digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at graphics8.nytimes.com

Chilling NYTimes Graphic: A Year in Iraq

graphics8.nytimes.com — "The chart, compiled from data provided by the American and Iraqi governments and news media organizations, gives information on the type and location of each attack responsible for the 2,592 recorded deaths among American and other coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and members of the peshmerga militias controlled by the Kurdish government.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • alkaline213, on 01/07/2008, -152/+12Already been dugg. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/opinion/06chart. ...
    Buried
    • Frostman3D, on 01/07/2008, -5/+31You don't have to be a dick about it.
    • CannedMango, on 01/07/2008, -7/+20Rupert Murdoch? is that you?
    • Etheo, on 01/08/2008, -3/+13Normally I'd be the first to scream "DOUBLE DUGG" but people actually need to see this.
    • tikiman453, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4people dont normally understand the volume of a situation until given a visual aide. this, to me, was a very powerful reminder of how serious our situation, as americans, is. to sit back and write this off as "the same story that keeps wasting our time" is a very heartless and evil thing. not everyone has seen this and maybe it should stay on the top 10 until they all do if that's what it takes to get some sense of appreciation or even a shred of compassion. DUGG.
    • michaelb1, on 01/08/2008, -2/+4Where's the cute little icon for civilian deaths? it would have to be 1 pixel to fit on the graph.
    • iziizi, on 01/08/2008, -2/+4Alkaline - some people do actually venture away from their computers for sometimes more than a day. I know this is hard to understand, but please do try to. Things will get missed, and things will get top page a few times. Dont cry.
  • iceman0113, on 01/07/2008, -15/+76and counting...
    • Whence, on 01/07/2008, -3/+181 is too many.
      • unorginalityftw, on 01/08/2008, -7/+1Yeah, but it is a war zone... casualties are kind of expected with this type of thing.
    • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 01/07/2008, -3/+8Well, at least the count went down this year (from 500 to 92).
  • NCSUspoon, on 01/07/2008, -35/+16Well there's a place I can safely scratch off my "possibilities for spring break" list.
    • Knucklecallus, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1You are horrible
      • zawonkadude, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1If by horrible you mean hilarious, then yes.. yes he is.
    • LeeSoong, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1" Baghdad Girls Gone Wild ! " + MTV Spring Break in the Red Zone . . .
  • xxTazxx, on 01/07/2008, -16/+267And just imagine the number of Iraqi civilian casualties...

    EDIT: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ , don't just imagine.
    • 1town, on 01/07/2008, -10/+100That's quite a few "9/11's" there. Oh but that's right, Iraqi life is worthless..
    • overtoke, on 01/07/2008, -2/+20When viewing the IBC stats, remember that they ONLY record civilian deaths that were reported in at least TWO media sources (those being English media sources.)

      When viewing the NYTimes chart, remember casualties are not counted as an "Iraq casualty" if the victim did not actually die in Iraq, and in combat. This includes: US Army bases (even if in Iraq), US Aircraft (even if in the air over Iraq). A corpse could show up in Germany in 100 pieces and pronounced dead in Germany. That casualty is not counted.
      • Kythas, on 01/07/2008, -4/+9Wrong. There are numerous instances of soldiers dying in Germany or even back in the US from wounds received in Iraq. They are counted as Iraq war casualties.
        • overtoke, on 01/07/2008, -4/+7That does not counter anything I said. You saying "wrong" is wrong. I said 'could' there, did you notice? The FACT is: not all deaths directly related it Iraq are counted that way.
          • Kythas, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Quote: "When viewing the NYTimes chart, remember casualties are not counted as an "Iraq casualty" if the victim did not actually die in Iraq, and in combat. This includes: US Army bases (even if in Iraq), US Aircraft (even if in the air over Iraq). A corpse could show up in Germany in 100 pieces and pronounced dead in Germany. That casualty is not counted."

            You emphatically stated the casualty is not counted.
    • ZenMojo, on 01/08/2008, -3/+7Now take that iraqi body count and compare it to the scientifically verifiable results of the ORB and Lancet studies, the same method used to get death tolls in Rwanda and Kosovo....
      http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?New ...
      Of course, you're free to dispute that so many people died in Rwanda and Kosovo by disputing the methods.
      • doctorfungi, on 01/08/2008, -4/+1I seriously suggest you do some more research and read this:
        http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reali ...
      • Carthagefield, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2@ZenMojo: FTA: "...a new poll reveals that more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003...The poll also questioned the surviving relatives on the method in which their loved ones were killed...9% from aerial bombardment.

        So, if this census is anywhere near accurate, then around 100,000 civilian deaths can be directly attributed to Coalition air strikes. I guess it depends though, on what is defined as aerial bombardment. Theoretically that might include a ground based mortar attack, which insurgents are capable of. In any case though, you would have to assume that the vast majority of Iraqis questioned would have interpreted "aerial bombardment" as an attack from a a plane, helicopter or missile. Truly shocking.
    • Protoman, on 01/08/2008, -3/+2How many of those Iraqi civilian casualties are from suicide bombings from their own people?
  • jazzjeff, on 01/07/2008, -41/+143Terrible legacy left by America under war criminal Bush.
    • gak001, on 01/07/2008, -6/+11Our apologies. Well, at least from those of us who aren't soul-less neoconservatives.
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/07/2008, -4/+7If you do end the war, will you let them get away with it?
    • diggingaround, on 01/08/2008, -7/+1I guess this is his report card... he is passing with flying colors!
    • jgannon, on 01/08/2008, -10/+3yep, just like roosevelt's terrible legacy...

      oh wait.

      you're a ***** idiot
  • nihil, on 01/07/2008, -57/+84God bless the men & women (and their families) willing to put their lives on the line in the defense of our country. No memorial is sufficient for what they sacrifice.
    • McGuinness, on 01/07/2008, -18/+175Defense? Last time I checked it wasnt Iraq that invaded us.
      • veloscaper, on 01/07/2008, -6/+50Nor are most of the casualties Americans, but Iraqis.
      • freedomkeeper, on 01/07/2008, -40/+2Yeah, it's not like Saddam tried to have a president assassinated or anything.
        • 955701, on 01/07/2008, -3/+16It's very insightful of you to reach back in time and realize that the Bush Sr. Administration was the one that told you there was an assassination attempt on him when he was President. Most people would just assume it was a fact without a trusted source to back it up.
        • slvrbullet87, on 01/07/2008, -14/+6It amazes me that you dont count the US government as a good source but a random blogger is a great source of 100% true facts
        • LeeSoong, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1Saddam was a friend of the American government, had lunch with Donald R., bought weapons of the USA, used USA intel in the Iraq-Iran war, etc. etc.

          The USA policy has been / is / continues to be: Global Destabilization.

          No group of countries, and no individual country - is allowed to grow into a potential threat to the USA. Pakistan is next on the list, along with Iran, and every other country that could possibly be a threat to Israel.

          That's not bias, it is just the truth - look at President Bush going to Israel to meet about possibly attacking Iran.

          The USA is far from finished attacking and invading the Middle East,
          it took its time bombing Iraq for a number of years - softening up the target long before committing ground troops to the occupation of Iraq.

          I would expect the USA to open up using Stealth bombers to destroy Iran research facilities, knock out electrical power plants, destroy water treatment centers, destroy bridges, air defenses, military bases, trucks and tanks - for a period of 1 to 6 years before committing the ground troops to invade Iran.

          Most likely by the time the USA has softened up Iran, some sort of Iran / Iraq dispute will be created and brought to a head - so the USA will be 'helping' the Iraqi troops to take downtown Tehran.

