3000-facts

[DOGS THAT BARK]

In reading the media this morning could not help but realize every major madia carrying the 3000 death total--also could not find one that went any further into these deaths other than they were Iraq'i casualties so thought I'd do a little digging so at least we would have a few of these facts omitted by major media.

Deaths in Iraq -3000
Deaths by hostile forces-2.422
Deaths by non-hostile forces-578 (almost 20%)
Women casualities 69



IRAQ: U.S. DEATHS BY ETHNICITY
RACE/ETHNICITY Army AirForce Marine Navy Total Percentage
American Indian or Alaska Native 18 0 13 1 32 1.09%
Asian 27 0 7 3 37 1.26%
Black or African American 240 5 34 6 285 9.69%
Hispanic or Latino 196 3 120 6 325 11.05%
Multiple races, pending, or unknown 34 1 19 0 54 1.84%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 25 0 4 0 29 0.99%
White 1457 19 656 47 2179 74.09%
Total 1997 28 853 63 2941

Source
http://icasualties.org/oif/

 

[smurphy]

is there a point to this? i feel much better knowing that 0.99% of our deaths are pacific islander or hawaiian origin. thanks!

why the fu*k would "major media" even bother with these details? do they matter? what point are you attempting to make? what media conspiracy is it this time?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Just though some might like a few facts omitted from main media--If you see no point or interest in facts--thats cool--but some might.

 

[gardenweasel]

among the tools used by the mainstream media to try to convince america that we should submit to islamofascism, there is the tool of "ghoulish numerology", also known as the "grim milestone" method.....

i think that`s the point....

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

They also omitted all of the information on deceased soldiers with nicknames. Good catch, Dogs.

Keep making Hannity proud.

 

[gardenweasel]

i guess we`ll have to all await the next grim milestone of 3,023 deaths.......it's significant because...uhhh...because...because it has a "3" at the beginning AND the end!.......:yup

 

[Penguinfan]

Black or African American 240 5 34 6 285 9.69%

White 1457 19 656 47 2179 74.09%

Great, how long till Jesse Jackson gets involved now?!?!

Sorry for the OT, now back to our regularly scheduled bitching back and forth.....

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

i guess we`ll have to all await the next grim milestone of 3,023 deaths.......it's significant because...uhhh...because...because it has a "3" at the beginning AND the end!.......:yup

Actually, I have a feeling that we will be seeing reports of death number 4,000 by December 2007. Personally, I'm glad that these stories are coming out. It builds awareness. I don't see why you and Dogs are all about covering this information up.

 

[AR182]

Actually, I have a feeling that we will be seeing reports of death number 4,000 by December 2007. Personally, I'm glad that these stories are coming out. It builds awareness. I don't see why you and Dogs are all about covering this information up.

the problem is with this war & the way it was during the viet nam era....the media is/was driving the wars.

instead of just reporting the news, the media only reports what they want & how it pertains to their beliefs.

based on the media reports it seems that nothing good has happened in iraq. since most of the world has not been to iraq (or viet nam), they take what the media reports as facts....."if they say so, it must be fact".

so now when there is a war, our leaders should consult with media editors....

i don't know about anybody else....but i find this sickening.

 

[gardenweasel]

Actually, I have a feeling that we will be seeing reports of death number 4,000 by December 2007. Personally, I'm glad that these stories are coming out. It builds awareness. I don't see why you and Dogs are all about covering this information up.

another grim milestone - at least 7077 victims of the jihadis.

funny how this one doesn't get much press, isn't it.....

whoops...my bad...that was 7077 "attacks".

16,708 iraqi civilian victims of the jihad "THIS YEAR"......

these guys are bucking for saddam-like statistics.....

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Ar182 & Gardenweasel: Can you please explain your positions on what the media should be reporting, if anything? Apparently, you are against freedom of the press and the right of the American public to know the results of our mlitary actions abroad. We're in the middle of a WAR, not the Olympics. The "feel-good" stories you guys crave aren't quite as prevalent as the negative. If you think that the only information coming out of Iraq should come from the military.....I'll take that as a vote for communism.

If you were a reporter in Iraq, I doubt you'd be sending in "Future's Bright Here In Iraq". You'd be scared out of your mind, reporting stories that reflect the reality of living in war times.

EDIT: Spelling mistake corrected.

 

[Padre]

Ar182 & Gardenweasel: Can you please explain your positions on what the media should be reporting, if anything? Apparently, you are against freedom of the press and the right of the American public to know the results of our mlitary actions abroad. We're in the middle of a WAR, not the Olympics. The "feel-good" stories you guys crave aren't quite as prevalent as the negative. If you think that the only information coming out of Iraq should come from the military.....I'll take that as a vote for communism.

If you were a reporter in Iraq, I doubt you'd be sending in "Future's Bright Here In Iraq". You'd be scared out of your mind, reporting stories that reflect the reality of living in war times.

EDIT: Spelling mistake corrected.

Who cares on what the "American" press reports on, it is so damn sugar coated and easy to swallow pills, that it does not matter. We Americans can sit in the comfort of a home and watch this PC bullshit, and comment as if we really know what in the hell is going on. My favorite (What u are about to see is graphic) and then they show a frame of a video of Saddam. WOW. really graphic,

Now here in Mexico, they say,(what u are about to see is graphic, so u ****ing pansy, pussy Americans look away) then they show the entire hanging of Saddam.

See the difference, here and much like in the world they show it as it is. What war is really like. Blood , heads on side of roads, arms on top of cars that have blown up.

