Horseshit Alert!!

Salud!
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Its like watching these boobs come back after 6 days in the green zone saying, “its all cool over there, everyone is so professional, the surge is working”

Explain that to the families of the 175 dead and over 200 injured in the Sinjar district yesteday.

Got to love a false dichotomy.

[...] NO QUARTER » Blog Archive » Horseshit Alert!! Larry Johnson compares actual figures that contradict the “talking points” about DC being more dangerous than Iraq.” Guess what the death rate per 100,000 is from Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices in the District of Columbia? ZERO.” (tags: iraq soldiers support protect) [...]

Uh, hello? Is my brain not yet booted up, or can’t those NeoCons compute? The firearm death rate for US troops in Iraq is 60/MONTH, or 720/YEAR. The numbers for Washington are 31.2 for the YEAR of 2002.

Imho there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between 720 and 31.2, don’t you think so, too?
8-|

Hint: Never trust NeoCons with everything. They will even screw up basic math to make their point!

Larry, I guess you were confused by that statistic, thinking it shows monthly numbers. But it says clearly: “DEFINITION: Number of Deaths Due to Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2002.”
See? 2002! These are the numbers for the YEAR.

Well, imho you should rewrite this story. This right wing spin is even worse than you thought. The numbers are totally made up. They make Washington (with its majority of Afro Americans!) look even more deadly than it is (Racism at work?), and at the same time shamelessly downplay the number of US troops that gave their life for Bush’s criminal Saddam adventure. US soldiers in Iraq face a death risk from armed violence more than 23 times higher than at home! That’s the ugly reality, no matter how much NeoCons want to deny it.

Sry, don’t want to spam this thread, but the shamelessness of NeoCon spin absolutely enrages me. Pls look up if at least the number of 2112 casualties is near the truth. I wouldn’t be surprised if its actually higher.

Ok, there’s one way the anonymous spinster really thought he made an honest comparison, but idiotically screwed up the math (a simple ‘rule of three’ that every mentally unhandicapped person should be able to compute). He stated “The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.” Ok, maybe in the last 22 months, the firearm death rate in D.C. actually has been 80.6 /100000 (sudden outburst of violence? Shouldn’t this be in the papers?).

But, even if this is true, you have to compare this with the casualty numbers per 100000 US troops in Iraq for the same range of time. So x = (2112/160000)*100000 = 1322 (again, simple ‘rule of three’). Well, this still doesn’t look as if the spinster really has a case here, right? Even when using his own numbers, they show that the risk is 16.4 times higher for the US soldiers than for the folks in Washington, D.C.! This isn’t comparable. It isn’t even close. Washington is dangerous, but Iraq is a death trap.

Ok, that’s my last comment on this issue. Promise! Sry for spamming the thread.

Great thread Larry. You nailed ‘em, buddy.
Really good stuff Gray, you’re not spamming.

Semantics. Interesting.

I remember back in the Vietnam days “casualties” meant injuries as well as fatalities - that’s how we amassed, what… 50,000 casualties back then. (Interesting term…what’s so “casual” about casualties?)

The Bush Administration is trying, in it’s most Orwellian fashion, to rewrite the dictionary.

Now they want to put an actual army (in Iran) on the list of terrorists. One of the classical definitions of a terrorist, is that they don’t wear uniforms. But what do the Bushies care about reality?

These are the Bushies last days, and they are trying to get away with as much as they can, in the little (but all too long) time they have left. They say the last rattles of dying rattlesnakes are the fiercest.

I simply don’t believe ANYTHING they say and that keeps me pretty stable and calm. They are such liars that they could say the sun will shine tomorrow, I look out my window the next day and see a big round shiny thing, and simply conclude I’m hallucinating. LOL

Those fake numbers have been going around for years. I especially like comparisons to WW2 numbers and how fighting in Iraq is just like that time. I wish. In WW2 we never had to watch our back and there Was a front and we always continued ahead. That only occurred for thirty days when we invaded. Now it’s Iraqnam in the middle of oil country. The right wing must have never heard the phrase, ‘Never shit where you eat.’

I would not be the least surprised to see Cheney attack Iran before his term is up. If that happens there Will be a draft for sure.

It now looks like Bush’s “last chance” is being push forward to 2017.

Are you sure this didn’t come from the Mitt Romney Campaign? After all, one of his service-shy sons IS dodging IEDs in an RV doing “convoy duty” in Iowa. Iowa makes Iraq look like a picnic I hear. No, wait, he GOES to picnics. Yeah, that’s it.

Be careful!
With story headlines like this, you too could end up on Bill O’Reilly’s show!
I really thought you were going to credit this to Fox News!!!

For years now, neocons have trumpeted every temporary decline in the death rate in Iraq as a sure sign that we’re winning.

