bush simply butched up the whole war effort imaginable. No post-war plans, and no military readiness preparation. The Walter Reed scandal is the latest example. The system was simply not ready for the number of wounded soldiers.

Tried to keep this short, but it went on anyway. Yahoo! Answer is really a lousy forum for this.


XR

Also, STOP with the liberal/conservative label already. It really ticked me off! Just because you picked a stance on an issue and then you are labeled. Other than Simple-minded thinking. I don't know what else to call it.

Answer 3

lol. Us soldiers are less likely to die in Iraq cause they are still young and baby boomers are dying off. Much of Americas population is old and many are dying from illnesses associated with being fat, cancer, and smoking cigarettes. So yes the 3200 people who died in Iraq would have been safer at home as they wouldn't have died at war. Regardless, bush admitted "mistakes were made" but he should have said I lied, soldiers died. Who are you, Tony Snow? Also lexus, that total doesn't include military coverups on so called helicopter crashes, suicides and Pat Tillman cover ups. Not too many col's dying over cheese doodles. Nice try though. And that number of 3200 doesn't include those soldiers who are injured and doomed to spend the rest of their life at walter reed. Finally, Kevin you poor misguided individual, the only problem with your four year analogy is that Iraq is a pointless illegal war with no goal in sight while the others were to secure world peace. I'll give you a hundred of my precious yahoo answer points if you can answer me this question....... What is the goal in the Iraq war? I will slap you if you say weapons of mass destruction and you will have to give me 200 points.

Answer 4

Think about this...

Military Deaths in WWII: 407,300; spanning over 4 years
Military Deaths in WWI: 116,708; spanning over 4 years
Military Deaths in Vietnam: 57,690; spanning over 16 years

Military Deaths in Iraq War, Part II: just over 3,000, spanning over 4 years.

While every life, military or civilian, is precious, we need to put things into perspective.

Answer 5

irrelevent. Soldiers are prepared to kill and die for America to defend her from foriegn aggression. If the death rate was 40%, we'd have that many more heroes fighting a vicious enemy aggressor. The problem isn't the number of casualties. It's the fact that they're being rented to the multinational oil companies and halliburton as "guns for hire". there is no foriegn aggressor threatening America. Our vicious enemy, putting America in harm's way, resides in the White House.

Answer 6

Excellent question-- too bad the only people who believe you are the ones who already know the truth.

For the user who so intelligently said, "3200 have been 'killed'. There are still traffic accidents, suicides, etc, that the military don't put in the numbers, so as not to inflate them."--- This number that everyone loves to throw around (OMIGOSH over 3,000!!!) includes all fatalities. So when SGT Jones in Iraq suffers a coronary from eating too many cheese doodles, his death is included in the toll. The majority of the fatalities are from NON-COMBAT RELATED incidents! This includes vehicle accidents (this is a big one, people are constantly rolling their HMMVWs), heart attacks (not very common, but it has happened... we just had a 23 yr old die from a heart attack a few weeks ago while he was getting his hair cut!), suicides (it happens in the states just as much as over here so don't even try that!) and all sorts of other accidents.

Again, good question, but your statements fall on (mostly) deaf ears. Take care.

Haha, very cute. I'm flattered, thank you. :)

Answer 7

You are correct on the numbers but these soldiers die very painful deaths. Some see their raw bones and intenstines spill out before dying. Or to die trying to scream but unable because the vocal chords have been cut by the decapitating knife. You also aren't taking into account the gimps in wheelchairs because they got both legs blown off. This argument makes as much sense as the stupid milk costs more than gas comparison.

Answer 8

That YouTube link is great, people forget about how the same democrats who are shamefully trying to benefit from the unpopularity of the Iraq war, where as gung ho as the president just a few years ago, its just easier for them to abandon ship and not care about the damage it does, or may do to the US, "Blame Bush".
Politics before country

Answer 9

Thank you for this informative site. However, the anti-war group is not interested in facts or the truth. All they know is to bash anything good or courageous. They only want the U.S. to put their tail between their legs and slink out believing that would be the end of terror. They are in denial fooling themselves that the terrorists will not only grow stronger in our own back yards. They feel more threatened by 'global warming'. This is something they want to talk about but even "King" Gore won't personally do anything constructive about it.

Answer 10

It would be more accurate to compare the death rate of able bodied people between the ages of 18 and 40 who died from gunshots, suicide bombings and IED'S.

Also, ignores the 24,000 wounded and estimated 50,000 with war related pyschogical problems.

Answer 11

Actually, the death rate in Iraq is even lower than your equation.

There are usually upwards of 130,000 troops in Iraq at any given time.

Of course, if you ask an idiot like Razor 11 (The former Hugh Morris 123), he'll claim that there will be 20,000 dead in another year. *sigh*