Nice Sober followup post to the Bar Bush post.

What about The Lancet/John's Hopkins Statistical Analysis on Iraqi death tolls?

It's just like Vietnam in '66, when there were about this many Americans dead so far, but the real explosion was yet to come... we were misled by war-mongers then, too. It's appalling we can be so stupid as to have been fooled again, only this time substituting the word "terrorism" for "communism." While defense contractors throw their daughters $10 million bat mitzvahs. Outrageous.

Everyone, please sign the petition urging Senator Boxer to get out in front on the issue of Election Fraud. Diebold is now rolling into California and North Carolina... Ohio '05 was a joke... and the mainstream media remains deliberately blacked out on this topic. Fair elections are pretty much done for unless a politician has the balls to get up and expose the election thieves (ahem, someone whose last name is not Kerry) and FORCE the media to cover it.

This is a new petition, but I believe one worth championing:

www.petitiononline.com/boxer123

Send the link to everyone you know who cares about the theft of America!

Iraqi Civilian Deaths (est 14 Nov 2005)

Low est 27295

High est 30789

JohnStuart

We hear the 2,200 dead, but how about the number of wounded? I recently heard something in the neighborhood of 30,000-50,000 who are maimed for life, but we hear little of these Vietnam-like numbers.

With medical advances keeping death numbers lower than in past wars, we should be hearing more about total casualties (including injuries) to get a truer picture of the number of young men and their families that have been devastated by this war. When you include that 30-50,000, you have hundreds of thousands of Americans whose lives have been tragically turned upside down based on what we now know are lies, deceipt, and alleged crimes to cover up those lies.

A lot worse than a blowjob, but amazingly, the Bush Administration is still in power (by now, just about anybody with this type of record on another job--from blue collar to corporate CEO--would have been fired). In the meantime, the Statue of Liberty image of America that I grew up so proud of has been demolished before our eyes, making America a beacon of fear, shame and stupidity in this world instead of the beacon of hope it once was. This administration is what our Founding Fathers and former presidents such as Eisenhower warned that we had to be 'ware of. It is the biggest disaster in American history.

Sadly, King George believes he is Teddy Roosevelt. Perhaps further investigation by the proper authorities will put that argument to a rest.

Seems like death doesn't distinguish between red or blue states. Will we stop at $600 million and 4000 dead?, or maybe $1 trillion and 6000 dead? Moral, strategic, economic bankruptcy seems to be our future if the Annapolis speech this week is to be taken seriously.
This grim, necessary list should be published daily on the front pages of newspapers around the nation.

here's something to gag on for a while... try choking down bill bennett's call for purple fingers and then read his "the 2000 or so soldiers we have lost..."

---------------------

"On Dec. 12, when elections begin in Iraq," Bennett told Neil Cavuto in a Fox News Channel interview, "let's see many Americans color their right index finger purple in solidarity for the people voting in free elections in Iraq."

--------------------

great... another gimmick... about as empty and meaningless as the goddam magnetic yellow "support our troops" emblems stuck all over cars... i'm all for the iraqi electoral process but, as much as it needs to go forward, we desperately need to have a serious goddam national discussion about iraq - which coloring our right index fingers in purple ink has nothing to do with... just like the yellow ribbons, it's a mindless feel-good gesture that makes people THINK they're contributing and involved when they're really only aiding and abetting mindless propaganda...

oh, yeah, and here's the other little bennett gem...

-----------------------------

"Many people in America are more distressed about it (the war in Iraq) than the people who are living through the crisis," Bennett said. "Staying the course is a prudent policy and one that will ensure that the 2000 or so soldiers we have lost will not have died in vain."

----------------------------

i don't bloody think so... am i MORE distressed than somebody who's IN IRAQ...? is THAT what you mean to say, you FLAMING HORSE'S PATOOT...? and then there's the throwaway casualness of the "2000 or so soldiers we have lost..." how literally gagging...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/12/bill-bennett-purple-fingers-vs-2000-or.html

My son is going to Iraq in March.
He told me he's proud to fight for our country but he doesn't want to die in a war for oil.
Which I truly believe this is.

What kills me about the magnetic support our troops ribbons is they're made in China.

I remember Chris Jansing interviewing an Iraqi artist before the war. He'd been tortured by Hussein and everyone assumed he'd be for the war.

When he surprised her by coming out against the war and predicting hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths, she did everything she could to discredit him.

At least tens of thousands of Iraqis have perished, tens of thousands of Americans injured or killed (remember, the death toll doesn't include contractors and mercenaries), and Jansing hosts a show on ethics. Go figure.

BTW, Jack Cafferty is discussing the Office of Government Ethics and the lack of a director for the last two years.

Stever wrote: "Then, when you have a bit of time and can think about what this "war of choice" -- as Richard Haass has appropriately called it..."

All wars are wars of choice, the attacked side can refuse to defend itself - that is a choice that apparently many of you have made with respect to Iraq.