Here we see town squares with fountains in them with a few soldiers guarding it. With a few kids asking soldiers for candy. And we Americans think that this is what we are doing over there.Please.

Trust me , watch the BBC, or Thai TV, or even Mexican TV, they bring u the WAR.

And yes they have shown the video in entirety on TV here in Mexico.

Cant show it on the news here, but hell if it can be put into a movie , it will get done.:142smilie

 

[smurphy]

Mr. 3000 is on F/X right now. It must be that network's way of demoralizing the troops.

 

[smurphy]

the problem is with this war & the way it was during the viet nam era....the media is/was driving the wars.

instead of just reporting the news, the media only reports what they want & how it pertains to their beliefs.

based on the media reports it seems that nothing good has happened in iraq. since most of the world has not been to iraq (or viet nam), they take what the media reports as facts....."if they say so, it must be fact".

so now when there is a war, our leaders should consult with media editors....

i don't know about anybody else....but i find this sickening.

Do you feel our leaders are more trustworthy than the media? I don't trust either of them one bit. But at least our freedom of the press is able to keep the leaders in check by giving us stories and information we wouldn't otherwise have.

AR - on Vietnam, which do you blame more for our failure: The media or Leaders? Did the media send our troops there and implement the ridiculous strategy? If we had no media coverage of Vietnam at all, would we have won? Would the troops have fought harder? Would our bad strategies somehow be more sound?

 

[Chadman]

Perhaps the media would be more "supportive" of this cause if it were for something specific, something tangible, something anyone not carrying the water for the Bush administration could appreciate. You conservatives continually try to link this war with WWII, as if it has any correlation. Since you guys want to show how things were then, compared to support now...maybe that is as good an illustration as any. EVERYONE understood and supported that cause. It made sense.

This one does not. They are reporting the ugly truth, and if they do have an agenda - whoever THEY are, as always - then it could even be considered understandable. Many Americans feel betrayed by this administration, and are angry and saddened by the war in Iraq. In many ways, the reporting mirrors what half or more of Americans feel. Democracy is supposed to be about truth and justice. The Bush administration dismissed the truth for their own cause, and has thrown out justice in many forms to attempt to achieve their cause.

This has little to do with terrorism, or American safety, and it never has. The truth simply hurts. And for many, it has killed.

Wayne, I guess you think it's important to show that nearly 20% of American service deaths are not being done by "hostiles" and only a quarter of the deaths over there are non-white people, to prove some kind of point. I think an appropriate point is that non of these people had to die over there, especially considering how it came about.

Thanks for enlightening us blind folk. We obviously are incapable of making any intelligent conclusions from media reports.

 

[smurphy]

among the tools used by the mainstream media to try to convince america that we should submit to islamofascism, there is the tool of "ghoulish numerology", also known as the "grim milestone" method.....

Yes, the media is reporting 3,000 war deaths as part of their conspiracy to make America submit to Islamofacism. That must be it. Of course. I mean it all makes so much sense. All the peices fit together so obviously.

 

[AR182]

Do you feel our leaders are more trustworthy than the media? I don't trust either of them one bit. But at least our freedom of the press is able to keep the leaders in check by giving us stories and information we wouldn't otherwise have.

AR - on Vietnam, which do you blame more for our failure: The media or Leaders? Did the media send our troops there and implement the ridiculous strategy? If we had no media coverage of Vietnam at all, would we have won? Would the troops have fought harder? Would our bad strategies somehow be more sound?

i agree with you....i don't trust either one.

i also agree that it's good to have freedom of the press.....if the press report events objectively & not subjectively, which is what they have been doing since the viet nam era.

military leaders are to be blamed or credited for all that happen on the field of battle. however if the media is against a policy they tend to twist the news to suit their beliefs.

i also think that the media should not have complete access to the battlefields during a time of war.i believe that if they had the same access during ww2 as they have now....that war would have had a different result.

 

[djv]

There's no doubt you read press from around the world. We are the pest of the earth. Were better off reading the softer American version. Those folks from over seas cut no slack.
As for Iraq and Nam believe we all agreed here many times both plans were bad.
I worry more about Afghanistan getting out of hand again. The leader there is not that strong and is not helping the cause very much. We just may have to pull troops out of Iraq and send them back there. That would be to bad we didn't need to rush them out of there in first place.

 

[smurphy]

if the media is against a policy they tend to twist the news to suit their beliefs.

And if they are in favor of a policy they twist stories to suit their beliefs. It's always been that way - it's not just something that started in the Vietnam era.

Again though - who was more to blame for the Vietnam failure: The leaders or the media? Please set aside your dislike of the media and answer as honestly as possible. Would we have won that conflict if the media just shut up and stood on the sidelines being cheerleaders or was it a flawed war, regardelss of how the media reported things?

 

[AR182]

And if they are in favor of a policy they twist stories to suit their beliefs. It's always been that way - it's not just something that started in the Vietnam era.

Again though - who was more to blame for the Vietnam failure: The leaders or the media? Please set aside your dislike of the media and answer as honestly as possible. Would we have won that conflict if the media just shut up and stood on the sidelines being cheerleaders or was it a flawed war, regardelss of how the media reported things?

first i'll say that i was in a few anti-viet nam war protests until a kid in my neighborhood died in nam.

and to answer your question...

in that war, as in this war the suits in washington lost the nam war & is losing this war....

and yes...i think both wars would have different outcomes if the media wasn't involved.