          Iraqi troops will feel all united fighting the 'common enemy' of horrible Iranians!
          Perhaps the USA will use Iraqi troops to goad Iran into invading Iraq?

          The same game plan can be used against Pakistan if they become too big of a problem.

          The USA is nothing if not predictable, their fighting techniques are still rooted in the 1950s cold war mentality . . .
      • dictum, on 01/07/2008, -12/+8The comment could easily be coming from an Iraqi.
        • cndc, on 01/07/2008, -4/+3...if only they had power long enough to boot a computer.
      • bencefeher, on 01/07/2008, -7/+26I am from Hungary. My father, like all men growing up under Communist controlled Hungary at the time had to serve 6 years in the Russian army. Had Russia gone to war recently, my father would have to fight for Russia's interests, killing enemies of Russia. Even if he doesn't agree with it and thinks it to be terrible, he would be obligated to do it.

        nihil's comment is to respect the soldiers that fight and die for a cause that they may or may not believe in. I'm not saying it's a good or bad war, I'm saying don't disrespect soldiers.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 01/07/2008, -3/+9"he would be obligated to do it."

          No. No man can ever be obligated to do anything. They are just more scared of death than they are of commiting atrocities. And that's from a Lituanian.
        • BabyWookie, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4Uh... First of all, neither the Hungarians nor any other non-Soviet members of the Eastern Block had to serve in the Soviet Army and fight Soviet wars. See the Soviet-Afghan War. Secondly, we haven't had conscription in the US since the Vietnam War. Thirdly, I don't know about the Hungarian Army, but the Soviet Army had 2 year conscription, not 6.
        • ICSU, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1bencefeher, you either made that completely up or your dad was lying to you
        • MaTT2011, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2I don't think pointing out that what the soldiers are being ordered to do , which doesn't fall under any definition of "defense", in any way implies any kind of disrespect towards the soldiers. Stating that fact only points out that they are being put into harms way for nothing....and that in itself is a form of respect....because, well, it means you dont want them to , ya know, DIE.
      • jefferygomer, on 01/07/2008, -4/+9American soldiers specifically choose to enroll into the service of a country. It is not their decision on where they fulfill their duty. They are willing to put their life on the line over the values of the country to the point of sacrifice their life for others.

        Whether or whether or not the war in Iraq it is a form of defense is a discussion for the politicians. To belittle the men and women who have spent their life over their duty of this country because it wasn't in "defense" is just disturbing.

        It is possible to support the troops, and not the war, regardless of what any "loyal Bushie" says.
        • MaTT2011, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4 Pointing out that what the soldiers are being ordered to do does not fall under "Defense" is in no way an attack on the soldiers themselves! Its not belittling the soldiers to say that they are not being used for the defense of America....its pointing out that the people who are using these soldiers incorrectly, and thusly needlessly putting them in harms way (which is really the most disrespectful thing you could do to a soldier), need to be stopped and need to be held responsible!

          Please, get it out of your head that saying "Iraq war is not a defensive war" = "We don't support the troops" because that is just as destructive as the logic that the "loyal bushies" wish you to be slaves to.
          • jefferygomer, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Will people stop putting words in my mouth? I never said that "Iraq not being a defensive war" = "We don't support the troops."
            I agree - to a point, that saying they aren't being used in defense for America isn't belittling - to a point. I personally see the response given was belittling to the troops though. Would one say that all these lives have been taken was in vain because it wasn't in "defense"? I would not. They gave their life, which is the biggest sacrifice one can give. I hate that we are over there in Iraq, but these people still gave their life for my country-sake, and for that I give them and their families respect.
          • cannabisireland, on 01/12/2008, -0/+0knobjockey
      • cswnow, on 01/07/2008, -9/+5Remind me when Germany attacked us? They were not threat to our national security. They wanted us to remain neutral.
        • artanis, on 01/08/2008, -1/+8Iraq was conquering territories and becoming a threat to the west? Hahahahahahahaha!
        • TxAggie08, on 01/08/2008, -3/+3No but they were working on genocide of the Kurds.
        • MaTT2011, on 01/08/2008, -3/+3Please....just leave the internet forever. You fail. Completely.
        • ddawggin, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3Yeah seriously, how dare you bring up a valid point that I disagree with, jeez.
        • tdelet, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Ok. Let me remind you. Not knowing history is a such a terrible thing...Listen up: Japan attacked the US. Japan, Germany and Italy were all part of a signed military alliance. The United States did not enter the war until December 1941 (Google it to find out what happened).
        • jefferygomer, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2It was a cold night in WWI, where German u-boats sank liners with American civilians prior to any war.
          You can never have a real understanding of WWII without looking into WWI.
    • tdelet, on 01/07/2008, -5/+51Instead of counting on God to get them out of this mess, how about WE get them out. They should never have been there in the first place. God didn't put them there: this administration did.
      • ICSU, on 01/08/2008, -2/+5According to Bush, God told him to go there. Millions of voters agreed with him.
        Go figure
    • Alliebomb, on 01/07/2008, -3/+9I really feel it's immature to digg down comments made by people that actually have something to add or have something to say in regards to something relevant, just because the views they hold differ from your own.... But I have to agree with McGunniess here. I feel like you watched one too many of olde George's press conferences and are just regurgitating his words.
      no disrespect meant at the people who are putting their lives on the line. As to whether or not they are willing....
    • justice7, on 01/07/2008, -31/+6i am surprised the atheist crowd here on digg didn't explode all over that comment

      then again, most athiest's believe in God whenever it suits them.
      • 1town, on 01/07/2008, -6/+12When does it ever suit any atheist to believe in God? Believing in God never didn't do nobody nothing good. (I hope all those negatives turne out in my favor)
        • Scaryclouds, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2If your atheist then yes, otherwise no.
          And I wouldn't say that, whether through the help of an all powerful being or not, many people because they believed in God, accomplished many a great deeds, be it personal or for others. Though the opposite could be said as well.
        • madm0nk, on 01/08/2008, -3/+2Albert Einstein believed in god. There is nothing wrong with religion for the most part. It's the hypocrites who obviously ignore the simple moral values stated in just about every religion in existence. There is nothing wrong with the idea of loving your neighbor as yourself.
        • madm0nk, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2I can't believe I got dugg down for that comment. Seriously you people need to get laid fast before you do something drastic. I am in know way a Christian or even religious for that matter, but I don't live in a closed minded world were I automatically shut out everything I don't agree with.
      • Eivo, on 01/07/2008, -4/+6Blocked for trolling
      • HotWingBias, on 01/07/2008, -1/+14It was a heart-felt comment. Quit looking for a fight. No one said anything bad about your invisible friend. Run along now.
      • artanis, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5Sorry, I dont wish for things to magically get better by way of an invisible hand. I take action and make responsible decisions.
    • 1town, on 01/07/2008, -2/+9Yeah, hate to break it to you, but they didn't die defending your country. They died defending Iraq. (which is just as noble a cause, mind you) (PS: still not worth it)
      • ehalasey, on 01/07/2008, -3/+5Sure, but you're missing the part where most of them signed up thinking that, when they would finally be called to duty, it would be to defend their own country, since that's what's in the job description.
      • BabyWookie, on 01/07/2008, -4/+4Really? They died defending Iraq from the Iraqis?
        • Scaryclouds, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4Quite the cluster ***** I know.
    • andrewguy9, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3I have three friends who are training to enter the military later this year (1 officer, 2 enlisted). The thing about soldiers is that they are sacrificing their personal freedom for the country. None of these guys are excited by the prospect of fighting in THIS war, but they love America and are willing to fight, even if they don't like the war.