Steve, you suggested, appropriately so, that we all take a look at the cost of the war in term of the lives lost. But there are also real costs to retreating from war. I am a US Army veteran - served from 1967 to 1970 - lost my best buddy in Vietnam. When I got home I stashed away my uniform and tried to move on with my life. But the bitterness of feeling abandoned by those who led this country during those difficult times has never left me. Those of us who served honorably didn't cut and run from Vietnam, but those who led us there and then abandoned us (politically speaking) have left us to search through our war experience for meaning and purpose, but never finding any. My buddy, Karl, never made it home alive. I packed his personal belongings and prepared them for shipment to his mother in Iowa. All these years I have looked for words of solace to give to his mother, but never quite found them. What do you tell a mother who lost her only son - can you tell her in good conscience that he died defending the principles this country is founded upon when you didn't finish the job. I am not arguing that we could have succeded in Vietnam, but I thought that our Vietnam experience taught us that we should have left the war in the hands of the military and not the politicians. And yet, here we go again, the politicians are now questioning not the strategy, but largely the tactics of the war. You see, now it matters not how or why we got into the Iraq war, but what does matter is that well over 60% of you supported this war - much like the support for the Vietnam war in the early 60's - and now you are telling our soldiers that it was a mistake. Most of you who supported the war, including the 75% of Democratic Senators who voted for it, did so because you knew that Sadamm and his regime needed to go if we ever hoped of bringing stability to the Middle East - the Clinton administration and the Democratic led Senate called for such change in 1998. So spare me your convenient excuses that we didn't find WMD's and, therefore, this is an unjustified war. War is not a game of football where you can switch sides depending on who's winning or losing, it is not a chess match that's gone too long and has bored you, it is not a game at all.
So, you go ahead and take a good look at all those names on Steve's list, their families, and all the others who are serving and/or have served in Iraq and were fortunate to make it home, and if you supported the war, you tell them that you made a mistake and you want to take it all back and wish them all good luck with the rest of their lives.
If you didn't support the war from the beginnig, you ought to shut up, we heard you the first time and don't need to read or hear your petty sneers.
Iraq is not Vietnam. Along with the bad which gets reported daily, there are good things happening there. Yes, the Iraqi people want us out of there, but I don't think they want Sadamm back and they don't want us to leave before the job is done and their future is secured. There is very little local support for the insurgency and there is a real attempt to bring the country together. Iraq is nothing like Vietnam - heck, they don't even speak the same language, :). Is there a risk that it may not all play out as planned? Of course there is, but the real question that Steve asked is whether it is worth the cost to take that risk. The time to answer that question was in 2003, now we should debate how to best achieve success - not failure.

Re: "Office of Government Ethics"???!!!

Common on Dons Blog. You and/or Jack Cafferty are pulling legs here. There's no such thing. This is some sort of weird disinformation stunt. Perhaps the CEO of Diebold can be the Ethics Czar.

"All wars are wars of choice, the attacked side can refuse to defend itself"

Which side is the attacker and which side is the defender?

"If you didn't support the war from the beginnig, you ought to shut up, we heard you the first time and don't need to read or hear your petty sneers."--neocondan 4:25pm

Yeah, the leaders of the national churches (Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, etc.--all but the Southern Baptists) who pulished letters against the start of this war based on a careful and prayerful analysis under Just War Theory--they should just shut up. Who wants to hear snippets of wisdom and "petty sneers" from them, anyway...

Ace Loves Gary wrote: "Which side is the attacker and which side is the defender?"

You pick the side. The assertion works no matter which side you pick.

"However, we do have a very accurate count of the number of U.S. military killed in this war." Steve says, citing the figures that were compiled by KNOWN LIARS.

Actually, I highly doubt it. I think the numbers are deceivingly low. Has anyone ewver seen numbers that were presented as the amount that died in American hospitals as a result of their wounds recieved in Iraq??? I would like to see a website started where the families of our lost soldiers could post the name of the deceased and the date and location of their death.

Also, we have not factored in the thousands that will undoubtedly die due to the long term effects of DU.

Vaughan wrote: "Yeah, the leaders of the national churches (Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, etc.--all but the Southern Baptists) who pulished letters against the start of this war based on a careful and prayerful analysis under Just War Theory--they should just shut up. Who wants to hear snippets of wisdom and "petty sneers" from them, anyway..."

Of course, my point is that we are now at war, now what?

"Ace Loves Gary wrote: "Which side is the attacker and which side is the defender?"

You pick the side. The assertion works no matter which side you pick."

Nah. I'm not going to pick. I was simply curious if you'd fill this out a bit. I'm neither validating nor invalidating the assertion nor commenting on its quality.

Is this also part of the assertion: "that is a choice that apparently many of you have made with respect to Iraq."

While of course we in the public need reminding that this was a war of choice, I wonder about those in the armed forces and their own memories/understanding of this escapade.

The mostly poor and lower class and rural bunch of American kids strung too far out on their leashes and all at the whim of tired, old, white policy makers without experience or sense...what of these? When they get past their own rhetoric of serving God, serving country, and serving Iraqis the promise of Western democracy, do they harbor any inner frustration at their misuse? These brave and strong men and women who, for the most part, were without economic/education/employment options and as a result have become the currency of a president all to willing to spend. What do they think when they remember this as a war of choice?

Ace Loves Gary wrote: "Is this also part of the assertion: "that is a choice that apparently many of you have made with respect to Iraq."

No. The assertion was that all wars are wars of choice. The part you quote is usually called a 'throw away line'.

pkoso wrote:"These brave and strong men and women who, for the most part, were without economic/education/employment options and as a result have become the currency of a president all to willing to spend. What do they think when they remember this as a war of choice?"

These soldiers made a choice of their own. Many joined the service after 9/11 out of a sense of patriotism, not necessarily because they had no other choice, as you would suggest. This is the old canard spewed by Charlie Rangel to justify bringing back the draft - that those enlisting in the services were predominantely inner city, unemployed, minority, youth. Only problem with that is that DOD statistics don't support that. Most enlistees come from white middle class homes.

WAR is a racket. It always has been....

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

Smedley Darlington Butler
Major General - United States Marine Corps

Only problem with that is that DOD statistics don't support that. Most enlistees come from white middle class homes.

