Someone inquired about this on another board, and I thought I'd post the findings here too. Not much to discuss, actually, as there really is no pattern.

# of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, and how the state voted.

California 131
Texas 99
Pennsylvania 60
Florida 49
Illinois 48
New York 46
Ohio 41
Michigan 31
Arizona 30
Tennessee 28
Virginia 28
North Carolina 27
Washington 26
Georgia 25
New Jersey 24
Indiana 23
Massachusetts 23
Oregon 23
South Carolina 22
Wisconsin 22
Alabama 21
Oklahoma 19
Missouri 18
Arkansas 16
Louisiana 16
Colorado 15
Kentucky 15
Mississippi 15
Maryland 14
Nebraska 14
Iowa 13
Kansas 13
Puerto Rico 12
Minnesota 11
Connecticut 10
North Dakota 9
Vermont 9
Idaho 7
West Virginia 7
Deleware 6
Maine 6
New Mexico 6
Rhode Island 6
South Dakota 6
Utah 6
New Hampshire 5
Montana 4
Nevada 4
Wyoming 4
D.C. 3
American Samoa 2
Hawaii 2
Virgin Islands 2
Alaska 1
Fed. States of Micronesia 1
Guam 1
Guatemala 1
Marianas Protectorate 1


Basically, no pattern whatsoever. California's the only state so far with over 100 casualties, so by the raw numbers, we're getting hit the hardest.

Just in case anyone here was wondering about it. Makes sense that it pretty much follows the population distribution, as any regular platoon has people from all over the country in it. (not counting National Guard members)

"Killed", or died? If killed, were they all battle casualties? There is a difference, and people need to understand it.

what is the difference? If they were not in Iraq they prob would not have died.

I spent 30 years in Navy medicine, most of that with the Marines. Saw more than my share of combat and that's what I'm basing this on.

A significant number of noncombat deaths seen during conflicts are as a result of disease processes, e.g. heart conditions, cancers and such. In most conflicts about 50% of casualties and a little over 60% of deaths are combat related. In Iraq both categories are actually higher at about 70% for both. You've also got to factor in that that a percentage of young careless kids behind the wheel are going to kill themselves and others whether they're in Camp LeJuene NC or Fallujah Iraq. In a predominately Muslim country what you won't see are the number of alcohol related injuries and deaths you'd expect to see elsewhere.

A long drawn out explanation would probably only bore you to death. The important thing to understand is that looking only at total numbers of casualties and deaths does not give you an accurate picture. You may choose not to want to know about these differences, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist.

So your arguement is that people die everywhere so it does not matter? I say that the 8,000 causualties would not have occured if the stupid Bush did not invade Iraq.

Could you please point to where I said anything even closely resembling that?

Methinks if we'd rather deal in emotional rhetoric and hyperbole than the facts then your contention is fine. When all we've got to deal with are the facts, and the facts don't always say what we want, then how will we ever be able to use this as an issue?