      So don't digg down the troops, bury the people who got us into this mess.
  • Thundercracker, on 01/07/2008, -7/+23solution.... everyone move to Basra.
    • cswnow, on 01/07/2008, -10/+1Clinton loved to bomb women and children in the baulkins.
      • tumples, on 01/07/2008, -0/+5A very intelligent post.
      • arbulus, on 01/07/2008, -2/+2The Balkan conflict was an in-and-out deal. Go in, do what needed to be done, then leave. That's how it should be. The US and UN forces went in to stop a genocide and the leader was forced down and tried as a war criminal. After that, the US left, because the fight was over. The Yugoslavian people went on about their business without having to deal with the US as an occupying force, because America wasn't looking at Kosovo to be a big source of revenue and income, they actually gave a ***** about people and wanted to help resolve the situation and bring those responsible to justice.

        But of course, quick to the point operations don't make the president's and vice president's buddies any money. The same logic that applied to the Balkan conflict could be applied to Sudan right now. But, no. Because Africa isn't a big money maker and there's no real way for Haliburton and all of these mercenary "security"companies to make loads of money in Africa. So since Africa isn't profitable, the current administration doesn't give a ***** enough to help the millions of people dying in genocide.
        • OffPiste, on 01/08/2008, -2/+5"After that, the US left"

          Oh my ***** God you are 100% wrong! I personally did 4 Balkan rotations from the years 1995-2001. We are STILL engaged in Kosovo and NATO forces(minus the US) are STILL in Bosnia. We, the US, have had a permanent occupation force in the Balkans since Dec 1995.

          You sir, are an idiot who can't even do a simple Google.
  • mboudro, on 01/07/2008, -60/+33Try doing that for WW1, WW2, Vietnam.... that would need to be the size of a building to do any of those in this same format...

    Not that any death is good but this has been one of the wars with the least amount of fatalities in modern history... everyone seems to negate that fact.

    Buried.
    • MrP420, on 01/07/2008, -21/+8you have a valid point ...
    • shortyjacobs, on 01/07/2008, -7/+22Except, (Vietnam aside), those WW1 and WW2 were fought for a GOOD REASON
      (the war wasn't a good idea....but our involvement and our combating people who really WERE bad guys was)
      • xXxShadowfoxXx, on 01/07/2008, -16/+4So the people who come up to U.S. soldiers and blow themselves up in the name of Allah are good people?
        • joejoesick, on 01/07/2008, -4/+2Were they Iraqi?

          Not sure where you're going with this...
        • shortyjacobs, on 01/07/2008, -3/+3:-| , you're voting for Rudy, aren't you? Sigh...
        • arbulus, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5We are an occupying force in a country that never wanted us there. We have made things infinitely worse for the people there and have achieved nothing, because there was no reason to go there in the first place.

          America is the bad guy in Iraq

          /and before you ask, yes, I am American. And, I'm ashamed of these atrocities that are being committed in my name
      • sonnybobiche, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1You tell me the reason we fought in WWI.
        • nonymous666, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1The US chose to stay isolated during the war, even after the Germans sunk the Lusitania which had over a hundred Americans aboard, followed by German sabotaging of a munitions dump in NJ. The last straw, was when German subs sunk 6 or 7 U.S. merchant ships in 1917. The U.S. only fought in WW1 for the last year and a half of the war or so.
    • kanabiis, on 01/07/2008, -3/+13Right, lets just not care until the American Death toll reaches 10,000 +, because comparing this 'police action' to WWII is an accurate comparison. I mean remember when Bush said Iraq was like an Axis it really made me think of how much Saddam was like Hitler/Mussolini/Imperial Japan. Vietnam, are you really even going to go there? We had no business in Vietnam either, and we still live everyday with the fallout of that travesty. But kudos to you for reminding us why we don't need to be in Iraq... let me venture a guess, you weren't born anywhere near the Vietnam era....
      • xXxShadowfoxXx, on 01/07/2008, -5/+6Remember how many more people in Vietnam died after we left? Why does no one ever mention that?
        • joejoesick, on 01/07/2008, -3/+4Because no one cares how many non-Americans die...

          Where have you been?
        • BabyWookie, on 01/07/2008, -1/+3A lot less than died before we left. Your point?
      • mboudro, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2I never said not to care... nor did I say that any of the wars were right or wrong... I am just stating the facts.
        • kanabiis, on 01/07/2008, -1/+0What fact is that, the more people involved in war results in more casualties? Or the lack of modern medical technology on the battlefield results in more deaths? I fail to see where your 'facts' are relevant other then a comparison in numbers somehow makes Iraq 'war' less of a concern then previous wars.
          • mboudro, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1When did I say it was of less concern?
    • veloscaper, on 01/07/2008, -3/+16it's not a WAR but an OCCUPATION.
      • ordig, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1A war is when TWO armies are fighting
        • nonymous666, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1An occupation is when one group has CONTROL OF and RULES the other's territory.
    • roomforpanic, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5Granted Iraq war casualty statistics aren't even in the same realm as WWII, but they're only about 14K off of Vietnam (a 10 year conflict), 5K off of Korea, and right at about 60% of WWI.
      • Dibou, on 01/07/2008, -2/+2Are you joking?
        WWI deaths: 11,016,000
        WWII American deaths: 59,028,000
        Korean war deaths: ~750,000
        • masterofgrond, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Are you joking?
          WW1 American Deaths 116,708
          WWII American Deaths: 418,500
          Korean War American War Deaths: 36,516
          Seriously, look up before posting please. Even including Wounded you're off by more than an order of magnitude with those.
        • russ3, on 01/08/2008, -0/+159 million is nearly one third of the CURRENT US population.
        • Dibou, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1My mistake. I initially did American war deaths and then went to TOTAL deaths (but forgot to delete the word 'American' ). The WWII count of 59 million is accurate for total deaths......
    • cam0man, on 01/07/2008, -1/+6there's a reason for that...we have enough medical technology now to keep most the people alive that would have died in earlier wars. This chart isn't very telling because it omits the staggering volume of critically wounded soldiers. Looking at death tolls you'll clinically dead soldiers, but you won't hear about all the troops that lost multiple limbs, are paralyzed, brain dead, or burned to the point where they're barely recognizable.