Posted by Neocondan

Because YOU say so?? Lets see those stats.

Neocondan,
This war has been run by the politicians since General Shinseki was fired. Not to mention the politicians screwing up the Turkish front and forcing Turkish politicians into denying troop movements through their country.

I think there are other false assumptions in your posting.
"There is very little local support for the insurgency and there is a real attempt to bring the country together.' Depends on where and when. Obviously, there is support for the insurgency in Sunni areas. There is also widespread ssupport for the militias, allegedly responsible for assinations, in the Shiite area. Neither of these contribute to the cohesiveness of the country.

You also assume there is a military solution for the situation in Iraq. But if you've been listening to people like congressman Murtha, Juan Cole, or my previous postings (I have some experience with the cultures and guerilla warfare in the Middle-East) you'd hear people say that this is not true, that the solution lies in diplomatic and political actions.

I thank you for your service in Vietnam, but this is not the same war and regrets over pulling out there shouldn't be overlaid on the situation in Iraq. Different time, different people, it's just that they both have been badly executed.

All wars may be of choice, but the Iraq war is one that was initiated in violation of principles held sacred to Americans for two centuries. The ambition of empire.

No No, really Ace. And the Director is Vacant, Director.

Does anyone know where one can get the stats on the number of 'coalition' contractors that have been killed or maimed in this war?

POA wrote: "Because YOU say so?? Lets see those stats."
For your reading pleasure.
www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2001/chapter2/c2_raceth.htm

POA - As you read the statistics, please note that Blacks make up 14% of the population and the proportion of black males in all the military services is 17.3% - highest in the Navy and Air Force (16% to 19%). The proportion of Black and Hispanic males (males being the most likely to face combat and die from combat)in the Marine Corps is; 11.8% for Blacks and 14.4% for Hispanics. White males make up 68.4% of Marine Corps active duty personnel.

"No No, really Ace. And the Director is Vacant, Director."

Well SomBitch.

Vacant is pretty busy these days. I think Vacant has been over at FEMA as well. Probably other places too. Busy cus that Vacant. Probably set up shop in my eyes and between my ears too. However, that may be Laconic or Vacuous. It's hard to tell them apart sometimes.

Thanks Dons Blog

Iraq Body Count, which tracks Iraqi civilian casualties based on media reports, currently lists a minimum of 27,295 and a maximum of 30,789 Iraqi civilians killed. They also have A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005.

We hear the 2,200 dead, but how about the number of wounded?

Iraq Coalition Casualties also lists the wounded US military (currently 15,568, of which 8,468 were returned to duty within 72 hours). We've already lost 14 people this month, counting the 10 Marines who were killed in Fallujah yesterday. (How many times do we have to conquer that place, anyway?)

I would imagine the highest causalities statistically speaking are Iraqis. But, since no "sanctioned" group is doing body counts that's pure speculation.

Dons Blog wrote:"You also assume there is a military solution for the situation in Iraq. But if you've been listening to people like congressman Murtha, Juan Cole, or my previous postings (I have some experience with the cultures and guerilla warfare in the Middle-East) you'd hear people say that this is not true, that the solution lies in diplomatic and political actions."

Where did I state that I assume that there is a military solution for the situation in Iraq?

What I do believe is that the military is an important component of the solution to the situation in Iraq, but I do understand that ultimately a stable government in Iraq will require a great dose of negotiation and diplomacy among the various ethnic factions and religious groups in Iraq. But we will never achieve that if we don't first provide the military training and support that will foster a secure climate in which these negotiations can take place. My point is that you can't abandon the military component and expect the dimplomatic solutions among the various factions in Iraq to flourish.

According to the London Times, there have been 400 amputees.The unprecedented number of troops who are returning from Iraq with missing limbs has given the US Paralympic Team an unexpected recruitment boost and the chance to become “unbeatable” at the next Games in Beijing in 2008.

Every time I see the flag a half staff for a soldier who died that was from Michigan I throw up a prayer. I appreciate their sacrifice for our county, people may disagree on the war but I believe we as a country are solidly behind our brave men and woman in the Armed Services.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

There are plenty of military components in Iraq Neocon. The Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia groups all have skilled and seasoned militias.

The problem is that US politicians (Bremmer? who knows) decided to create a fourth military group from scratch. And that's the problem, they're up against fellow countrymen that have been fighting a lot longer than the beginners, and apparently are a lot smarter than the Americans. I wish Scott Ritter would go into more detail concerning what he found in the Iraqi war college library. But what he found was truly eye opening. And evidently no one in the White House listened to him.

We need to quit meddling and let the Iraqis run their country. We've been fixing their elections, installing outsiders like Chalabi, deciding who can be in the police and military, biasing their media, and giving bribes and contracts for rebuilding to people with no real stake in the outcome.

We're not good at nation building, we don't understand their culture at a gut level, and any action we take makes the situation worse. The first rule when found in a whole is to quit digging.

The number of American dead from the illegal murderous war is much much higher then we are told..We have to remember that any American soldier who is wounded and lifted even 1 foot of the ground and then dies is not classed in the official numbers given.Those soldiers that died in military hospitals are not given.

The soldiers who signed up to fight their way to citizenship of America are not counted. There is many who wear the American uniform but are not full American who when they are killed are not counted.
The numbers i have heard (i cannot verify ofcourse) are close to 7000 dead.

I would like for the media (which ofcourse they would never do this) to make a front page request asking for all American families and friends who know or who have lost a loved one to get intouch. Within 1 week we would be getting closer to the real numbers than the Gov would ever dare us know.

Only problem with that is that DOD statistics don't support that. Most enlistees come from white middle class homes.

