Numbers, Again

From Altered net, Iraq Death Toll Rivals Rwanda Genocide, Cambodian Killing Fields

I know the goal is to ratchet up the hate on Bush and CheneyCo but throwing numbers out there and spinning as wildly as the rightwingers spin their material doesn't impress me.

Alterednet: "According to a new study, 1.2 million Iraqis have met violent deaths since the 2003 invasion, the highest estimate of war-related fatalities yet. The study was done by the British polling firm ORB, which conducted face-to-face interviews with a sample of over 1,700 Iraqi adults in 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces."

I questioned the numbers previously (below By Way of Numbers). This newest interpretation puts the violent deaths at 1.2 million, or 732 dead per day since the war began in 2003. Not only do I find that toll questionable but I would ask is there a number that would have been acceptable to Americans?

Would 500,000 deaths be acceptable, 300,000, 200,000? Were the estimated 3000-5000 deaths during the Panama invasion, Just Cause, do-able because it was only 4 figures? Were the 100,000 dead in Bosnia not a "killing field"?

Is a poll of 1700 Iraqi adults representative of all Iraqis? Are we assured the poll takers did not influence the responses? Is the US still paying compensation to Iraqi victims of violence and if so would this create false claims? How many deaths result from US troops and how many from personal vendettas, crime, etc.? Regardless, these numbers are arrived at by extrapolation, conjectural information, spinning.

The above article puts an outrageous spin on small arms ammo.

Altered net: " [One news report] noted that the Army estimated it would need 1.5 billion small arms rounds per year, which was three times the amount produced just three years earlier. In another, it was noted by the Associated Press that soldiers were shooting bullets faster than they could be produced by the manufacturer. 1.5 billion rounds per year … more bullets fired than can be manufactured. Given that the estimated number of active insurgents in Iraq has never exceeded 30,000 -- and is usually given as less than 20,000 -- that leaves a lot of deadly lead flying around. Everyone agrees that the U.S. soldier is the best-trained fighter on earth, so it's somewhat bizarre that war supporters believe their shots rarely hit anybody."

Hmmm, lemme see, 1.5 billion per year ammo would be around 9100 bullets per soldier. Now, factor in that many troops are on bases, support personnel, not infantry, and may not shoot at anything other than on the firing range for practice. Do the writers mean "rounds" as in bullets only, or "rounds" for any small arms inlcuding pistols, rifles, grenades, mortars, i.e. are they including mortar shells and grenades in the ammo or is it all "bullets"? Also, does this 1.5 billion "bullets" per year include the ammo expended in training the Iraqi Police Service (IPS) and the National Police (NP)?

Last, but not the least - if you take the time to read through the .pdf file the Altered net author links to you'll see such statements as this:

Representative Weldon identifies an increase in the training requirement for small arms which was instituted by the former Army Chief of Staff after September 11, 2001. The new training requirement jumped up to 1.1 billion rounds per year. This is up from about 440 million rounds. Additionally, the training requirements do not just apply to the forces in the United States, but also to those deploying to the Central Command theater. All forces arriving in Kuwait are firing weapons as they go through a vigorous Joint Reception, Staging, and Onward Integration (JRSOI) process.

The file also notes a yearly production of 1.55 rounds per year - but this figure is to include training, inventory stock, and war use. The .pdf file's solution, of course, is/was to provide more funding, bigger and better contracts, to defense contractors.

(Thank you Curt "Able Danger" Weldon.)

The file also points to a 65 percent reduction in small arms ammunition funding between 1992-2002, you know the peace and prosperity years of Clinton. But those dates and percents would be an underfunding spin for the compassionate conservatives to write.