      50 years ago we didn't have the ability to keep them alive, we do now and for that reason you can't compare statistics from wars of other generations.
      • BabyWookie, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1We didn't have the body armor that stops most shrapnel and can even stop rifle rounds to the torso either.
    • mboudro, on 01/07/2008, -2/+4Why does everyone assume I am supporting the war? All I stated were the facts not that I agree with it...
    • ElAssoWipo, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5Except in WW2 they had a reason to die. And you were fighting armies, not civilians.
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4Maybe 3900+ fatalities is a drop in the bucket compared to some other wars. On the other hand, it'd sure suck to be part of the drop, or in the bucket, especially when you consider that really, the bucket ought to be bone dry but for this unnecessary war and occupation.
    • madm0nk, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Nice job demonstrating your complacency.
    • alkaline213, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Big difference between a war(s) fought to fight the violent takeover of the world by psycopaths, and pointless war about old neighborhood beefs and oil money. So ***** you and the military industrial complex you rode in on.
  • mediaspree, on 01/07/2008, -14/+5*****-a
  • resipsa, on 01/07/2008, -14/+235Note the lack of Iraqi civilians. That would be a chilling graphic.
    • darny, on 01/07/2008, -1/+25Lots of luck keeping track of that number. I'm not sure our agencies even keep count. Dehumanizing, huh?
    • SocialPoison, on 01/07/2008, -0/+35I don't think my computer would be able to handle that .png file.
  • tinkafoo, on 01/07/2008, -7/+63I'm impressed at how graphic design gets its point across so much better than a wall of text. That is one hell of an efficient message.
  • nickymouse, on 01/07/2008, -21/+10We must be doing much better in Iraq. I see fewer news and digg stories.
    • dreesemonkey, on 01/07/2008, -3/+2Nah, ever since the taser and waterboarding craze the diggers have moved on to jumping on another pretentious bandwagon.
    • nonymous666, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1That's because we just went through the holidays. Who's got time to worry about our friends and relatives over in Iraq when we have xmas shopping to do and lights to put up on the house? Americans only care about Iraq when they have nothing better to do.
  • SpaceEmperor, on 01/07/2008, -18/+5thanks for diggin' this graph...I want a similar one with actual faces to print out large posters for future Republican rallies...
    • bigfinger, on 01/07/2008, -9/+1Didn’t just about everyone but Barack Obama vote for this war? Don't give me Bush lied BS, because Mrs. Clinton was only 9 months out of the White House and had the same data from her husband (she has experience in the white house) and was in support of it.
    • ventralnet, on 01/07/2008, -8/+3go back to your Partisan hole and shut your mouth
      • ventralnet, on 01/07/2008, -1/+5I like how im being dugg down. Partisan politics suck and will be the downfall of the US
      • SpaceEmperor, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Oh please...as I count only one Republican candidate for President wants to end this war...Democrats aren't perfect, but at least their rhetoric has changed...thats something at least
  • kanabiis, on 01/07/2008, -18/+19Good to see the 'Surge' is working wonderfully.
    • MrCobaltBlue, on 01/07/2008, -3/+5Yeah gives them more US troops to kill.
    • slvrbullet87, on 01/07/2008, -2/+9Check december vs. march and think about it
      • 1town, on 01/07/2008, -3/+4That's just because insurgents was busy shoppig bombs for their loved ones that month.
    • goldenratiophi, on 01/07/2008, -3/+4*sigh* when will diggers be able to identify sarcasm?
  • ninjacob, on 01/07/2008, -25/+45How about a graph of the 22,000 people who died building the Panama Canal?
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 01/07/2008, -15/+59Unlike these men, those who built the Panama Canal died for a purpose.
      • ninjacob, on 01/07/2008, -20/+7Go kill yourself as a political statement...then I will claim you died for a purpose.
    • Duositex, on 01/07/2008, -4/+11Or a graph of the millions of people killed each year by preventable illness?
      • Mattja, on 01/08/2008, -3/+7Does the phrase 'Global Overpopulation' mean anything to you?
        • leahcim, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4Our humanity will be our own downfall. As we continue to battle nature to extend our own lives, and the lives of our fellow humans, nature fights back creating new diseases, natural disasters and our own inclination to kill each other in wars.

          I always thought it'd make a good sci fi story about how at some point in the future science essentially wipes out preventable deaths, but we overpopulate by so much life is actually much worse off.
    • mriegger, on 01/07/2008, -2/+25Because the graph would be:

      95% - malaria
      5% - accidents
      • ninjacob, on 01/08/2008, -3/+3So building the canal is a purpose that justifies the death of 20,900 people by malaria?
        • bsl4doc, on 01/08/2008, -5/+2Way to reply to the wrong comment. Buried.
    • Rehnborg, on 01/07/2008, -0/+30Pull out of the panama canal!!!
      • tiberone, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4is that what kids are calling it nowadays...
    • ZenMojo, on 01/08/2008, -10/+1Panama would love us a lot more if we didn't build that canal there, but that's completely beside the point.
      • sonnybobiche, on 01/08/2008, -0/+11Uhhh wtf? If we didn't build the canal there, there would be no panama. Read some wikipedia.
        • Sitbacknwatch, on 01/08/2008, -8/+2Ya because wikipedia is such a trustworthy source of all information.... Not that i disagree, just think theres alot of other resources out there
    • Phyraxus, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7A man, a plan, a canal, Panama.
      • rarson, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1"O Memsahib, Bart. Rabbi has memo."
      • jasdf, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Dude, I just realized that is one huge palindrome!
    • smittyfree, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Noobs. The 22,000 died during the French phase of construction. Which failed, miserably, due to everyone dying from disease. When the US led the second effort, over 5,000 still died, but that was a lot lower thanks to the investment in eliminating disease.
  • WeirdEdsel, on 01/07/2008, -32/+8Kick their ass, take their gas!
    AMERICA!
  • jordan314, on 01/07/2008, -4/+22If I ever go to Iraq I'm hanging out in Dahuk.
    • Whatup, on 01/07/2008, -1/+11and get killed by an turkish air strike.
      • sockpuppets, on 01/07/2008, -1/+26Turkeys can't fly, silly.
        • skyfire1, on 01/07/2008, -4/+2Haha. Turkish sounds kinda like Turkey.
        • phort99, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure if it's worth the effort of explaining the -actual- pun for you.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4Same people Saddam bombed... Oh, the irony.
    • Whence, on 01/07/2008, -0/+8Why not just go to Dah UK
    • sat0shi, on 01/07/2008, -2/+9Yeah I hear Dahuk is OFF DA HOOK!
  • dullly, on 01/07/2008, -36/+17More soldiers died under Clinton in peacetime than have died in Iraq from combat.
    Buried for blowing the minds of digger's with cognitive dissonance.
    • McG2k1, on 01/07/2008, -10/+7its true
    • veloscaper, on 01/07/2008, -6/+15***** you. Totally made up and apples to oranges. Whole peacetime under Clinton vs just Iraq under Bush jr. (specifically those who die in combat in Iraq and not later elsewhere). Again a big ***** YOU for trying to bend the truth at the expense of honorable soldiers who deserve recognition of their sacrifices.
    • kanabiis, on 01/07/2008, -4/+14This is such an intellectually dishonest 'talking point'. Unless you mean to tell me that soldiers who die in car accidents are somehow = to soldiers who die by the result of war actions. But go ahead and belittle the deaths of the soldiers in Iraq to serve your partisan agenda. Funny, people like you cried foul when pictures of flag draped coffins appeared on the internet, but your quick to compare a soldier killed in action to a soldier killed in the states due to DUI, or other 'peacetime' activities.

      • dullly, on 01/07/2008, -5/+3Intellectually dishonest because its true? That makes no sense, you are a beanbag. And yes, I will tell you that a life is equal to another regardless of the way the death occurs. Actually no, I think the lives of people who die as a result of spontaneous human combustion are worth less than any other lives. Also, I dont like people who die from heart disease that much either.
    • politechaos, on 01/07/2008, -2/+14You do know that the graph you are talking about (more deaths under Clinton) was completely manipulated and that it took into account the deaths of all active duty personnel, whether it was due to car accident, health issues or ANYTHING and compared it to JUST the American active-duty combat-only fatalities in Iraq.

      Do your research before you spout your mouth off.
      • dullly, on 01/07/2008, -9/+2I did know that and what I said is still true, and you are a douche. I only deal with facts.
        • bigsteve, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1I guess they're still facts if you misrepresent them.
    • Crosshare, on 01/07/2008, -1/+12This statistic is incredibly inaccurate and is used as a right wing talking point. They compared only the military combat deaths from Bush to the overall military deaths from Clinton. This includes, illness, suicide, etc. When you add these deaths in Bush's administration with the Iraq combat deaths they outweigh by far the deaths from Clinton's administration.
      http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02 ...
      From salon.com: "In fact, when you look at the data provided by the Defense Department, you'll notice that almost none of the deaths during the Clinton administration -- just 76 over an eight-year period -- were from hostile action or terrorism. The rest were the result of accident, homicide, illness or suicide or were of an as-yet-undetermined nature.

