How many American soldiers will be killed in Iraq in February 2008?

This is repulsive on so many levels. I have flagged this in the hopes they pull it down.

I’m urging everyone to do the same. Just keep flagging this until it’s removed. Betting on the loss of life is despicable.

What? Why? It's a news event like any other. What about the tsunami bet? Why isn't there an outrage over that?

Or how about this bet:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_Britney_Spears_be_alive_on_December_31_2008_1371

This is offensive beyond words! This question must be withdrawn! I object on so many levels there isn't space to list them all. Signed, P.C. #1664

No. Go on. I am wondering what's wrong with this. People just say it's offensive. But they don't explain why.

How is this any worse than some of the other questions here?

Also, just because it's offensive to you doesn't mean that it should be withdrawn. Freedom of speech, ever heard of it?

I wasn't going to join in this discussion, but I feel compelled. It's true, there is such a thing as free speech. It's aslo true that this is a news, and I suppose can be seen as fair game. I won't argue whether it is any worse than the questions mentioned above, but I will answer you, end_in_sight as to why I think some may be saying it's offensive.
These are not men and women self-destructing like Britney Spears (although I refuse to vote on that question as well...also a very sad situation), it also isn't an innocent dying in a random event, as sad as natural disasters are. Regardless of how you feel about our commander-in-chief and this war, these are men and women willingly ad bravely sacrificing their lives for their country and their comrades. With the tens of thousands of military personnel over there, it follows that there are many more still here worrying about a loved one.
Here is what is difficult about a question such as this, or any of the questions mentioned in the above comments. Some people may be able to emotionally separate themselves and think of it as just voting on another news story...it is afterall, in the news every time a soldier is killed, and this website is all about predicting the news. Those who vote are probably "playing the odds" voting for what they think will be the winning answer or will yield the best payout...it is likely not a case of them voting for what they wish to be the outcome, afterall, zero was not an option. However, for those who gamble, say 35-70, do you really want to be in a position that will leave you disappointed if only 20 of America's finest are killed? For those wagering that Ms. Spears will commit suicide this month, are you going to be disappointed if a young woman with obvious mental health issues (as judged in court this week) doesn't decide to take her own life?
I won't fault anyone for posting this, and I think the language above may have been a little over the top. Like I said, it is news, and news that many of us are paying close attention to. I don't question the values of anyone who wrote those questions. Obviously it is something that people are interested in, and people have wagered. I don't necessarily think that it should be pulled...it isn't vulgar in and of itself. However, I don't think it's such a stretch to see why people are offended. It is a little insensitive to those who have served, those who have loved ones serving, or for that matter to those of us who have young children at home and grieve every time we see the image of a young man taken before his time. You may not like it, end_in_sight, but free speech applies to news_addict and constable1664 as well.
This question makes me feel sad, but I can't see removing it if the others are allowed to stand. It would probably create a referee nightmare for the admins. Who decides what is offensive? As pointed out above, there are many questions that some will find offensive while others will find them perfectly okay...this one to be included as there is obviously disagreement here as well. It's enough of a slap in the face for some to even see this question up here though, so let's not ask why they're offended. I think anyone with an ounce of sensitivity should be able see that whether he or she agrees with them or not.

Thanks for a great response smidge76.

I think this question is very important and should remain. Hubdub seems to have 2 purposes 1) To create interest by presenting the news in an interesting way and 2) To gauge what people think the outcome of various news stories is. This question is important for it's bearing on the second point. It is interesting to see what people's impression of the situation in Iraq is and to be honest I would love to see a string of these questions and watch what people's impressions are over time. I do not see how this question is more offensive than asking "Do you think the security situation in Iraq is improving or not?"

While I understand your intentions smidge76, I dare to disagree.
This here can be accepted as a kind of barometer of success in political / global security manner.
But what you called a "self-destructing ... Britney Spears" is far worse than those sad but necessary casualties. In Britney's case it's the public pressure and the public joy which caues all the depressing downfall.

So to summarize it, on the one hand the question only values the remaining risks of a political desaster - on the other hand hubdub joins the pack of hounds which drag prominent but weak people done. So I believe that suicidial questions are far more unethical.

Anyways, I'll also refuse to bet my H$ on any of both too.

This question was created to remind Americans of the cost, in terms of American lives, of maintaining the illegal occupation of Iraq. The numbers don't lie. Each day the war continues, two US soldiers, on average, will be killed. If this fact offends you, your complaints might be better directed at your political representatives, whether Democrats or Republicans, who authorized this war.

