WARNING: Excessive packet loss
Only a partial transmission...
American Deaths in 2005
American 'cause of death' stats
Finally found some numbers to put the "Americans Killed In Iraq" banners I see people holding on the street corners in context.
American 'cause of death' stats for 2005
(Sorry, I miss-read. All the numbers are for a 1 year period, the are NOT all from 2005.)
435,000 Tobacco
365,000 Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity
85,000 Alcohol Related
75,000 Microbial Agents
55,000 Toxic Agents
32,000 Adverse Reactions To Prescription Drugs
30,622 Suicide
29,000 Incidents Involving Firearms
26,347 Motor Vehicle Crashes
20,308 Homicide
20,000 Sexual Behaviors
17,000 Illicit Use of Drugs
7,600 Anti-Inflammatory Drugs
846 Killed in Iraq
0 Marijuana
The numbers are not 1 to 1, death to cause. For example 16,653 of the motor vehicle deaths were alcohol related, and are counted in both 'Motor Vehicle Crashes' and 'Alcohol Related'.
Sources: Iraq numbers, the rest.
Monday, September 11, 2006
| perma-link
| add comment
SO, ~1,190,000 died in America, a country of 300,000,000 people. That's a .3967% death rate.
846 American troops out of the current 138,000 in Iraq gives a .613% rate. Even counting ALL 200k American AND Coalition troops involved in the "War on Terror," you still get a .423% rate. It's higher than the .3967% figured above, regardless.
But none of that matters at all, because this is a straw man. The troops don't *need* to be in Iraq at all. There's no way to "win" at this point, and there's nothing left to "win" anyway. We're sending American troops to their deaths for no discernible reason. What's the point in that? 846 deaths is 846 too many. That's just last year, too. There have been >2600 US troop deaths in Iraq, and over 200 other Coalition casualties since 2003.
For what?
You know, just being a contrarian since I agree with those people with the signs, and I "honk for peace." There's your context ;)
846 American troops out of the current 138,000 in Iraq gives a .613% rate. Even counting ALL 200k American AND Coalition troops involved in the "War on Terror," you still get a .423% rate. It's higher than the .3967% figured above, regardless.
But none of that matters at all, because this is a straw man. The troops don't *need* to be in Iraq at all. There's no way to "win" at this point, and there's nothing left to "win" anyway. We're sending American troops to their deaths for no discernible reason. What's the point in that? 846 deaths is 846 too many. That's just last year, too. There have been >2600 US troop deaths in Iraq, and over 200 other Coalition casualties since 2003.
For what?
You know, just being a contrarian since I agree with those people with the signs, and I "honk for peace." There's your context ;)
The numbers are a bit off. 846 of ??
Marines only serve 9 months in Iraq while on a deployment while Army soldiers serve at least 12 months, sometimes being extended to 14 or 18 months depending upon the unit.
Ultimately it means that 200k for all coalition soldiers is a lowball figure, although I have no solid data on which units were deployed during the time frame in question or their troop strengths.
Which also avoids the entire issue that they are there on a false pretense, reguardless of how much of a tyrant Saddamm was and how badly he should have been removed.
Marines only serve 9 months in Iraq while on a deployment while Army soldiers serve at least 12 months, sometimes being extended to 14 or 18 months depending upon the unit.
Ultimately it means that 200k for all coalition soldiers is a lowball figure, although I have no solid data on which units were deployed during the time frame in question or their troop strengths.
Which also avoids the entire issue that they are there on a false pretense, reguardless of how much of a tyrant Saddamm was and how badly he should have been removed.
F-you Ryan. All I was looking at was the scale of things you are the one that decided to spin it.
I posted this because I kept hearing that 'x' number of Americans have died in Iraq since the war started and I wanted to know how that compared to other causes of death for Americans in the same time period.
Excuse me for wanting some scale. I know that less is more when you are pushing your political agenda.
Of course I don't see any of you 'activists' protesting on the corner to try "save our boys" from alcohol and tobacco. Hell why would you waste your time; Why worry about half a million people volunteering to kill themselves every year for a smoke and a beer when you have the chance to save the approximately one thousand that are forcibly pressed into the American war machine and killed every year. Oh wait, they volunteered too. I guess you just value the lives of soldiers more than civilians. How very noble of you.
I posted this because I kept hearing that 'x' number of Americans have died in Iraq since the war started and I wanted to know how that compared to other causes of death for Americans in the same time period.
Excuse me for wanting some scale. I know that less is more when you are pushing your political agenda.
Of course I don't see any of you 'activists' protesting on the corner to try "save our boys" from alcohol and tobacco. Hell why would you waste your time; Why worry about half a million people volunteering to kill themselves every year for a smoke and a beer when you have the chance to save the approximately one thousand that are forcibly pressed into the American war machine and killed every year. Oh wait, they volunteered too. I guess you just value the lives of soldiers more than civilians. How very noble of you.
Jim said:
"Which also avoids the entire issue that they are there on a false pretense, reguardless of how much of a tyrant Saddamm was and how badly he should have been removed."
We went to war for a lot of reasons. Some with play 'hero' and say we went there purely to get rid of Saddamm. Others will say we only went there for oil. Obviously Ryan things we are then just because we like to kill people.
I happen to think that it, like eveything else is really complicated and we went there for many reasons, but all of that has nothing to do with my post. All I wanted was to contrast what the war is costing us each year in American lives compared to the number of lives lost each year to non-military American just living their lives.
"Which also avoids the entire issue that they are there on a false pretense, reguardless of how much of a tyrant Saddamm was and how badly he should have been removed."
We went to war for a lot of reasons. Some with play 'hero' and say we went there purely to get rid of Saddamm. Others will say we only went there for oil. Obviously Ryan things we are then just because we like to kill people.