      These noncombat deaths have not simply stopped happening. There are still noncombat deaths going on in the military, and they are, for the most part, kept as a separate tally from the deaths in Iraq. (To be fair, some of the deaths -- about 16 percent -- that have occurred in Iraq are similarly not the result of hostile action.) The absolute number of deaths that have happened as a result of our invasion of Iraq may not be astoundingly high, but they are still deaths entirely above and beyond those that would happen in the course of normal peacetime military business, and that's not something Colon factors into her argument at all. Military deaths have spiked upward from the final years of the Clinton administration. In 1999, there were 796 total military deaths; in 2000, there were 758; in 2003, there were 1,410; and in 2004, there were 1,887."

      BRING YOUR FACTS A LITTLE STRONG NEXT TIME DULLY
      • dullly, on 01/07/2008, -7/+2Read what I wrote again and tell me what is false? I only deal in facts
        • kcmedic, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5Yes, what you typed may be true, but you are not comparing the same things for the purpose of spinning it to look like Clinton was RESPONSIBLE for more deaths than Bush. Your "facts" are nothing but spin to try and make one thing look like something else. THAT is why you are getting the responses you are, douche.
    • TheFiestyFaun, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1There are liars, damn liars, and then there are stationers. -Mark Twain.
      • TheFiestyFaun, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1I may be retarded for misspelling the key part of the quote, but you sir are an ass, who likes to manipulate facts.
  • shortyjacobs, on 01/07/2008, -2/+47Especially sad to see the "Non-Hostile/Accidental/SUICIDE" deaths on X-mas day, and New Years Eve.....
    • MacEnvy, on 01/07/2008, -0/+10Most suicides in-country take place place around the holidays too. It's a very depressing time for some people.
    • slvrbullet87, on 01/07/2008, -2/+1Are you trying to say it was suicide... could have been sickness... yes it sucks somebody died on christmas, but it happens. I find it much worse that 30 people died from a suicide bomber. If the bomber killed 30 police officers how many civilians do you think got killed in the same blast.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/07/2008, -8/+2What makes a christmas suicide any sadder than a no holiday suicide? The fact that there are decorations up and people singing and all these American consumers shoving shiny new presents up each others asses is supposed to make it sadder?

      Sounds to me like you have a lot of care for holidays and little care or understanding of human life.
      • shortyjacobs, on 01/07/2008, -0/+5Yup...you got me....I have absolutely no understanding of human life, but YAY CHRISTMAS! Dumbass.

        And yeah, they probably weren't suicides, but still, sad.
    • gasin, on 01/07/2008, -1/+3Actually, that is what i was looking as well... the number of so called "friendly / accidental fire" and its pretty obvious that they are not neither friendly or accidental. It war zone its toll on soldiers and yes, its very scary to see so many of those on or around the holidays!
      :(
    • pmonsterX, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Whats more depressing is Aug 22...those are all American non-hostile/ accidental/suicide
      • Etheo, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1so iraqi losses are not depressing?
        • Tenareth, on 01/08/2008, -2/+0Of course not to these people, that is Iraq defending itself against us. They hate the US. Oh, and the fact that this entire war has had less US casualties than a month in almost every other war.
      • mrwoo, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I wouldnt say its depressing more, bizzar. How did so many people die by accident? friendly fire?

        Oh and etho the coment was on the accidental deaths on Aug 22, not iraqi deaths.
  • surf314, on 01/07/2008, -8/+7Honestly it made me a little queasy. I searched through for the dark blue and was relieved there were only a few, although any is to much.
  • lordchronos, on 01/07/2008, -16/+11next time include the numbers of enemy killed...you'd need 10 pages worth of graphics but it would be worth the effort
    • 1town, on 01/07/2008, -4/+9If by "enemy" you mean iraqi civilians, then you are correct.
    • Rehnborg, on 01/07/2008, -1/+3Or by "enemy" you mean people trying to kill US armed forces then LordChronos is correct.
      • fishbert, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Isn't that the same thing?
        Or are citizens not normally the ones who try to oppose invading forces?

        Also, you should work a bit harder at using the reply link properly. It works wonders.
  • freedomkeeper, on 01/07/2008, -22/+16Hey, that's similar to the chart showing how many people Saddam tortured and killed, but the colors indicated things like: putting them into a chipper/shredder, feeding them live to lions, gassing them en masse...
    • xXxShadowfoxXx, on 01/07/2008, -7/+4Yea, except the chart would have to be much much bigger.
      • tdelet, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Sure, Saddam was in power for what, like 30 years?
    • tdelet, on 01/07/2008, -2/+13Saddam sucked. No argument, but why was that reason to invade? There are a lot of bad regimes in this world, but we don't invade all of those countries. But, then again, they all don't have a lot of oil.
      • freedomkeeper, on 01/07/2008, -5/+1...and the invasion has been so lucrative in oil, right? Are you in favor of intervention in Darfur? They have oil, is that why the UN went in?
        • tdelet, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Hardly, the invasion has made the situation far worse, made oil more expensive, cost thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars. And I'm in favor of the UN stopping genocide in Darfur, which does not have a stable government such as the one that existed in Iraq before we invaded and is fighting a civil war already (which Iraq did not have until we helped them out).
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/07/2008, -4/+1We don't but we should. I'm for humans, not for government and not for economics. If there is a place in the world that people are treated like they were in Iraq than they've got my vote to topple them. I don't give a ***** about other people on this earth - but I do care that they get a just and deserved existence with a little bit of freedom. Am I willing to watch heads roll on both sides of the fence to see that happen. Hell Yes.
      • tdelet, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Yeah, WTF, let's watch some heads roll. Yee-haw! Let's invade China and North Korea, half of Africa, Myanmar, and a few Central American countries too(that's been a real success too, right?). So, hell yeah! Let's see some heads roll! As long as they're not your, right?
    • MadKennyP, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3But, I thought America was PRO torture. At least, that's what Bush says.
      • freedomkeeper, on 01/07/2008, -4/+0Compare water boarding to the things Saddam did. What passes for torture in the mass media isn't nearly as bad as what my older brothers would do to me when I was little. Oops, kind of indicative, eh?
        • tdelet, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3Wow, you must have the worst older brothers in the world. Did they do abu ghraib stuff to you?
        • MadKennyP, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1*****. McCain said waterboarding is torture, but I'm sure you're more of an expert because you have "older brothers." Typical Internet tough guy.
  • BufordT, on 01/07/2008, -21/+4There's nothing like an overwhelming amount of data laid out in a haphazard fashion to get your point across. Way to go NY Times!
    • dcsears, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3it's actually well organized given the amount of information.

      how would you go about laying out 3,000 pieces of data in chronological fashion?
      • Nyctobello, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1He/She would go about it by ignoring it. "Had to happen" or "unfortunate cost of war" he would say.
    • Sqlawl, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1At least their giving some attention to the war in Iraq, unlike a lot of other news media.
  • Adam420, on 01/07/2008, -19/+48I blame the people who voted for bush...and bush himself of course.
    • freedomkeeper, on 01/07/2008, -10/+2Yeah but as your identity indicates...you're stoned.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/07/2008, -3/+3seeing as bush signed their enrollment papers i would blame him too.
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3Um...the media is going to convince the other half of the population to elect another idiot who can't end the war this time around.
    • jgannon, on 01/08/2008, -2/+0and that is why you will never be anything more than a waste of space
    • bigjoeportagee, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1evangelicals fault then,
  • DaviDaviDaviD, on 01/07/2008, -8/+7A chilling look at what it looks like in the world's most dangerous country.
    • BbIT, on 01/07/2008, -9/+3America? No, thats a map of Iraq silly.
      America = Dangerous, Iraq is only dangerous because we are there.
      • freedomkeeper, on 01/07/2008, -2/+3Sorry, I thought America had one of the best standards of living in the world. Guess I'm listening to those propagandistic federal reports again, sorry.
        • fishbert, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2It's a common misconception, so you can be forgiven.
          "On comprehensive measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top twenty, currently ranking number twelve. On the Human Poverty Index the United States ranked 16th, one rank below the United Kingdom and one rank above Ireland.[4] On the Economist's quality-of-life index the United States ranked 13, in between Finland and Canada, scoring 7.6 out of a possible 10. The highest given score of 8.3 was applied to Ireland. This particular index takes into account a variety of socio-economic variables including GDP per capita, life expectancy, political stability, family life, community life, gender equality, and job security."
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in ...
        • leahcim, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2@fishbert. It's also disingenuous to pretend that comparing straight statistics about per capita income and life expectancy is the ultimate way to compare the standard of living. America is in no way a dangerous country relatively. A lot of the countries that rank higher than us have benefits of homogeneous populations, MUCH smaller populations, and the luck of sitting on massive exportable natural resources.

