[CO_dreamer]

Since the declaration that major combat had ended in May, every single casualty has been reported.

Every single casualty was reported before that too, but back then, it was reported on the front page. Now, I find the dead listed on page 20, and the wounded aren't mentioned at all, unless fatalities are also involved, per US Army policy. Frankly, I don't know what the media is expected to do. Are the soldiers who die today less deserving of mention in the newspapers than the soldiers who died during the invasion?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

About 440 in Chicago so far this year.

[Gorzaloon]

"Postwar Iraq GI death toll passes 100", I was reminded that, on the previous day, the Essex County edition had a story that reported "So far this year, 65 people have been slain in Newark, sometimes in spurts as in the one beginning Oct 3 when four people were killed and eight injured by gunshots or stab wounds during a 32-hour period."

And not to trivialize the horrible tragedy in any way, but we lost a hundred in a single night club fire.

[berserker]

Yes, dear reader, statistically you have a better chance of being shot to death in Washington, DC than in Baghdad.

This proposition is unsupported in the article, and is most likely incorrect. Hint: People would think you were crazy to wear a flack jacket around Washington, DC. You would be crazy to not wear one in Baghdad.

[TexasCajun]

I'd like to see the media graphically display the number of soldiers killed each day against the number of murders in New York, Los Angles, Chicago,Washington DC, New Orleans, Houston.