Posted by Neocondan

POA wrote: "Because YOU say so?? Lets see those stats."

For your reading pleasure.
www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2001/chapter2/c2_raceth.htm

Posted by Neocondan

Considering that your statistics that you linked to say NOTHING about economic status, I can't help but wonder what hat you pulled the "middle class" rabbit out of.

YOU brought in an issue of RACE, knowing the stats, then tried to link race to economic status without foundation. You have offered NO evidence that "most enlistees come from white middle class homes". And in truth, the issue would be placement within the services, wouldn't it? Like who is carrying an M-16 on the streets of Fallujah, and who is sitting in the green zone pouring scotch for a General.

BTW, why aren't Bush's little darlings fighting for his "noble cause"? Jeb's kid??? Cheney's??

NeoConDan,

A big part of what is wrong with this war is the fact that it is being (mis)managed by the Bush administration. A worse bunch of lying, incompetent, corrupt dimwits has ever occupied our White House. There is no chance whatsoever of a decent outcome with that crowd in the driver's seat, and that very argument was advanced by many of us who opposed the war from the beginning. Sending more young Americans to their death to fight in a war that was initiated on a pack of lies and mismanaged from Day #1 just doesn't make any sense.

Marine Mom:

What kills me about the magnetic support our troops ribbons is they're made in China.

For reals?

If so:
That irks me too.
I know it probably shouldn't...
But goddamit it does.

Crikey...
And I don't even consider myself a nationalist.
So it must tap into something super primitive...

What a joke, I have to laugh when I hear the lefty's on this board claim that they care about the deaths of American Soldiers. These are the same leftys that cheer Mumia and his ilk when they execute cops on the street.

Perhaps a million deaths would be worth it if they died fighting for a single payor health care system. Look at how many lives they would save!

Where is Mao when you need him.

What a joke, I have to laugh when I hear the the
right wing nutjob on this board claim anyone who
is not a fanatic supporter of Dear Leader also
supports a bunch of odeous things that that they
never said. Since the policies and actions of
Bush and the Republicans are indefensible, the
only way to argue is to use Limbaugh or O'Reilly
style "argument".

POA wrote:"Considering that your statistics that you linked to say NOTHING about economic status, I can't help but wonder what hat you pulled the "middle class" rabbit out of."

Sorry, here it is:

"Socioeconomic Status. Socioeconomic representation in the volunteer force is a key interest because of concerns that our Nation's defense might fall heavily on the poor and the underclass. DoD conducts the Survey of Recruit Socioeconomic Backgrounds annually among active duty and reserve enlisted accessions to assess this issue. Based on a summary of parents' education, employment status, occupation, and home ownership, FY 1997 data showed that both active and reserve recruits are primarily from middle and lower middle socioeconomic strata families. The high end of the distribution was not as well represented among the backgrounds of new recruits as in census data on parents of civilian youth ages 14 through 21."

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep97/html/overview.html

Ok. Let's see you dance on the head of this pin.

“… amazingly, the Bush Administration is still in power (by now, just about anybody with this type of record on another job--from blue collar to corporate CEO--would have been fired). In the meantime, the Statue of Liberty image of America that I grew up so proud of has been demolished before our eyes, making America a beacon of fear, shame and stupidity in this world instead of the beacon of hope it once was. This administration is what our Founding Fathers and former presidents such as Eisenhower warned that we had to be 'ware of. It is the biggest disaster in American history.”
Posted by: jon.

Jon, it’s a democratically elected administration, which went to war with the approval of Congress, media and 71% of the American population. And Bush was re-elected after it was clear that the war a stupid blunder. Hence Bush claims, according to Seymour Hersh’s piece in the current issue of The New Yorker, that he has a mandate behind this war, disastrous as it is. What do you say to him?

"Socioeconomic Status. Socioeconomic representation in the volunteer force is a key interest because of concerns that our Nation's defense might fall heavily on the poor and the underclass. DoD conducts the Survey of Recruit Socioeconomic Backgrounds annually among active duty and reserve enlisted accessions to assess this issue. Based on a summary of parents' education, employment status, occupation, and home ownership, FY 1997 data showed that both active and reserve recruits are primarily from middle and lower middle socioeconomic strata families. The high end of the distribution was not as well represented among the backgrounds of new recruits as in census data on parents of civilian youth ages 14 through 21."

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep97/html/overview.html

Ok. Let's see you dance on the head of this pin.

Posted by Neocondan

Fiscal year '97, eh?? And what the hell does "primarily" mean when you claimed you had DOD stats? You're pissing in the wind.

And, as you know, CURRENT recruitment is WAY DOWN thanks to Bush and that asshole Rumsfeld. And what meager recruitment IS being accomplished is attracting far less qualified applicants that place at the bottom of the bar in testing. And they have started offering large sign up bonuses.

Why do you lie, spin and weave to defend these people like Bush and Cheney? What makes scum like you tick? You aren't stupid. Are you just GREEDY? Are they paying you? Really, I would like to know. You are an enigma to me. Why does anyone with a brain defend these lying corrupt bastards in the White House???

There are several inaccurate statements on this page.

Steve: The best estimate of Iraqi dead was the very carefully constructed study that was published in the Lancet last year. If you want to understand it well, I highly recommend this episode (RealAudio) of This American Life, in which the principal investigator on the study explains the methods and statistics in language that anyone can understand. It is a very robust study that deserved none of the bad press it got in the U.S. The executive summary: the most likely figure for Iraqi deaths outside of Fallujah up until a year ago was 98,000. That is the peak of a bell-shaped probability curve. There is a good chance it's slightly low or high. The problem is that there's a slim chance it is very low or high. But that chance is, yes, slim. So slim that when the same methods were used in the Congo war, no one talked about the error bars. They just talked about the number of dead.

