Monday, March 24, 2008

Five Year of Fighting: Iraq war by numbers*

Monday, March 24, 2008 8:18:22 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

These are some stats which I took from the Metro newspaper last Thursday (March 20th). This post is intended to compliment my other post.

175: British soldiers killed in action since March 2003
3,979: Number of US soldiers killed in action
133: Non-British or US coalition troops killed in action
7,951: Iraqi military and police officers killed
127: Journalists have been killed in Iraq since 2003

173,508: Total coalition troops stationed in Iraq

4,200,000: Estimated numbers of Iraqis displaced from their homes

2,500,00: Barrels of crude oil produced each day pre-war
300,000: Barrels of crude oil produced each day in May 2003

70,000: Estimated strength of Sunni insurgency, up from 5,000 in 2003
115: Average number of insurgent attacks each day since 2005

10,000: Peak prison population in 2003
60,000: Prison population in Aug 2007

£424bn: US cost of the war
£4.5bn: British cost of the war

Update: A few seconds ago whilst watching BBC news, a story aired that reported death of the 4,000 US soldier (Ref).

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:16:51 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
J, I think those numbers are a bit off. US military deaths have reached 4000 and the estimated cost of the war is approaching 3 trillion dollars
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 4:25:59 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Concerning the 4,000 deaths, as you see that was an 'old' article and I posted an update with the 4,000 death the same time.

In general though, I do admit that it's hard to put a figure on the war, as each different source you view gives you a different estimation - almost as if they are pulling it from a hat.

I think the following story does a fair coverage..
www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?NS=1&idx=93301&cat1=news

What source are you referencing dude?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:24:10 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7304300.stm

I posted on my blog.
Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:08:05 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I just read that story and your blog post however, it all seems quite sketchy! I'm not referring to your post specifically but rather to the fact that wherever one turns, one gets different estimates. Also with some estimates considering the direct cost of the war and others the 'full' cost with all things considered.

I like the following quote though:
"According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the direct costs of the war on terror, which include operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, have so far have reached $752bn, if the current year's appropriation of $188bn is included.

About 80% of that cost has been spent in Iraq.

By the end of next year, the direct cost to US Treasury will be over $1 trillion."
(Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7304300.stm)

If only now I can assume these figures are correct..
Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:30:42 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Of course the US govt knows exactly how much was spent, every year Bush and his fellow criminals just label it as defense spending, but alot of money from domestic programs even nasa is redirected to IraQ, I would believe the highest estimates, give Bush's past record of lying and distorting facts and inability to distinguish between the dream world and reality, the public is already bitter at the amount of money spent so far and and revelations of some ridiculous amount would only piss off alot of people, so in an effort to stem that and keep that 13% war approval rating they just distort facts, but Ive read several sources in the past that estimate it to be in the trillions, this reminds me of how the US dont keep official records of how many IraQis have died so far only US soldiers.. lol some people estimate iraqi deaths could be approx 1 million.
Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:19:28 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
For the Iraq civilian body count I prefer to use http://www.iraqbodycount.org , but they're estimating about 90,000.. To make a jump to a million, would mean.. well.. you know.

For the rest of what you said, I really can't comment.
Comments are closed.