I certainly don't cheer the death of Americans in Iraq. I myself have had a family member serve in the Iraq war, and I have another who is about to deploy to Afghanistan. My greatest sympathies are with the family members of those killed in war. Lest we not forget, however, that the vast majority of those killed in Iraq are innocent Iraqis, who are being slaughtered as the United States continues to jam US foreign policy down their throats.

As a sidenote, news_addict wagered on whether or not the US will starting dropping bombs on Iranians, so it's best to take his hypocritical insolence with a grain of salt.

In light of many of the other questions posted, this does indeed seem to be a fair question to ponder. As we are wagering on the outcomes of events worldwide, the number of deaths in a well-publicized war seems to be a reasonable topic. It is not a reflection of our feelings regarding the deaths of American soldiers who are doing their duty for their country, but instead an opinion poll of sorts regarding the conduct of the war by our civilian and military leaders. If we believe the program is succeeding we'd probably wager on the lower end of the spectrum. If we disagree, then a greater number would be reasonable.

Personally I think this question is nothing more than what the daily liberal news media is constantly doing.....posting soldiers deaths for ratings and using those same numbers to drum up support for their liberal anti-war beliefs and policies. The question writer only proves this with his own comments above....."This question was created to remind Americans of the cost, in terms of American lives, of maintaining the illegal occupation of Iraq"; "the United States continues to jam US foreign policy down their throats". The "facts" the question writer speaks of do not offend me, his using american deaths to circumspectly promote his liberal political beliefs DOES!

Military maneuvers in Kosovo, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Kenya, and countless other countries are world politics, unfortunate as they may be. COUNTING CORPSES -- and betting on them in a casino manner -- is disgusting. Counting corpses in a war that was a hoax to start with, is TWICE as disgusting. I don't find this question to be of any ethical interest. I vote to void it.

Once again, Liberals, the supposed promoters of free speech show their true colors. randburg refers to "a war that was a hoax to start with" which proves his liberal-ness. Then because HE finds this question of no ethical interest to HIM, he then wants this question voided for EVERYONE.

This is particularly directed to the comments from "heyy_joe". You accuse the "liberal news media" posting deaths for ratings. Do your really think Americans tune in to see the latest death tolls? Deaths in war are news. They should be news. Shame on anyone that doesn't think they are important enough to report as news. Why do those who were most supportive of the war criticize the media for reporting on its costs and god forbid if you show a flag draped coffin. During WW II cities throughout America posted the names of the dead in public places. Noboby hid the flag draped coffins. Americans knew what they were fighting for, accepted the sacrifice and honored those that died. Soldiers that sacrifice themselves in war should be honored by the country that send them there. If you don't want to remember and honor their sacrifice then don't send them off to war! They should not be die in obscurity, hidden in the shadows by those who don't want answer questions about why they were sent to war in the first place. Of course many of those who criticize the media for reporting on the casualties also criticize them for reporting on the substandard treatment many of our returning vets have gotten from their own government. Responsibility #1 for a nation is that when you send people off to war, you honor the dead and take care of those that return. Period. If your not willing to do this then don't send them in the first place!

well said teach...i don't watch tv much at all, but whenever i happen to catch a list of soldiers that died i always try to still my mind and see if i recognize any of these heroes and think about what they died for...these people deserve our recognition and it seems as tho they're just being swept away...i wasn't around for vietnam, but i know i can goto the memorial and read all their names and for these soldiers who are giving their lives to not even have their names associated with their sacrifice is...god, i can't even think of a word to describe my disgust...i think we all need to be reminded of what this war is costing us on a daily basis, maybe we will do a little fact-checking next time we send our soldiers off to fight halfway across the world.

Hey guys,

As we can see their is certainly some differences of opinion on markets like these. We've recently opened up a forum for discussion here: http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/a_question_of_morality
If anyone wants to voice their concerns and get their opinion heard please post at the link above.

Ryan
Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor

People are rooting for REAL humans to die so that they can win IMAGINARY points--wtf