Pissed Off American: The Associated Press tally of war dead -- which largely comes from Centcom press releases -- does try to include those who die of injuries sustained in Iraq. If you download the whole list (you can't do it unless you have an AP wire subscription) you can see that several of the dead succumbed after returning to the states. I never followed up on a tough question, which is how diligently the military and press follow up on injuries. But I believe that few die off the battlefield, as emergency medicine has made huge strides. That is part of why we have so many amputations and head injuries -- in earlier wars, they would have been deaths.

POA wrote:
"Fiscal year '97, eh?? And what the hell does "primarily" mean when you claimed you had DOD stats?"

The quote is from a DOD Executive summary of the last broad study on this subject conducted by the DOD. The word "Primarily" is used in this case to reflect the bulk of the distribution around a statistical mean. As the study concluded, the bulk of enlistees in the survey came from middle and lower middle class households and this finding tracked the general distribution of households in the broader census data. Translation - the notion that those enlisting in the service come from lower socioeconomic households is a myth.
POA continues:
"Why do you lie, spin and weave to defend these people like Bush and Cheney? What makes scum like you tick? You aren't stupid. Are you just GREEDY? Are they paying you? Really, I would like to know. You are an enigma to me. Why does anyone with a brain defend these lying corrupt bastards in the White House???"

I am not sure how to respond to the invective that you throw around on this site. It doesn't add to intellectual discourse. I am not defending Bush, Cheney, et. al., but I would think that you and others might want to hear from people with a different perspective on the issues of the day. I read the left/progressive blogs such as this one because sometimes other posts stimulate my thinking and cause me to re-think my positions. I read the right/conservative blogs for a sanity check. My professional career took me to a number of third world countries. I lived outside the US for ten years where I was able to experience first hand the fruits of unfettered socialist/populist ideology. I found that it impoverishes the individual human spirit and it stifles creativity and productivity. Does this mean that I think that our country and our system is perfect? - heavens no, but I am not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water. I hope this helps you better understand what makes me tick.

Re: "Where is Mao when you need him."

Dead. Gone. Inert. Inanimate. Deceased. Demised. Expired. Defunct. Departed. Late. Extinct. Lifeless. Static. Released. Passed away. Greatly reduced. Beyond repair. Chairman No More. In the long repose. In the post autopsy phase. Food for worms. Conspicuously absent. Reached the end-of-the-line. Achieving chemical half-life. A bitter memory. A bad dream. A knee-jerk meme. A puny thought. A piece of human paraquat. A benighted concept. A legend. A prime mover. A brutal reminder. A fomenter. A bygone era. A posthumous straw man for clap trap peddlers. A loved one. A hated bastard. An entry in a post mortem report. An actuary data point. An object of scorn. A lost bet in a time-of-death pool. An accounts receivable write-off. The name on a little red book. Stone cold. Toes-up. Ceased to be. Gone to meet his maker. Bereft of life. Resting in peace. Metabolic processes are history. Off the twig. Kicked the bucket. Unresponsive to insults. Shuffled off the mortal coil. Run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. An ex-person. In the big sleep. Devoid of vitals. Está mucho muerto. Dead as a mackerel. At the happy hunting ground. In the cosmic recycling bin. Conversing with Saint Peter. Burning in Hell. A bullion cube in the thermodynamic soup. A dead duck. A former being. A footnote. Wailing and gnashing his teeth. Relegated to the dustbin of history. A mere legacy. Grinded into the pitiless expanse. Nonexistent. Making a karma withdrawl. Purgatory'd. Reincarnating. Diffused in Nirvana. Eternally damned. Spinning in his grave. Chronically unbreathing. Lying in state. A relic. Arm wrestling Pat Nixon. The possible subject of an Erroll Morris film. A topic of conversation. Half the answer for To be, or not to be? Part of a John Adams composition. Bridge partner with Hunter S. Thompson. Sucked into the unblinking maw of the void. Entombed at Cafe Nowhere. Scheduled to become three molecules of glue for a duct tape product. The worm at the bottom of a Tequila shot.

bodzin

I agree about the episode of This American Life telling a compelling story. I was initially skeptical of the 100,000 casualty number until I listened to the episode and heard the methodology affirmed by statisticians.

Given that that was a long time ago I'm sure the number are much worse now.

POA wrote:
"Fiscal year '97, eh?? And what the hell does "primarily" mean when you claimed you had DOD stats?"

"The quote is from a DOD Executive summary of the last broad study on this subject conducted by the DOD. The word "Primarily" is used in this case to reflect the bulk of the distribution around a statistical mean. As the study concluded, the bulk of enlistees in the survey came from middle and lower middle class households and this finding tracked the general distribution of households in the broader census data. Translation - the notion that those enlisting in the service come from lower socioeconomic households is a myth"

Posted by Neocondan

NOTE THE DATE ON THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE.

Facing a battle for jobs at home, rural youth fight wars abroad
By Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post | November 25, 2005

WASHINGTON -- As combat in Iraq makes it hard to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, Pentagon demographic information shows that the military is leaning heavily for recruits in economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.

More than 44 percent of US military recruits come from rural areas, according to Pentagon figures. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities. Youths living in the most sparsely populated ZIP code areas are 22 percent more likely to join the Army than the norm, with an opposite trend in cities. Regionally, most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent).

