Marine motorcycle deaths top their Iraq combat fatalities

[Winston001]

Interesting - motorcycling is more deadly than serving in Iraq. Who knew?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/30/mar...les/index.html

[Oakie]

Statistic Abuse! To say more marines are killed on motorbikes than have been killed in Iraq is meaningless without knowing how many marines are actually in Iraq and how many marines have motorcylcles.

From the article ... "About 18,000 of the nearly 200,000 Marines are believed to own motorcycles... ". A little googling indicates about 25000 marines are in Iraq. Now we're getting somewhere.

25 deaths out of 18,000 bike riding marines = 0.138%
20 deaths out of 25,000 marines in Iraq = 0.08%

so yes, a higher % of bike riding marines are killed than Iraq stationed marines. Bikes must be very dangerous. However ...

A very clever fellow once said "Statistics will confess to anything if tortured enough" meaning that you can spin them whichever way you like. In this case the spin is that bike riding is more dangerous that being a marine in Iraq. Perhaps.
Given that something like 10% of the ANZACs who went to Gallipoli became casualties I'd suggest the a 0.08% for marine deaths in Iraq indicates that they've got it really easy over there and they're more likely to be killed in an automobile accident than as the result of enemy action. It's not that bikes are dangerous ... it could be argued that being a marine in Iraq is fairly safe! Statistics. It's all about spin and perspective.

[reofix]

what a story... our boys are locked in deadly combat against terrorism...and those sneaky al-qaeda bastards have slipped sports bike booby traps into iraq.... some people have no standards!!!!... first the towers... now this

[Boob Johnson]

what a story... our boys are locked in deadly combat against terrorism...and those sneaky al-qaeda bastards have slipped sports bike booby traps into iraq.... some people have no standards!!!!... first the towers... now this

There is just no sacred ground anymore.........oh wait......

A very clever fellow once said "Statistics will confess to anything if tortured enough"

Baaa ha ha, that is gold

And oh so true, thanks for sharing that

[Forest]

There was a quote in the article that said:

All but one of the deaths have involved super-fast sport bikes.

I guess Harleys aren't as popular as they used to be.

[Winston001]

25 deaths out of 18,000 bike riding marines = 0.138%
20 deaths out of 25,000 marines in Iraq = 0.08%

So yes, a higher % of bike riding marines are killed than Iraq stationed marines. Bikes must be very dangerous. However ...


Given that something like 10% of the ANZACs who went to Gallipoli became casualties I'd suggest the a 0.08% for marine deaths in Iraq indicates that they've got it really easy over there and they're more likely to be killed in an automobile accident than as the result of enemy action.

It's not that bikes are dangerous ... it could be argued that being a marine in Iraq is fairly safe! Statistics. It's all about spin and perspective.

Nice analysis. I think its an interesting story with various perspectives.

The marines in Iraq are not at war - it is an Occupation not a battlefront, so can't be compared with Gallipoli. Even so, its a dangerous place to be. The fact that more are killed riding bikes than from battle has caught the Corps attention and they are worried about it.

One theory is that having survived Iraq, soldiers feel such relief that they think they are bulletproof. Serving in Iraq like any other occupied nation involves stress and adrenaline. Being released from that stress can be a letdown and ordinary life at home is dull. Returning Vietnam vets found this which is why so many of them broke down and turned to drugs and crime.

So buying a fast sportsbike is a rational way of getting the adrenaline hit.

[Swoop]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=73572

From June '08.

[Mikkel]

There are Five kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, Politicians quoting statistics, and Novelists quoting Politicians on Statistics

+1 and 10 chars

[alanzs]

Nice analysis. I think its an interesting story with various perspectives.

The marines in Iraq are not at war - it is an Occupation not a battlefront, so can't be compared with Gallipoli. Even so, its a dangerous place to be. The fact that more are killed riding bikes than from battle has caught the Corps attention and they are worried about it.

One theory is that having survived Iraq, soldiers feel such relief that they think they are bulletproof. Serving in Iraq like any other occupied nation involves stress and adrenaline. Being released from that stress can be a letdown and ordinary life at home is dull. Returning Vietnam vets found this which is why so many of them broke down and turned to drugs and crime.