          Yeah it's great living in Norway with all their Nordic goddesses and the socialistic utopia that it is. It also has less population than Brooklyn area in New York. Oh yeah, and the country sits on a mass state controlled wealth of Oil that can prop up their socialist utopia. Not to mention they are a very homogeneous society, with 90% of the people being Christian, most being the state religion of Lutherans, and an almost statistical 100% being whites.

          It is not fair to compare a country like the United States to Norway, who gets to benefit from the vast reserves of oil and a very small similar population and we have people here bringing up the poverty in the United States and comparing it to Norway, please.
          • fishbert, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2My, the excuses you conjure...
            You can't claim that we have one of the best standards of living in the world, then turn around and say it's not fair to compare our standard of living with that of other countries in the world.

            (also, see how I used the reply link properly? with just a little more practice, you could do that as well)
          • leahcim, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2@fishbert. Sometimes it breaks and the reply button isn't under the final comment, so I just replied to the earlier response, see, I'll do it again. Especially since no one else will ever read this.

            You didn't actually respond to any of my details though. Well, you did misconstrue one, I never mentioned our actual standard of living, just an allusion to the "America = dangerous" comment from an earlier poster. So I did not once claim that we have one of the best standards of living in the world, I did not use those words or anything close.

            I just pointed out reasons why comparing a country like the United States to one such as Norway using simple statistics doesn't show the whole picture.

            Care to have an actual thoughtful comment or are you pretending the "excuses" I "conjured" like the fact that we have 300+ million people and Norway has only 4.7, and they sit on a vast oil reserve that they sell to the benefits of their own citizens have no bearing on the relative standards of living in the respective countries?

            I figured as much.
          • makkaveli19, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1i dugg every buddy up, cuz i'm nice.
            however i'm also sick
    • Whence, on 01/07/2008, -1/+9The world's most dangerous country is Iran... don't you watch FOX?
    • fishbert, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2It really is; it's a good thing we went in to try and straighten up the place... just imagine how much more dangerous a country it would be if we hadn't!
      Yeah, that's the ticket...
    • Tenareth, on 01/08/2008, -0/+0You should probably check the death toll in LA for a higher number...
    • infinity777, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1It's only dangerous because WE (correction BUSH!!!!!!) made it that way
  • MrCobaltBlue, on 01/07/2008, -12/+58Imagine when the NYT does a Graphic 100 Years in Iraq sponsored by John McCain.
  • Frostman3D, on 01/07/2008, -17/+9Just come home....
    - Ron Paul
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/07/2008, -4/+4Just touch my nutz cause I luvvvvvvv it!
      - MeatBiProduct
    • Whence, on 01/07/2008, -3/+4Just go away
      - Digg users
  • Snuff99, on 01/07/2008, -1/+10Clearly, the battle is for Baghdad.
    • fishbert, on 01/07/2008, -2/+4Clearly, the battle is stupid and should never have happened in the first place.
  • Ricemanstm, on 01/07/2008, -16/+11Oops, I'm sorry. I was looking for the words to "I'd Like to teach the world to sing" or "Kumbaya" but I don't seem to see them there. Oh yeah, that's right I almost forgot. War is about breaking things and killing people. Yes, over 3000 of our soldiers are dead, yes Iraq is a crappy place to be but unfortunately the Middle East is a cesspool of corruption and fundamentalism. If it weren't for oil, the only use anyone would have for it would be either as a giant cat box or weapons testing ground. As it is, God blessed them with a substance that the rest of the world needs, unfortunately that gift has been squandered (and continues to be so) by corrupt and fundamentalist despots. The world has evil in it, an evil that seeks to destroy the same freedoms that so many digg lib-tards love to take advantage of by posting America blaming crap like this. Grow up and look around.
    • pkonink, on 01/07/2008, -2/+7Dugg down for "lib-tard."
      • Ricemanstm, on 01/07/2008, -4/+2Truth hurts doesn't it?
        • romistrub, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1No, supposing that someone is stupid because they disagree with you shows more about yourself than anything.
          • Ricemanstm, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1I didn't say they were stupid. One can still be quite intelligent, such as yourself, and still have retarded beliefs. Many on the left refuse to accept the realities of the world.
      • vincekiessling, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1yeah seriously, what a conservitard
    • kanabiis, on 01/07/2008, -1/+3You would think an all knowing all powerful 'GOD' would put that oil somewhere that didn't cause so much suffering and death... wouldn't you?
      • Ricemanstm, on 01/07/2008, -4/+1Actually it's that whole "free will" thing that is given to you. How you choose to use it is up to you. God doesn't cause suffering and death, man causes his own suffering and death.
        • kanabiis, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4Ahhh yes, the great christian free will argument, only give credit to God that that is good, all bad things, blame free will..... Your team wins the superbowl, thanks be to god, your country goes to war and people die, hey, thats free will.....

          Religion, its like never having to grow up.....
          • Ricemanstm, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Actually, it sounds like rather than taking responsibility you prefer to blame someone else. Again, that's your choice.
          • Nyctobello, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1An when that responsibility brings you joy and happiness you thank a non-existent being for "blessing" you with it.
        • spz104, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1So let's use our free will to get the hell out of Iraq
    • freedomkeeper, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Actually, it works quite well already as a weapons testing ground.
      • tdelet, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Absolutely. The insurgents are testing all kinds of improvised explosives and becoming quite skilled.
    • dcsears, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4this chart points no fingers.

