Is it time for DU to add a Body Count in its masthead?

[stopbush]

Not to be morbid, but during Vietnam, our local paper had a little box that showed a weekly count of US soldiers killed. Seeing numbers in the 300's sure had an effect on THIS then-high schooler who faced the draft himself (I "won" in the lottery with number that was too far down the list to be drafted).

Just today, I saw a Yahoo story about 4 more soldiers being killed, "bringing to 101 the number killed in action since bush declared major combat...blah, blah blah." It's almost as if the media has erased the deaths that happened before shrub's insulting and idiotic landing. We're now down from the actual total - which is close to 400 killed - to just over 100. How'd that happen? It gets confusing, even for those of us who try to follow such things.

I propose a box that lists the total combat deaths, non-combats deaths, wounded to date, and total of all three. Bartcop often publishes some numbers, but usually mid-page and not on any kind of schedule. It would help me, at least, keep things in perspective.

[mrgorth]

1. "They" might try to use it against us...

say we want the troops dead or something. Know your enemy.

[stopbush]

5. True, but there's ways to handle that.

A simple header would do. Something like "In memoriam - Lest We Forget." Or, "When will it stop?".

I wouldn't put it in terms of "Bush's Dead" or "They Died For Oil." I think WE as Dems need to be cognizant of just how many people are dying over there. You can BET we'd know the number if a Dem was in office because the repigs would make sure EVERYBODY knew the number. Hell, they'd be extrapolating those deaths out for the next decade.

[alcuno]

2. They keep resetting the clock

Why not propose it in "Ask the Administrators?" The "official" number is 337.

http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/

[oasis]

3. No.

[Syrinx]

4. I'd noticed that, but then again I didn't

It is mind control, isn't it? Four hundred becomes 100. And "horrendously maimed" has become "wounded." Like a hangnail or something. But it's mostly lost limbs and serious brain damage. :(

[LastKnight]

6. we need two of those kinda things...

one for the soldiers, and one for iraqi civillian deaths as a result of US actions, seeing as our government refuses to make an estimate. here are some websites for the soldiers and the iraqi civillians.

http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm

has a breakdown by month, individual names, and causes, a lengthy site but does them justice, its updated at least every week or so

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

i have no idea how often this one is updated, but its sources are dozens of online newspapers, based around the world, but there are some sickening totals on this site

oh and by the way, the reason the totals are so low is because the news only reports the 'violent combat deaths' or ones that happen in direct cause of hostile action, usuially injuries, ect are left out.

also, anyone find the phrase 'non-hostile' or 'non-combat' gunshot interesting? thats either friendly fire or suicide is what it sounds like to me.

sounds like a good idea, totals for the top of the site... put em up.

-LK

[Old and In the Way]

7. BartCop is doing this.

I'd like to see a comparison done between Vietnam and Iraq.....Day 200 - VietNam vs. Iraq.

A comparison to another US folly would be appropos, I think.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. Yes. But it should read as follows:

"33200 user registrations since January 2001 (XXXX Tombstoned)."