Now, with Bush’s idiot ’surge’ producing higher casualties (read this AP story today: “Bombings are deadliest since Iraq war began
Officials’ death toll estimates range from 250 to 500; U.S. blames al-Qaida“), they will argue the increase in fatalities ‘proves’ the surge is working. “See — we’re smoking out the bad guys!”

This is such a reeking pile of Kentucky Derby-sized horse crap, you’d need a bulldozer to get rid of it.

I think what the alert really means is that it’s much more dangerous to your bullshit detector to be in Washington than in Baghdad.

*-/ Lord Randy… I can’t believe you can even write such crap, and think you have a handle on reality… You talk of FDR’s invasion of German/Axis strongholds before a planned invasion of mainland Japan, as if it was not wise… if you are not aware, FDR also had generals and war councils, the difference between the FDR and Bush’s folly is that FDR was wise enough to listen to his military advisors, whereas the fool who is residing in the WH completely ignored the advise of the War College, and his own military advisors. In fact, if you didn’t agree with them and sign on early, you were quickly put out to pasture, or sent the way of the rest of the ‘lowly masses’… Lord Randolph indeed… take your own brand of bullcrap and stuff it where the sun don’t shine… it ain’t welcome here.

KIA=Killed in action=a Casualty
WIA=Wounded in action=a Casualty
DOW=Died of wounds=a Casualty

Vietnam produced just over 58,000 KIA’s. Another 43,000+ soldiers, sailors airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen perished due to accidents, stupidity and reasons other than hostile action.

Like drowning at the beach, accidentally electrocuting themselves, falling off balconies, getting throats cut by whores, etc.

A high school friend of mine rolled a truck over in an area not subject to hostile fire.

He’s still dead, but his demise was categorized as Death By Misadventure.

Clarifying the Terms, as usual, helps debunk the crap.

Zeus - U bk again??? should we also factor in the relentless destruction of the German industrial heart and resource supply lines that MAY have had an impact on the German ability to fight a two front war - and, like a certain interesting parallel political interference, the war was micro managed by a politician rather than a military leader, making stupid top down CYA military structure SOP - and as I recall the military generals were opposed to the decision to invade another county (Russia - an ally) at that time - another interesting parallel . . . and how many Generals are calling for an Invasion/attack on IRAN???

I am glad you came down from your throne to enlighten us mortals but maybe you “history lesson” over looked the fact that the “massive civilian” losses were the result of a certain German leaders decision to bomb London into dust . . . Winne wanted payback . . Dresden was considered an outrage at the time - hardly a “willing” attempt to inflict civilian casualties . . . we lost a shitload of young airmen due to precise bombing runs aimed at military targets within heavily fortified cities - and Tokyo was revenge for Pear Harbor - had we REALLY been serious we would have targeted the Palace and Government Center instead of a fricking industrial seaport. Just maybe your elementary school teacher may have simplified your “My Pet Goat” version of WW2 a little TOO much . . .

and you are right about the war duration - with no bid contracts, endless funding, no accounting, no mission, who cares? . . . my KBR stocks are doing fine and Exxon has declared the GREATEST profits of any businees on earth over last Quarters world record, I don’t commute, my kids “have other priorties” . . . may it last long enough for your son to get his “man on” . . .

Larry, I hate to break promises (another comment on this issue!), but I’m somewhat disturbed to see that obviously you read the comments, but didn’t add anything to your story. Well, sry, but the problem here is, by not pointing out the totally flawed math of that anonymous spinmaster, you actually help in giving his argument additional weight it doesn’t deserve. You counter his comparison with an ‘apple and oranges’ kind of response (that’s, honestly, pretty lame, imho. For the killed soldier it doesn’t make much difference if he died by IED or sniper fire. For his family, neither). But this makes this idiotic comparison appear as if it is a serious point at all. It isn’t! There isn’t any serious point to discuss here. The risk is at least 16 times higher for the soldiers, not 25% lower. The writer was wrong from the very start. Period.

It seems you never did a google search on this ‘urban myth’, right? If you would have done it, you would have found that a) this nonsense is circulating since November 2006, if not earlier, and b) that there have already been a lot of thoughtful responses, most of them correctly pointing out that the whole comparison is a fraud. Here’s just one of those good examples of debunking the madness, a story at ‘SadlyNo!’ from November 2006 (!):
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/2080.html

Larry, shit happens, and sometimes we don’t see the forest because of the trees. However, in such a case we should openly declare we have been fooled in order to prevent others from falling into the same trap. Don’t you agree?
:-/

Oh, and btw, while ‘Sadly, No!’ concentrated on comparing the real (empirical) numbers, ‘puroprana’ at DKos did the same math I did:

“Let’s assume for a moment that the statistics supplied are correct:

160,000 troops / 100,000 = 1.6

2,112 / 1.6 = 1,320 deaths per 100,000 troops

Versus 80.6 per 100,000 in DC

So, right away, one must wonder how this email continues to be offered by so many as support for their pro-Iraq war position. I mean, really, the conclusions are staggeringly wrong.”