Many recruits are strapped. Almost half come from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to Pentagon data based on ZIP codes and census estimates of mean household income.

Almost two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the US median.

These patterns are pronounced in such communities as Martinsville, Va., which supply the greatest number of enlistees in proportion to their youth populations. All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were nonmetropolitan, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group that analyzed 2004 recruiting data by ZIP code. ''A lot of the high recruitment rates are in areas where there is not as much economic opportunity for young people," said Anita Dancs, research director for the project, based in Northampton, Mass.

Senior Pentagon officials say the war has had a clear impact on recruiting, with a shrinking pool of candidates forcing the military to accept enlistees of lesser qualifications.

Presumably, for many of these enlistees, for whom military service is a choice of last resort.

In fiscal 2005, the Army took in its least qualified group of recruits in a decade, as measured by educational level and test results. The war is also attracting youths driven by patriotism, including a growing fringe of the upper class and wealthy, but military sociologists say greater numbers who would have joined for economic reasons are being discouraged by the prolonged combat.

The Pentagon ZIP code data, applied for the first time to 2004 recruiting results, underscores patterns suggested by anecdotal evidence, such as analysis of the hometowns of troops killed in Iraq.

Tucked into the Piedmont foothills of southern Virginia, where jobs in the local economy are scarce as NASCAR fans are plentiful, Martinsville is typical of the lower-income rural communities across the nation that today constitute the military's richest recruiting grounds.

Albert Deal, 25, had struggled for years to hold onto a job in this rural Virginia community of rolling hills and shuttered textile mills. So when the lanky high school graduate got his latest pink slip, from a modular-homes plant, he looked at his life. Then he picked up the phone and dialed the steadiest employer he knew: the US Army.

Left adrift, young people such as Deal ''want to get away from intolerable situations, and the military offers them something different," said Morten Ender, a sociologist at the US Military Academy at West Point. To be sure, some young people who need jobs or college money also seek adventure and a chance to serve their country. Others come from towns with large bases or populations of veterans, interwoven with a military culture that helps keep enlistments high. And a rising percentage of youth from wealthy areas is signing up, presumably for patriotic reasons.

But nationwide, data point to places such as Martinsville as the wellspring for the youth fighting America's wars.

© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

The neo-fascist cabals in the Bush government, the Bush government disinformation warriors, the complicit parrots in the socalled MSM, and fanaticus truebelievers like Neocondan promote, welcome and exalt the nazification of America.

These shades and shaitans expect the rest of America to simply close our ears and eyes to painful truths and listen to the songs of that siren (Bush government fictions, myths, disinformation and propaganda) until she transforms us into beasts. Americans are expected to compliantly bow to the all mighty will and way of the Bush government totalitarian dictatorship, ignore the factbasedrealities, and keep silent like good little "sheeple".

These pathological liars and sloganeers are quick to propagandize our valiant soldiers great successes when promoting the bloody, costly, noendinsight, wayward misadventure and war of choice in Iraq , and even quicker to forget or even bothering to recognize or mention the terrible losess and sacrifices our soldiers are making in an unwinnable war of choice that illegal and unnecessary in the first place. When will Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, or the ridiculous empty posing as commander in chief visit Walter Reed?

2100 dead, 17,000 injured, $1.5bn a week, and for what? How many more, how much before 2006, 2008, and for what??

Is there any concern for, or any estimates of, the dead and injured soldiers the Bush government intends to waste for personal and partisan political and economic gain between now and then???

No.

Our soldiers, the constitution, what little remains of our democracy, and the America and Iraqi people are merely tools to be used and discarded while advancing the Bush governments neo-fascist machinations and fattening the off-sheet accounts of cronies and oligarchs in, or beholden to Bush government.

We are all irrelevent, powerless, voiceless, impotent, and of absolutely zero concern the to omnipotent warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government who are supposedly sanctioned by some freak god and bent on pursuing the insane and nefarious delusions of the Pax Americana neverendingwar and empire agenda indifferent to, and regardless of, the terrible costs in blood, treasure, and principle.

Colonizing Iraq, plundering Iraqi oil, slaughtering thousands of muslims, and profiteering wantonly in and from the process are the singular exclusive designs and ambitions of the Bush governments' bloody, costly, noendinsight war of choice in Iraq.

Americans are expected to shut up, bow our heads in humble expiation to the Bush government high priest, warmongers, and profiteers and pay the terrible price, because nothing is going to change under the Bush government totalitarian dictatorships' reign of terror. Nothing is going to change under the neo-facsist totalitiarian dictatorship of the Bush government.

Iraqi civilians are exploited in the same obdurate heartless manipulate deceptive vain. With one side of their forked tongues the Bush government warmongers and profiteers and Bush government apologencia hoist the courage of Iraq voters building a new Iraq. Then with the other side of their flickering forked tongues, they cloak, condemn, or dismiss the many thousands of innocent Iraqi's slaughtered, and many thousands more maimed, and the fact there lives or miserable, far worse than under Saddam, and that 80% of Iraq wants America out of their country.

How many more of our young daughters and sons are we willing to sacrifice and be killed, maimed, or psychologically damaged for the Bush governments neofascist political ambitions, empire delusions, and obscene profits??

How many more innocent Iraqi's must be slaughtered, maimed, and forced into brutal hardship in the mindless pursuit of the Bush governments deceptive, manipulative, perfidious and nefarious ends??

When will the costs in blood and treasure outwiegh the imagined visionary benefits promised by the Bush government disinformation warriors, sloganeers, warmongers and profiteers?

When will the bright and shining promised ends justify the costly, bloody and unholy means?