      people are dead: have some respect.
      • Ricemanstm, on 01/07/2008, -2/+1NYT generally is liberal.
        • 01l0, on 01/07/2008, -1/+5You tell 'em; how dare they publish their liberal "facts" and "charts??"
        • 1town, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3Yes, and anything liberal people say is disqualified immediately. How bout just look at the factual chart and draw your own damn conclusions?
      • tdelet, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Keep saying that. And then say, we report, you decide.
    • CraigJ, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2George is really pissed that God put his oil there...
    • Keles65, on 01/07/2008, -2/+0I cannot believe how stupid Libs are. How many Americans and illegals die in the US on a daily basis because of Gang violence or car crashes. It is more than what die in Iraq. Also More people died under MADASS than now! HELLO! THINK ! God Bless America and Pray for are troops that die for our FREEDOM! YES even the LIBS FREEDOM! Just THINK!
      • tdelet, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1How is a soldier getting killed in Iraq dying for our freedom? And, frankly, why is it our job to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (which we are borrowing, mainly--thanks China!) and many thousands of lives (not to mention all of the permanently wounded) to invade Iraq?!? You need to think. If you support this mess, sign up and go. You go ahead with your ***** up prayers. I'll pray that our troops get to come home alive, not that they die in a war that should never have been fought.
    • makkaveli19, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1cat box? are you ***** kidding me! how ***** ignorant can you be. the middle east isn't all a desert. there was more snow in tehran than there is snow here in vancouver canada !
      And yes i'm sure ever middle easters is going around trying to find a way to destroy your freedomZ instead of trying to enjoy life, or feeding themselves right?
    • tdelet, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1You ***** up the quote: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
  • 01l0, on 01/07/2008, -3/+20Notice how there's no civilian count.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast ...
  • politechaos, on 01/07/2008, -6/+301 is 1 too many.
    • Ricemanstm, on 01/07/2008, -8/+11Can't hug your child with nuclear arms, give peace a chance, any other cliches?
      • kanabiis, on 01/07/2008, -0/+7What, you prefer, nuke them all let god sort them out? Or Glass Parking lot??
      • cybrguy, on 01/07/2008, -0/+5A trekkie once said: "There are no Arabs in Star Trek"... ... ... ...
    • Whence, on 01/07/2008, -0/+5that's exactly what I thought when I saw the graphic.
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3People say we shouldn't end the war because troop deaths are down...would you have the same opinion if there would only be one casualty for the rest of the war, but it was your kid?
    • OffPiste, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2I agree, including the US soldiers who died in Iraq under the Clinton years.
  • TexMurphy, on 01/07/2008, -6/+13When Senator Mccain and Bush say all is well in Iraq, just remember its a lie.
    Iraq a nightmare with no end in sight.

    This is data visualization of coalition fatalities from March 20 2003 through Oct 5th 2007.

    http://www.obleek.com/iraq/
  • Honeyblade, on 01/07/2008, -5/+11This makes me sick to my stomach.
  • MeatBiProduct, on 01/07/2008, -15/+7More people die in drunk driving accidents in 4 months of a single year.

    More lives were lost in 24 hour periods in other wars. Oh well time to get out my bleeding heart again.
    • kanabiis, on 01/07/2008, -3/+7Funny, the chicken hawks come out of the woodwork. OHHH Look at the tough guy on the internet. Bet you if one of those numbers were your dad, your brother, your son, your uncle, your best friend you would be singing a different tune all together. But hey, you didnt know any of those dead people, so who cares if they died....

      What a piece of *****, no human compassion or empathy..... just tough guy words on the internet..... Go play in traffic, loss of your genes from the gene pool would actually benefit humanity.
    • TexMurphy, on 01/07/2008, -3/+4As long its not your children who are dieing in Iraq. As long its not your father or mother who lost an eye or leg in combat. Only a coward Republican would say an American soldier death is worth saying Im sorry.
    • AsusMobo, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4I think more people died in the first few minutes on the beaches of Normandy in WWII, also in Gettysburg, it was something like 25,000 in the first hour. Sadly, the Bush administration has ensured that those people died in vain. Lets not forget the money. For 1/2 the price...we could have invented an electric car and gave two to every family in the country. We could have solved the carbon and oil problems at the same time and led the world into a new clean energy era. Instead, we have war.

  • darny, on 01/07/2008, -1/+21Looks like there are only a handful of American soldiers killed by suicide bombs. Most of them are Iraqis. Oh and if you don't like to be stabbed, tortured or decapitated, apparently don't join the police force.
  • Sqlawl, on 01/07/2008, -3/+9I'm just don't get it: Wouldn't a war get much more media attention today since we have all this new technology? I barely hear anything about the war on a daily basis from the news... it's like it is not going on at all.

    Good thing that there is the internet and sites like Digg and NYTimes to give some attention to this serious matter.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/07/2008, -6/+5You're just a ***** moron. I'm sorry but 8 out of 10 news stories are developments in Iraq. If you've missed them your either deff, dumb, or blind - or a combination of all 3. If you think Digg (which isn't a ***** news agency you dumb ass) or the NYTimes are valid sources of news you're kidding yourself, you're living a lie, and you need to uninstall life cause you've had a major failure in runtime memory.
      • 888gavin, on 01/07/2008, -4/+0Learn to spell, jackass. Deaf, not "deff".

        "...you need to uninstall life cause you've had a major failure in runtime memory." LOL You're a ***** *****!

        WU TANG!!!
    • Kythas, on 01/07/2008, -3/+9You don't hear anything about the war because the situation has improved so drastically. Instead of admitting that the "surge" is working and giving tacit approval of anything Bush, the media decides not to report anything.

      If you want true unbiased reporting, check out http://www.michaelyon-online.com. He's an independent journalist there on his own dime and is not beholden to anyone but himself. Yes, he's pro-American, but his stories document the vastly improved situation and the feel of day to day Iraq.
      • cswnow, on 01/07/2008, -3/+1Hey you can't spread the truth like that. The ***** retarded libs will call you names.
      • cybrguy, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4At least someone is willing to post a link to back up what he says. While I would argue unbiased reporting is a myth, its nice to see someone not backed by a major corporation.
  • sunshinex, on 01/07/2008, -12/+40Maybe this time you Americans should show up and vote or something..
    • ClockworksNine, on 01/07/2008, -6/+9We did, too bad it didn't matter.
      • kanabiis, on 01/07/2008, -3/+6Exactly, people keep acting as if this is Bush issue, remember people DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE WAR TOO.... but hey, lets not let facts get in the way of a little partisan jabbing.....
      • Rehnborg, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2I did too, but I cancelled out Clockworks vote.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/07/2008, -6/+3When was the last time we had a vote for a war? We elect politicians not decide if we go to war or not. Not even the president makes the decision to go to war. Try the executive branch of the government.
      • fishbert, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5"When was the last time we had a vote for a war?"
        Try 2004.
    • Adam420, on 01/07/2008, -3/+2If I was old enough at the time I wouldn't have voted for bush, and it wouldnt have mattered anyways....I live in a republican state....I hate the electoral votes, defeats the whole purpose of voting I think, and ya I think war should be voted on also.
    • Richandler, on 01/07/2008, -1/+17Americans are too concerned over evolution and creationism rather than voting for a candidate to end the war.
      • GhostyBoy, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4Yeah and let's not forget abortion. The government loves it when the people get all stirred up about that because it doesn't affect them at all. The government is anti-life AND anti-choice.
        • fishbert, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6Or gay marriage. Such a critical, earth-shattering issue that one is.
    • fishbert, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4Bad idea... we've shown that we can't be trusted to make intelligent decisions.
      And before anyone jumps in claiming that we didn't vote for Bush... even if that is true, the tally was still close enough to be extremely embarrassing.
    • breakitdownmas, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3Maybe you Canadians should stop being French and start getting involved in the World around you.
      • Nyctobello, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Didn't you keyboard get greasy when you were typing? You know, when you were having your 'Freedom Fries". Were you making a phone call on your cell phone when having that freedom fry? Well, rest assured, you are being well protected because as a result of your vote, your president, listens to your conversations.
        Maybe instead of rationalizing what the rest of the world should be doing, you should address internal challenges.
  • dreesemonkey, on 01/07/2008, -1/+13With the handy dandy firefox image scaling it looks like I'm trying to defrag in 1998.
  • Ricemanstm, on 01/07/2008, -15/+10Perhaps the world would be better off without our troops or foreign aid? Of course, that would remove most of the fodder for lib-tard diggers to whine about. But then again, they would most likely just blame America for doing nothing about the world's ills.
    • pumpkinking11, on 01/07/2008, -4/+1good point. conservatives are constantly being attacked by liberals. no matter what a conservative does, it is too much or too little. instead of bitching on digg, go write a letter to your state representatives. and then write another. and another. flood them with mail. they dont read digg.
      • Joshua1211r, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1What the hell are you neocon Nazi bastards talking about? 3,000 people died in 9/11, so that gives you the right to push your agendas and launch an illegal war? No matter what conservatives do? Like defend us against weapons of mass destruction and terrists? Where are they? Here's something that isn't fabricated, propaganda, or a LIE. 600,000 civilians murdered for oil. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast ... Bush knew exactly what he was doing when he lied and went in. Get your facts straight. This is almost genocide and despicable.
  • snoox, on 01/07/2008, -3/+14that's mah freedoms! stay the course.
    • krnldmp, on 01/07/2008, -2/+3As an American you have great freedom! The choice is yours. You don't have to die in this war. You can just get poorer.
  • ultra_lime, on 01/07/2008, -3/+8I want to see this graph on New York or any other big city in the USA.
  • GettinReal, on 01/07/2008, -5/+19And McCain wants us there for 100 years? This guy treats the constitution like I treat some Charmin. Wipe and flush.
  • darny, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6does anyone know what the hell happened on august 22? 14 "green" deaths for US forces...
    • girlpirate, on 01/07/2008, -1/+0thats a good damn question.
    • centran, on 01/07/2008, -0/+10Helicopter crash. filed under accidental. Mechanical Failure.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/world/middleeast ...
    • dubfunk, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Weren't there two Blackhawk crashes?
    • wahidm, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1The chart shows the deaths of Coalition Forces, not just US Forces. 20 Iraqi Forces were killed in a bombing of a Police Station on that day.
      • darny, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Gun on right shoulder = Americans
        Gun on left shoulder = Iraqi forces
        Gun Down = Coalition.