So buying a fast sportsbike is a rational way of getting the adrenaline hit.

Call it what you want. War or occupation, they are getting shot at and are in combat situations, so there's no difference. The terms used are political, nothing more. You are correct, they don't make an attack that lasts nine months. Sacrosanct or not, the battle at Gallipolli was an ill conceived and poorly executed assault. NZ historians freely admit this. The Turks lost 87,000 soldiers and 2,700 NZ'ers died. But, war is war. If they would have won, they'd have occupied the area. 3,389 US soldiers have died in combat in Iraq since 2003.

Apparently 25% of returning US personnel stationed as combat troops in Iraq are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. It is being now being diagnosed. Vietnam vets, many suffering from PTSD, were not treated for it, hence their declining health, drug addiction, depression and disenchantment with their life. The same in most other historical wars, but they called it "shell shock" or "battle fatigue."
US military studies showed that if a soldier survived more than 60 days of being in a combat environment, a soldier was not fit to fight and would be irreparably damaged. The extent of the damage varied. These studies were from the US's experience in WW2.

War sucks. They are all a waste of people.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/index.php

[98tls]

US military studies showed that if a soldier survived more than 60 days of being in a combat environment, a soldier was not fit to fight and would be irreparably damaged. The extent of the damage varied. These studies were from the US's experience in WW2.

War sucks. They are all a waste of people.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/index.php

Interesting,wonder what figures the Germans could have come up with considering they didnt have the luxury of replacements towards the end,and yep i agree a waste of people.

[Winston001]

Call it what you want. War or occupation, they are getting shot at and are in combat situations, so there's no difference. The terms used are political, nothing more. You are correct, they don't make an attack that lasts nine months. Sacrosanct or not, the battle at Gallipolli was an ill conceived and poorly executed assault. NZ historians freely admit this. The Turks lost 87,000 soldiers and 2,700 NZ'ers died. But, war is war. If they would have won, they'd have occupied the area. 3,389 US soldiers have died in combat in Iraq since 2003.

Just for argument, there is a significant difference between fighting on a battlefront, and occupation. Vietnam was a war with a constant and invisible battlefront. Thousands of ARVN (South Vietnamese) and US soldiers were killed.

By comparison France was occupied by the Germans. The French Resistance killed the odd German but basically the Germans were safe.The number of US soldiers killed in Iraq during the occupation is comparatively few - although we wouldn't say that to any of the grieving families. Any death is one too many.

Vietnam vets, many suffering from PTSD, were not treated for it, hence their declining health, drug addiction, depression and disenchantment with their life. The same in most other historical wars, but they called it "shell shock" or "battle fatigue."

US military studies showed that if a soldier survived more than 60 days of being in a combat environment, a soldier was not fit to fight and would be irreparably damaged. The extent of the damage varied. These studies were from the US's experience in WW2.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/index.php

I had a friend who was a Marine in Vietnam - Special Forces I now realise - and he was a manager of a fast food restaurant in Denver when I met him. Nice guy. However he said that after being in armed combat, killing men with knives, coming back home was such a disillusionment that he didn't know what he was supposed to do. He'd been put behind the lines when his officer recognised he enjoyed death and cared nothing for his own life.

This was a very likeable guy - nothing mad or bad about him. Not a blowhard, he only told me this stuff once we became friends. In fact he gave me his dress Purple Hearts and Bronze Star (I think) which I still have. Just his way of trying to get away from his memories.

So I gues there were probably 5000 other guys just like him, Vets who had been to the edge and for whom life was dull and meaningless without the stress and challenge of battle. Once you've gone up that hill, civilian life in the valley just sucks.

All I can say is that we are very fortunate in our small Pacific islands.

[alanzs]

All I can say is that we are very fortunate in our small Pacific islands.

I couldn't agree more with you.

[portokiwi]

There was a quote in the article that said:



I guess Harleys aren't as popular as they used to be.

The AFFS Army shops in Afghanistan offer troops serving there a great deal. While you are serving you can buy a brand new bike Harleys.... they take it each week out of your pay so you dont see it. and when you finish your tour you arrive home and your brand new oil dripper is waiting for you to love and cuddle.