When will Americans recognize the Bush government is perverting and destroying America in rabid pursuit of obscene profit, and the supremist neo-fascist Pax Americana neverendingwar and empire delusions of select cronies and oligarchs in, or beholden to the Bush government??

POA posted Washington Post article which stated:
"Many recruits are strapped. Almost half come from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to Pentagon data based on ZIP codes and census estimates of mean household income.

Almost two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the US median."

The above statements, while seemingly indicating a trend towards the recruitment of youth from the lower socioeconomic strata, require further analysis, as follows:

1. For Zip code data to be extrapolated to an individual living within that Zip code, one must first determine the variability in the data. For example, if you picked a zip code from the Manhattan, NY area you may find that the household income data could vary significantly among this particular zip code population. You could find people living in a $2 million co-op and in the same zip code find a household renting a studio apartment for $1,500 a month. There is no indication in the article that the data was analyzed for statistical variability.

2. The statement by the WAPO author that almost half of the recruits come from lower-middle-class to poor households is non-sensical, as it also means that the other half must come from the middle-class to upper-class households. For this article to buttress your argument, they would have to have concluded that the statistical distribution of household income in the survey of enlisted personnel is significantly different from the distribution in the population at large, as generally represented in census data. I didn't find this conclusion in the article.

3. The statement that almost two thirds of "Army" recruits came from counties in which household income is below the US median for household income is misleading for two reasons; 1) the Army is only one of the four branches of military service and is not necessarily representative of the socioeconomic level of recruits in the other branches - although one could assume that the Army and Marines are having a more difficult time recruiting from higher socioeconomic levels because these recruits are more likely to face combat than say Air Force or Navy recruits - so you can't make assertions as to all military recruits, and 2) county socioeconomic data is also difficult to extrapolate to an individual level because of potential significant variability in the data from a specific county.

I am not eliminating at all the possibility that the services are currently attracting a disproportionate share of the poor, but the data that you and I have sited do not support pkoso's declaration that the services are made up of "The mostly poor and lower class and rural bunch of American kids strung too far out on their leashes...".

Please let me weight in on the "enlistment" factor.

Also, please bare with me since I'm not quite as literate as most posters here are.

Me: Son of a white sharecropper from southern Alabama. As soon as I was age eligible, I joined the U.S. Navy as a way out of the cotton and peanut fields and I stayed active duty Navy for 30 years, 1965 to 1995 and made a darn good, HONEST living.

Our home is currently in a "deep south state".

My oldest son: Joined the U. S. Army in 1989, went through Desert Shield/Storm. He was released from active duty in 1993 and went to college obtaining degrees in Wildlife Biology and Chemical Engineering. He was unemployed for almost a year except for temporary jobs. He was finally hired by a company and worked his way up from line work to Quality Assurance Manager and after being promoted to this position was laid off within six months. He was unemployed for 6 months and then another manufacturing company hired him as Quality Assurance Manager and was he was promoted to Division Manager. Because of his computer knowledge, he was sent to Mexico to set up the company's computer system in their new factory there. When he returned from Mexico, he was met by the factory General Manager who presented him with a "pink slip". My oldest immediately took his pink slip to the nearest Army Recruiting Station and reenlisted. He worked his way up through the ranks, applied for and was accepted for OCS and is now a Captain in the Rangers. This will be his third tour in Iraq (He had a previous tour in Afganistan. Married, 4 children.

My middle son: Joined the Navy right out of high school. When he returned home, he got a very good job in a local warehouse working his way up from laborer to foreman. He went into work one morning and was called to receive HIS pink slip; his job had been out sourced. He too, reenlisted, but this time in the Army, and is now a Sargent in Combat Infantry Division. This is his second tour in Iraq. Married, 2 children.

My youngest: Graduated from high school June of last year. Almost no decent jobs available in our area.
He finally got a full time job at a Target store and was doing okay, working 40 plus hours a week and he bought himself a small sedan, making the payments and insurance payments himself. Target kept lowering his work hours until one Saturday he went in to work and checked the schedule. He was only scheduled for 10 hours of work that week. He went to his supervisor and asked for more hours. He was told he would be scheduled for more hours. The next Saturday, again he was only scheduled for 10 hours that week. He promply walked out. He is now in the Air Force. Single.

What does all this mean. Hell, I don't know. I just thought that some here should hear my little story about how my sons and I came to join OUR Armed Forces.

We are really a "Band of Brothers".

Take it at face value, do with it what you want.

I am not eliminating at all the possibility that the services are currently attracting a disproportionate share of the poor*, but the data that you and I have sited do not support pkoso's declaration that the services are made up of "The mostly poor and lower class and rural bunch of American kids strung too far out on their leashes...".

Posted by Neocondan

*Nor do they support YOUR assertions, in which you DID eliminate that possibility. Look, you're spinning. I get it, you will support the party line no mtter WHAT your actual convictions are. Foresta brands you as a believer. I ain't buying it. You're a DECIEVER, not a BELIEVER. You say whaever it is you are tasked to say, no matter how you actually percieve reality on a personal basis. In short, you're a fraud, and a liar.

Sorry. but I call them as I see them.

POA wrote - "*Nor do they support YOUR assertions, in which you DID eliminate that possibility"

So does this mean that you and I now agree that the statements that pkos made have no basis in fact? Because that was the whole point of my comments.

To: Just A Man

Nice anecdotal post. Thanks for sharing. As some say, one anecdote is worth one thousand data points; or some proximity of that turn of phrase.

I find it interesting that the DOD is lowering the IQ requirements for new recruits. How come?

