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:
McKay’s next sentence is ‘What am I missing?’. Facts, buddy, facts.
Posted by Karol at 12:35 PM
Technorati Tags: Huffington+Post Adam+McKay Iraq+civilian+casualties American+troop+casualties
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.
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?
There goes another blogger shooting his mouth off when the facts are a Google away.
“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.
Distorting facts typical leftist motif.
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.
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.
“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”.
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?
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?
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.”
Yea, but McKay directed “Anchorman,” and that movie ruled.
You stay classy, Alarming News.
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.
causualty includes wounded. it always has. A casualty is when duty status is lost, due to injury death, illness or MIA.