As someone with a cousin (who is more like a brother to me) in the Marines, who has been to Iraq once and is up for his next deployment in April (this time to Afghanistan), I have a major problem with this question. For everyone defending the question, please just take into consideration that for the 36th soldier needed to die for one bet to win, there is a family who will be DEVASTATED and whose lives will never be the same. I am against the war, as are most of the people defending betting on this question as a way to make people realize that people are dying. But the people betting are not the stakeholders in this issue. The soldiers and their families are, who are wagering their LIVES here. Most Marines I know want the war to end too, and none are excited to get deployed. I'm trying to not ramble, but as someone with a close family member in the armed forces and many friends in it, I really think questions of this sort should, in the future, be voided. i understand that there is too much at stake/it is too late to void it now, but in the future it should be. A compromise would be how many CASUALTIES instead of DEATHS, because at least that is far less traumatic for the soldier and his loved ones. I have friends in the Marines who have been shot and are going back again soon, so I could deal with "casualties" (which includes deaths, i believe), if you guys are going to insist on having questions like this. But there are soo many other things to bet on, why do we have to bet on this? I'm not mad at anyone...when i first saw the question, i wasn't outraged or upset at all, til i realized a minute later that MY cousin could one day be a statistic in one of these. I'm not angry, I just want y'all to look at this from the side of someone who has more at stake in such a bet than some HubDub dollars. Thanks.

Please don't not make absurd assumptions that people who oppose voiding this question are rooting for the death of troops. Norman, your statement is ignorant to the extreme. You know how many deaths I would have liked to have seen for February? ZERO! Also don't assume that those who support posting questions about the war do not know people serving in it. Personally I know several people that are there now, one that came home permanently disabled and was used by the President as a photo op when he pinned his purple heart on him while in a coma at Walter Reed. Questions about the war are legitimate news questions. People "bet" on these questions to see if they can correctly predict the news based on their consumption of it. That doesn't mean they are hoping for bad news or indifferent to the personal trajedy involved. Melmel07, you wagered on the question concerning the Supreme Court case involving the DC gun ban. I think that is a legitimate question too. However, using your logic should I question if you have compassion for those killed by handgun violence?

this website has the total # of US military casualties by month in Iraq:
http://icasualties.org/oif/

I'd like to post a question: How long would robmaguire last at a VFW Post after they find out he posted this disgusting "bet" ?

Golwar, sorry, I didn't notice your comment until now. Just for the record, I was not in any way implying that the questions of suicide were any more or any less ethical than the other...quite the opposite. Actually, my comment was not so much about ethics. I was responding to the question posed earlier regarding why some people were seemingly more upset with this question than others relating to death. I was just posing one possible explanation as to why this one might leave a more bitter taste in the mouth for some people. I don't recall making a value judgment either way.

you ppl need to lighten up and get a life. The fatalities in Iraq are unfortunate however they are news and the purpose of Hubdub is to predict future news. If you can't handle the truth then go watch some cartoons or star war movies.

Okay some people need to learn some basic manners. Just because you disagree with someone, there is no need to get rude or attack them. And historyteacher, your analogy that me voting on a gun ban has similar implications as voting on actual deaths is just absurd. We should be able to disagree without resorting to such ridiculous assertions.

Isn't the purpose of news to open our eyes to the events occuring around the world and right here at home. I know for me, I am a proud American who believe in our troops, I have no problem with this question. It actually opened my eyes to go look for the number of casualties, heightening my knowledge, and the knowledge of others, is a great cause, and if a question like this can spark knowledge, which might lead to awareness, which hopefully leads to more informed decision making, then I am all for it.

Actually, this despicable question has provoked some very interesting and perceptive commentary. Yes, I am liberal enough to call this war a hoax and conservative enough to respect our troops stuck in this war. Reporting the daily war dead is the point where I shut the news OFF. I AGREE that: if counting dead sheep on a daily basis makes us sufficiently nauseated to get the war stopped, a prediction like this one could serve a purpose. While the US needs a new president with really solid experience -- particularly in foreign policy -- questions like this one are the reason why CHANGE is likely to win out over EXPERIENCE in the upcoming election. And SOLID EXPERIENCE is what we really need at this time. Maybe that contributes an answer to the voided question about "experience" versus "change".

maybe your man Obama has that SOLID EXPERIENCE that you're talking about or perhaps even Hillary who has 12 SOLID years of EXPERIENCE.

a question that provides insight into the introspective nature of mankind's competitive nature has it's merits. robmaguire should get bonus hubdub dollars for the number and intensity of comments.

If you are against this question there are two things to do.
- vote for the fewest casualties on hubdub
and
- vote for the Democrats in the next election

I've got lots of money riding on this question. 1-35

MelMel - my point was that you were questioning whether this question was appropriate because you have someone you're close to who's life has been and will be at risk. Others are suggesting that people are hoping for more deaths just to make some fake $. Regarding my comparison to the gun question.... The Supreme Court is hearing a case on whether a city can ban guns that are specifically designed to kill people. Nobody goes deer hunting with a handgun. A person that has lost a loved one to gun violence could question the morality of folks betting on that question the same as people have questioned the morality of this one.