Also interesting is the demographic composition with respect to the religious philosophy underpinning the officer corps. The Air Force is most interesting in regard to religious demographics. Should lead to rousing support among our more right leaning persuasions.

POA wrote - "*Nor do they support YOUR assertions, in which you DID eliminate that possibility"

So does this mean that you and I now agree that the statements that pkos made have no basis in fact? Because that was the whole point of my comments.

Posted by Neocondan

When you show me the racial and economic statistics of the front line soldiers, and those that have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, instead of the recruitment propaganda you have been flaunting here, than we can talk about it. Until then, you are just another slimey lying right wing troll.

I am the oldest son of Just A Man.

I personally don't care what the racial and economic status of my men are. All I want is enough good men to do the job they give us.

If others want to crunch the numbers, by all means have at it. We don't have time for all this BS. We're too busy trying to keep each other alive and unharmed.

Best to you all.

am the oldest son of Just A Man.

I personally don't care what the racial and economic status of my men are. All I want is enough good men to do the job they give us.

If others want to crunch the numbers, by all means have at it. We don't have time for all this BS. We're too busy trying to keep each otheralive and unharmed.

Best to you all.

Posted by Dave

Well, you might have convinced me if you would have left it at your FIRST trojan post, when you posted as "your dad". But you just couldn't resist adding an Act II to your charade, could you?

Dave D and Just A Man (and others I may have missed),

Kudos to you, my brothers-in-arms.

I was in OEF in 2003-04 and have since returned home.

I'll probably do a stint in Iraq in 2006-07, either with a Reserve unit or as a Contractor - to have money for my student loans and Grad School. I kinda need it since the Army is dodging on its obligation on my student loan repayment from my last contract.

Dave D, you keep up the fight on your end and we'll keep it up on your end.

I've found in my many discussions that dissent against the "party line" back here at home does not mean people do not support us troops... it often means they are a bit p*ssed off about the policies, strategies and misleading claims made by the politicians and the Generals.

I've had many "So why'd you sign up?" conversations with other soldiers about enlisting in the Reserves or in Active Duty.

Often times the reasons are primarily financial.
Student Loans, bonuses, job opportunities (or lack of them in the civilian sector) are all reasons that were brought up.

While their are other reasons such as a desire to serve the country, do ones duty and such... often the key things that influence a person are financial.

If financial reasons were not so utterly important to service members then why offer bonuses? Why raise the bonuses so high this late in the conflict?

Because they (the DOD) have to.

Economics, supply and demand and all that hoopla.

Its that simple.

~ ~ ~

For those non-military folk that are so interested in whats on the troops minds or why they do certain things...

While I certainly do not claim to speak for ALL members of the military, I've been in the military since about 1990, Active Duty, Guard and Reserves and I've been around a bit and been in a number of different units.

For what its worth, if someone such as a civilian (or perhaps an officer) asks a soldier or Marine a question about something and the answer the soldier wants to give might seem to paint the military, his unit or such in a poor light or be otherwise viewed as critical or is contray to the "approved partyline" -- then the soldier will likely just give you a "politically correct" and "tactful" answer - not his real and true views.

You want to know what they REALLY think? Show and honest interest in them and their work and make friends with them. Once you know them and have earned their trust -- then ask them and ask them in private.

You might just get a far more honest answer.

I've found it is amazing what gaps can be bridged when people speak honestly and directly to each other about things.

'Nuff said.

Your mileage may vary.

~~R.H.

Kill the CHICKEN from the address to email me.
RationalCHICKENHawk@gmail.com

My buddy hanging out with me just pointed something out to me.

I just posted the following:

"Kill the CHICKEN from the address to email me.
RationalCHICKENHawk@gmail.com"

For those that may have missed it and just to be clear -- I'm not a Chicken Hawk.... thus the "kill the chicken" part of it.

Get it?

Good.

~~R.H.

Every once in a while, RollingStone nails a story. Robert Dreyfuss has a great piece on withdrawing from Iraq:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8799011?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single1

A quick calculation

War dead per 100,000 population

Red states 1.28
Blue states 1.55

Red
Utah 2.61
North Carolina 1.91
Missouri 1.90
Florida 1.83
Nevada 1.72
Colorado 1.52
Indiana 1.44
Georgia 1.40
New Mexico 1.34
Alabama 1.32
Alaska 1.30
Kansas 1.30
South Carolina 1.30
West Virginia 1.29
Kentucky 1.29
Tennessee 1.27
Virginia 1.23
Iowa 1.18
Texas 1.16
Ohio 1.12
Arizona 1.09
Idaho 0.98
Oklahoma 0.98
Arkansas 0.94
Louisiana 0.94
Montana 0.92
Nebraska 0.87
Mississippi 0.85
Wyoming 0.84
South Dakota 0.69
North Dakota 0.63

Blue

Hawaii 2.10
New Jersey 2.06
Massachusetts 1.95
Connecticut 1.94
New York 1.92
District of Columbia 1.88
Minnesota 1.87
New Hampshire 1.84
Maryland 1.72
California 1.61
Washington 1.53
Illinois 1.51
Michigan 1.50
Maine 1.45
Rhode Island 1.35
Pennsylvania 1.17
Wisconsin 1.12
Oregon 1.05
Delaware 1.02
Vermont 0.44

So some asshole takes a thread that is about our dead soldiers and posts links to pornography. What to you want to bet the God damned idiot has a "support our troops" decal on the back of his rig? Have you ever noticed how ABSOLUTELY SLIMEY these people are that try to disrupt progressive blogs? What type of perverted asshole derives satisfaction out of posting porn on the websites of those that disagree with him politically?

Get help, you poor pathetic pervert.