        The green ones have right shouldered guns, they're American.
  • CraigJ, on 01/07/2008, -2/+10Clearly we need stop iraq from importing cars.
    • C4103, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4LOL that would certainly decrease the number of car bomb deaths wouldn't it?
  • motbob, on 01/07/2008, -10/+11It sucks that people are still dying, but did you know that there were 23 U.S. fatalities in December? That's less than any other month in the war since the very beginning. Think about that. You can't deny that the security situation is getting a lot better.
    I still think that there's a case for getting out of Iraq immediately, but that case would have to be based on how the political situation is stagnant. The security situation is definitely improving.
    • vinegaroon, on 01/07/2008, -11/+2You would have a very full chart if we pulled-out. Remember Cambodia?
      • tdelet, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Obviously gwb didn't or he would never have gone in...oh, why should he, he never went to Vietnam so why would he know ***** about Cambodia? The one thing he does know is where the oil is.
    • Chode2235, on 01/07/2008, -2/+9What about the political reconciliation that we did the entire Surge for. No one doubted that throwing more troops into the mix would improve security, the debate is whether the Iraqis would use the security to tackle some of the bigger problems they have to deal with like the oil law and debathification.

      The surge has really solved nothing, but proven how great our troops are at their jobs. And that we knew already.

      I want to see tangible progress made now that we have pacified the country again, so far nothing. Therefore the surge is a failure and military masturbation.
      • pumpkinking11, on 01/07/2008, -2/+1ok.... before the surge, everyone wanted peace. now that there is some semblance of peace (you said that, not me), you are not satisfied. talk is cheap, do something about it.
    • fishbert, on 01/07/2008, -0/+9Did you know that 2007 was the deadliest year in Iraq?
      Think about that. You can't deny that the security situation is not getting any better.
      • Tenareth, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1That's like saying a company that lost a lot of money, but suddenly turned a profit the last quarter of the year "isn't getting better" that just makes no sense.
        Fact is, the Iraq war has been a very non-event in terms of loss for a war. The 21st century America doesn't understand the cost of war anymore.

        • fishbert, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Or like your NFL team nearly going 0-16, but winning one of their last games... then expecting the head coach to be back again next season.
        • SantafromNorth, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Let's face it our "War on Terror" strategery is about as developed as a game of "whack-a-mole" down at the Chuck-e-Cheese.
      • SantafromNorth, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1@ Tenareth: Your reasoning is flawed on 2 accounts:

        1) To say that a company lost money for 3 quarters and then turned a profit in the 4th quarter would deem the year as a bad year by most business metrics. It makes perfect sense if the profit in the 4th quarter did not make up for the losses in the first 3 quarters. In terms of the war, unless lack of casualties in the 4th quarter results in the resurrection of casualties from the first 3 quarters, it is still a depreciative investment in terms of blood spilled.

        2) 21st Century America does understand war. When you go to war, you go with an end game in mind that is definitive such as the surrender of Emporer Hirohito in WWII Pacific Theatre. You don't go to war against an ill defined enemy with no end game and impose a government which the rank and file population do not have a vested interest in making work because they have more identiiy to their clan & religion than to Iraq as a nation state. Such a series of events and the fact that the Iraqi government still has not got its act together means that there is very little end in sight for this war. Americans don't want to wage endless wars, Americans want to WIN wars and go back to peace time.
    • MaTT2011, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3"Well in this one month less people died! So, durrr, that means we should keep letting people die! I is t3h smartiest!"

      -WTF?
    • aeck, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3"Although violence has been reduced in Iraq, much of the reduction did not take place because of US troop activity. Guerrilla attacks in al-Anbar Province were reduced from 400 a week to 100 a week between July, 2006 and July, 2007. But there was no significant US troop escalation in al-Anbar. Likewise, attacks on British troops in Basra have declined precipitously since they were moved out to the airport away from population centers. But this change had nothing to do with US troops."
      http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/top-ten-myths-abou ...
    • tdelet, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Still-that's 23 MORE american families that have a son or daughter who died in a war that should never have been fought. Not to mention the money that we are borrowing (our money) to pay for this war. These are lives that should not have been lost (how many, btw, were permanently wounded in December? or in 2007?) and every dollar that we spend there is moeny we could have been spending here in the US. We're building things in Iraq! Big ***** deal. Build things in this country and get our troops out.
  • tehbored, on 01/07/2008, -3/+11Oh *****... this doesn't even include civilians.
    • cswnow, on 01/07/2008, -3/+0Especially the ones killed by terrorists. It does show the liberal heros, the suicide bombers.
  • kanabiis, on 01/07/2008, -8/+42Remember people, Democrats voted for this war too....
    • cswnow, on 01/07/2008, -5/+8Stop with the facts.
    • Richandler, on 01/07/2008, -5/+10None of them are going to end it either. In fact all of them want Pakistan next.
    • ZenMojo, on 01/08/2008, -7/+1But a lot less Democrats voted for it than Republicans. Just like the differing odds for catching VD the real question is, would you rather have a low chance of catching it by getting screwed to your face or a much higher chance of getting it by getting raped from behind?
    • MaTT2011, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3I think thats kinda missing the point, my friend. The point is we want out! There is no reason to keep letting people die! Its not about blaming which side voted most to go to war its about holding those individuals responsible for complete lack of competence (bush), deliberate manipulation of information and blatant lying (cheney) and those who did everything they could to facilitate such behavior.

      You people need to stop saying "well the dems voted for this war too, so...yah" like its some "fact" that supports our continued pursuit of this illegitimate war....because it has very little relevance to the issue at hand.
      • leahcim, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2I agree that we shouldn't have gone in, that it wasn't necessary and its become a big mess.

        But we do need to have a serious OPEN discussion about what would happen if we up and left.
  • dmach27, on 01/07/2008, -2/+6Originating article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/opinion/06chart. ...
  • tobyadams, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1crikey
  • greggootz, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2I would like to see this graphic for WWII...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.