I happen to think that it, like eveything else is really complicated and we went there for many reasons, but all of that has nothing to do with my post. All I wanted was to contrast what the war is costing us each year in American lives compared to the number of lives lost each year to non-military American just living their lives.
/sigh
Obviously I am a dangerous rebel that refuses to follow the shallow and meaningless rules of grammar and spelling. Sorry about that.
Obviously I am a dangerous rebel that refuses to follow the shallow and meaningless rules of grammar and spelling. Sorry about that.
Comments:
SO, ~1,190,000 died in America, a country of 300,000,000 people. That's a .3967% death rate.
846 American troops out of the current 138,000 in Iraq gives a .613% rate. Even counting ALL 200k American AND Coalition troops involved in the "War on Terror," you still get a .423% rate. It's higher than the .3967% figured above, regardless.
But none of that matters at all, because this is a straw man. The troops don't *need* to be in Iraq at all. There's no way to "win" at this point, and there's nothing left to "win" anyway. We're sending American troops to their deaths for no discernible reason. What's the point in that? 846 deaths is 846 too many. That's just last year, too. There have been >2600 US troop deaths in Iraq, and over 200 other Coalition casualties since 2003.
For what?
You know, just being a contrarian since I agree with those people with the signs, and I "honk for peace." There's your context ;)
846 American troops out of the current 138,000 in Iraq gives a .613% rate. Even counting ALL 200k American AND Coalition troops involved in the "War on Terror," you still get a .423% rate. It's higher than the .3967% figured above, regardless.
But none of that matters at all, because this is a straw man. The troops don't *need* to be in Iraq at all. There's no way to "win" at this point, and there's nothing left to "win" anyway. We're sending American troops to their deaths for no discernible reason. What's the point in that? 846 deaths is 846 too many. That's just last year, too. There have been >2600 US troop deaths in Iraq, and over 200 other Coalition casualties since 2003.
For what?
You know, just being a contrarian since I agree with those people with the signs, and I "honk for peace." There's your context ;)
# posted by 
: 11:35 PM, September 14, 2006
: 11:35 PM, September 14, 2006
The numbers are a bit off. 846 of ??
Marines only serve 9 months in Iraq while on a deployment while Army soldiers serve at least 12 months, sometimes being extended to 14 or 18 months depending upon the unit.
Ultimately it means that 200k for all coalition soldiers is a lowball figure, although I have no solid data on which units were deployed during the time frame in question or their troop strengths.
Which also avoids the entire issue that they are there on a false pretense, reguardless of how much of a tyrant Saddamm was and how badly he should have been removed.
Marines only serve 9 months in Iraq while on a deployment while Army soldiers serve at least 12 months, sometimes being extended to 14 or 18 months depending upon the unit.
Ultimately it means that 200k for all coalition soldiers is a lowball figure, although I have no solid data on which units were deployed during the time frame in question or their troop strengths.
Which also avoids the entire issue that they are there on a false pretense, reguardless of how much of a tyrant Saddamm was and how badly he should have been removed.
F-you Ryan. All I was looking at was the scale of things you are the one that decided to spin it.
I posted this because I kept hearing that 'x' number of Americans have died in Iraq since the war started and I wanted to know how that compared to other causes of death for Americans in the same time period.
Excuse me for wanting some scale. I know that less is more when you are pushing your political agenda.
Of course I don't see any of you 'activists' protesting on the corner to try "save our boys" from alcohol and tobacco. Hell why would you waste your time; Why worry about half a million people volunteering to kill themselves every year for a smoke and a beer when you have the chance to save the approximately one thousand that are forcibly pressed into the American war machine and killed every year. Oh wait, they volunteered too. I guess you just value the lives of soldiers more than civilians. How very noble of you.
I posted this because I kept hearing that 'x' number of Americans have died in Iraq since the war started and I wanted to know how that compared to other causes of death for Americans in the same time period.
Excuse me for wanting some scale. I know that less is more when you are pushing your political agenda.
Of course I don't see any of you 'activists' protesting on the corner to try "save our boys" from alcohol and tobacco. Hell why would you waste your time; Why worry about half a million people volunteering to kill themselves every year for a smoke and a beer when you have the chance to save the approximately one thousand that are forcibly pressed into the American war machine and killed every year. Oh wait, they volunteered too. I guess you just value the lives of soldiers more than civilians. How very noble of you.
Jim said:
"Which also avoids the entire issue that they are there on a false pretense, reguardless of how much of a tyrant Saddamm was and how badly he should have been removed."
We went to war for a lot of reasons. Some with play 'hero' and say we went there purely to get rid of Saddamm. Others will say we only went there for oil. Obviously Ryan things we are then just because we like to kill people.
I happen to think that it, like eveything else is really complicated and we went there for many reasons, but all of that has nothing to do with my post. All I wanted was to contrast what the war is costing us each year in American lives compared to the number of lives lost each year to non-military American just living their lives.
"Which also avoids the entire issue that they are there on a false pretense, reguardless of how much of a tyrant Saddamm was and how badly he should have been removed."
We went to war for a lot of reasons. Some with play 'hero' and say we went there purely to get rid of Saddamm. Others will say we only went there for oil. Obviously Ryan things we are then just because we like to kill people.
I happen to think that it, like eveything else is really complicated and we went there for many reasons, but all of that has nothing to do with my post. All I wanted was to contrast what the war is costing us each year in American lives compared to the number of lives lost each year to non-military American just living their lives.
/sigh
Obviously I am a dangerous rebel that refuses to follow the shallow and meaningless rules of grammar and spelling. Sorry about that.
Post a Comment
Obviously I am a dangerous rebel that refuses to follow the shallow and meaningless rules of grammar and spelling. Sorry about that.
