Alarming News

May 28, 2005

Fish in barrel

Adam McKay, who generally writes lefty rants over at that Huffington site, has a post where he tries to find common ground for both the left and the right. He notes that he doesn’t like large deficits, or tax-breaks for rich people and that he does like the environment. Turns out, he even likes the military and supported the Afghanistan war. Then, he gets into Iraq. He writes:

But for the life of me I don’t get the whole Iraq thing and how we’ve all forgiven the mistakes made by our leaders that led to 100,000 Iraqi deaths and thirty thousand U.S. casualties.

What, now? Iraq Body Count, a site that I believe overexaggerates its stats, has the Iraqi deaths at maximum 24766. As for U.S casualties, 30,000 is so outrageous I think he just randomly chose a number. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count has the number at 1656. That’s quite an error.

McKay’s next sentence is ‘What am I missing?’. Facts, buddy, facts.

Posted by Karol at 12:35 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Karol–if you consider “casualties” to mean “killed or wounded” the number becomes more plausible. I won’t say I believe it, just that it becomes more plausible. Especially since our medics and corpsmen are good enough to shift a lot of near-KIA’s into the wounded column, and also given just the potential for accidents involved over two years, regardless of the insurgency.
If you go to seixon.com, a new blogger (who’s also kicking George Galloway in the teeth over his lies to the Senate), one of his first posts is a throrough, statistical debunking of that 100,000 Iraqi deaths number.

Posted by: see-dubya at May 28, 2005 at 1:13 pm

The 100,000 figure is from the ridiculous Lancet article, which the left has seized on as gospel. As for US casualties, remember that term includes dead and wounded. That website lists wounded at around 12,000, half of whom were injured seriously enough not to return to battle within 72 hours. So McKay roughly tripled US casualties and quadrupled Iraqi deaths. But why should he let facts get in the way of a good argument?

Posted by: Jim at May 28, 2005 at 1:18 pm

Total US Casualties = 14,139
1,623 dead (as of 5/14/05)
12,516 wounded (as of 5/17/05)
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/Lunaville.htm

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at May 28, 2005 at 2:07 pm

There goes another blogger shooting his mouth off when the facts are a Google away. ;)

Posted by: Shawn at May 28, 2005 at 3:15 pm

“thirty thousand U.S. casualties”
Maybe he is including non-military injuries, like American contractors and journalists.
After all, those journalists often get injured tripping over each other to get a story that smears the troops.

Posted by: W.C. Varones at May 28, 2005 at 4:49 pm

Distorting facts typical leftist motif.

Posted by: BronxPundit at May 28, 2005 at 11:04 pm

Good point W.C. There are a lot of private security guards and forces over there. Plus all the contractors and civilian workers. Plus non-profits. They be getting hurt/killed as well.

Posted by: PAUL at May 29, 2005 at 8:27 am

I haven’t read his article yet but maybe his 100,000 number is including the sanctions that have been in effect since Gulf War 1. I have heard big numbers like that in regards to people dying in iraq “because of the sanctions”. Of couse Saddam seemed to just get richer during the sanctions as he raped the oil for food program.

Posted by: PAUL at May 29, 2005 at 8:33 am

“The 100,000 figure is from the ridiculous Lancet article, which the left has seized on as gospel.”
Not only that, even the Lancet study doesn’t claim those are deaths caused by the Coalition. It simply estimates (based on methodology which has been heavily critiqued) that approx. 100k Iraqis died of violence since the end of the war.
Which immediately got spun into “we killed 100k Iraqis”.

Posted by: Yehudit at May 30, 2005 at 6:23 am

Karol:
Let’s assume for the moment that your numbers are right and Mr. McKay’s are wrong.
Will you forgive the mistakes made by our leaders since they’ve only lead to 24,766 Iraqi deaths and 1,656 US deaths?
Exactly how high does the pile of corpses have to get before you decide to hold our leaders accountable for their blunders?

Posted by: Don Myers at May 31, 2005 at 6:18 am

Casualty sounds like DEAD to most people. I mean what does ‘injured’ mean? Does it mean lost a leg, an arm, paralysed.. does it extend to a grazed knee or a sprained ankle?

Posted by: Monjo at May 31, 2005 at 10:51 am

Karol, Monjo, and the others who cannot look a word up if they don’t know what it means:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines casualty as “an individual killed, wounded, or injured.”

Posted by: Don Myers at May 31, 2005 at 10:59 am

Yea, but McKay directed “Anchorman,” and that movie ruled.
You stay classy, Alarming News.

Posted by: Steve at May 31, 2005 at 11:29 am

Don, yeah but let’s put it this way.
The WTC had 3000 casualties. So to say the Iraq war has 30,000 casaulties is playing with words. The only direct comparison is to state the death toll. Which was my point, to most people when you talk about war casualties we’re talking about deaths, imagine we did the same crap with WWII as we do with Iraq then we may say there were 300million casualties in WWII rather than the more normal 30million, or whatever it is.
The OED is a great resource and should be the only english-language dictionary IMO, but using ambiguous wording to be inflammatory about something is bad form.

Posted by: Monjo at June 1, 2005 at 7:39 am

causualty includes wounded. it always has. A casualty is when duty status is lost, due to injury death, illness or MIA.

Posted by: PAUL at June 1, 2005 at 8:48 am
Post a comment