Actually, that’s the first hit you get when you google for “160,000 troops Iraq 22 months 2,112 deaths”:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=160%2C000+troops+Iraq+22+months+2%2C112+deaths+&btnG=Google+Search

Both approaches, the mathematical and the empirical, debunk the crap once and forever. Discussing whether deaths by IEDs and firearms are comparable leaves a shady appearance of nitpicking and may convince some readers that the anonymous right winger made a valid point. But he didn’t.

Another point:
Your story already ranks at #16 and #17 on this google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22There+has+been+a+monthly+average+of+160,000+troops+in+the+Iraq+theatre+of+operations+during+the+last+22+months,+and+a+total+of+2,112+deaths.%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

Regarding this prominent placement, don’t you think that for the sake of searchers coming here in the future, it is preferable that they don’t be fooled into believing that the anonymous spinmaster has a valid point? Again, pls point out the real problem with that insane comparison in an addendum here and at Booman tribune!

P.S.: I just noticed that noone less than Brad DeLong debunked this shit in November 2005! And still this piece of crap is circulating and fooling people into believing that service in Iraq is essentially the same as holidays in Washington, D.C. Unbef***ingleavable!
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001736.html

speaking of horse hit, did you hear that the bush clan declared Iran’s elite forces a terrorist group???

let me say that again slowly,they declared a special forces group of soldiers a terrorist group. aren’t special forces in any country or soldiers in general supposed to terrorize and kill people? Isn’t that what they are trained to do efficiently? hell while they’re at it why not call the Chinese, the russians or any other army we don’t care for the same thing? Or why don’t they call ours terrorist for that matter? This is fucking goofiness at it’s greatest.

I want to ask a question/give info about ‘casualties’ as defined above… from the sailors who are corpsmen for the marines, and I know many, I have been hearing that this administration is counting casualties differently than in previous conflicts. I hear that they are using the distinction of combat related as counting toward the total, but are excluding the ‘non combat’ types more and more to avoid having to pay for long term care (as well as to help keep the numbers down. For example, one of my sons team was picking up body parts after an IED incident. While doing so, he was injured by a sniper. He was medivaced to base, and sent on to Germany. His injury, while not life threatening, will require he have long term therapy. Because this did not occur during “combat’, he was not included in combat totals, AND is now fighting to get any compensation at all following discharge. I would appreciate input. thanks.

Zuesless - you must be very young, and home schooled (nothing wrong with that? Eh? - so don’t get all defensive…)

*****

Today, broadcasters say/”report” “15 troops were killed today” without even mentioning how many of our troops were injured. Back in the Vietnam days, the networks, of which they were only three, would report casualties, and not ferret out only the dead, in a craven attempt to make the numbers sound lower.

I love that Iraqi deaths in Iraq don’t factor into that “Iraq is soooo safe” story. Add in the 600,000+ Iraqis who have died, then the picture looks a little bleaker. Of course we don’t count those do we?

But it seems to me that the whole comparison is skewed because we are comparing armed U.S. soldiers’ deaths in Iraq with mostly unarmed civilian deaths in D.C. That is wrong. In D.C., I will bet the number of armed policemen killed in combat by either gunshot or bombs is much lower than it is in Iraq. Expecially if we count Iraqi police.

But if we are just counting just Americans in Iraq, I do not see any numbers in the story about American contractors. Surely those need to be included. And what about injured? I’ll bet there haven’t been 30,000 people in D.C. shot or blown up on the last few years.

99% of those who live in or visit D.C. are able to go about their lives without wearing armor and carrying a big gun, and suffer no injury. They do not have to travel in aromored vehicles in groups. I’ve never been to D.C. but I’ll bet you can get from the airport to a hotel without dodging I.E.D.s all the way.

I would love to see whoever wrote that story go for a stroll through any part of Iraq unarmed, with no armor or army to protect them. And that includes the so-called safe Green Zone.

Iraqi death totals will probably not ever be known. Nor will we ever know how many of those who are now refugees from thier own land will suffer the mental as well as physical scars of their forced exit from their own homeland. And let us not forget the damage that will occur from the use of depleted uranium… These and the countless innocents who have suffered in a war of choice, set into motion by lies, by a group of very sick and devious people. This same group who effectively accomplished destroying many of the humane and wonderful things that this country has accomplished in its 200 year history… May these evil ones rot forever in hell…

Since we are talking about these horrors, here is a post I just read that sheds even more light onto the savagry of this war compared to vietnam, as well as supports data with statistics…I found it an excellent read on the numbers on Iraq including contractors…

“The number of taxpayer-paid private contractors in Iraq, the number of bullets fired for each insurgent killed, the percentage of amputations performed on U.S. war-wounded: a compilation of numbers puts Iraq into perspective.”

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/59881

Let me add that comparing a city with a country isn’t fair. Washington DC, a capital, should be compared to Baghdad, a capital.