If my comments toward you were seen as an attack then you have my apologies as they were not intended that way. I was simply pointing out that while you may question the appropriatness of this question due to concerns over a family member, others may question betting on the other question for the same reasons.

To those people who believe focusing on the deaths in this war or any other war is an unpatriotic act, my insults were directed at you.

Additionally - If somebody can come up with a question on the Iraq war that gets at the heart of are we making progress or moving backward without using casualties as the determing factor I would be all for it. This is a very important news topic that should be discussed.

This site has truly become a News Site!
Folks are pushing and pulling on the 1st Amendment.
Many are learning alot about it in the process.
It takes a sensitive subject to raise Constitutional Questions.
When I wager H$ on any future outcome, I do not get upset if the outcome I wagered on did not come true.
Well, maybe on sporting events. ;)
Having watched many posts, in this thread and others, I feel that most people are fine folks, interested in the news, and trying their hand at prediction. Nothing more. Let's not spoil the fun by trying to project moral values on each other.

I read the question originator's comment. I guess black people need to be slaves since 50,000 dead at Gettysburg in one day is a FVCK load more than 2 a day in Iraq. People like this want Bush out of office and they honestly think they can make us safer. AMAZING.

Sick sadistic bastard.

I am curious what Armytimes.com, Marinetimes.com, Navytimes.com, Stars and Stripes, etc. is going to think about this as I send each of them the link. I don't see many future servicemembers and veterans flocking to this new site.

Please send this link to the Military Times publications. These publications run stories daily on the lives lost in Iraq as they apparently think our losses are newsworthy as well. They have also been critical of the treatment of active duty soldiers and veterans by this Administration. If you want to be a cheerleader for the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld decisions on Iraq, you certainly are entitled to that opinion. However it does not appear to be shared by the publications you refer to and is definately not shared by everyone in a uniform. Here are a couple of stories from Army Times worth reading as well.

Retired 4-Star Endorses Clinton for President - http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/ap_clarkendorsement_070916/

Military Times Editorial - Rumsfeld Must Go - http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-2333376.php

Editorial - Others share guilt - http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-ARMYPAPER-622894.php

Editorial - Failure of Leadership at highest levels - http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-2903288.php

Here is a link to the forum page at Army Times which shows that the military, like America, has diverse opinions http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24

@cbfolsom122 --- you are a complete IDIOT! That's really the easiest way to describe you.

I have removed a comment above as it contravened item 5 of our terms of service with regards threatening other users: http://www.hubdub.com/public/terms

So as not to be accused of censorship here is the remainder of the post:

cbfolsom122:
Free speach? Then why is the President not allowed to speak about religion? Why was Romney persecuted by CNN and MSNBC for being a Mormon (1st Amendment right to freedom of religion). You people sicken me hiding behind a computer betting on how many of my friends will die.

smidge you brought up some great points; however it is not predicting the news when 0 is not an answer you can choose from. It is WISHING DEATH upon American soldiers.

robmaguire-seeing as bombs can be dropped without killing a single person I dont see where the hypocricacy lies. If you dare to spread some more trashy lies look no further than the Bill Clinton cover up of Monica as he FINALLY bombed Al Qaeda after their 6th attack on the U.S. under his watch. The operation known as Operation Infinite Reach was only a political ploy. Had nothing to do with retaliation or the destruction of a known terrorist organization. How about Clinton in that bombing LYING about a pharmacuetical company that he blew up. It has no ties to terrorism anad much of the evidence was fabricated. But hey your question I assume isn't about politics?

See I know a lot more about politics then you ever will and I know that President Bush is a find upstanding American who has sent American troops into harms way hoping that we can have ZERO fatalities but also realizing that is a hard to come by number if not impossible. You only wish to make a mockery of the American system and hide behind the first amendment.

Let me guess conservative talk show hosts have no right to the first amendment and you support the "Fairness Doctrine?"

[Comment removed]

Updating my prev comment it should have included wounded as well (Battle of Gettysburg).

nigel fV*** you. 1st Amendment rights go toward everyone. If this sick person can vote on wether or not I DIE then why can't I ask wether or not he will die or bring up other good points?

cbfolsom (Seabee?), I'm not going to respond to most of what you wrote, I'll let your comments stand as they are. However, since my "name" came up, I do want to address that. As far as it not being a matter of predicting the news because 0 was not a choice. I just want to point out...the question was written on February 3rd. Sadly, one soldier had already been killed on February 2nd. I don't know if the author of the question was aware of that, but since his answer choices begin with the exact number of casualities at the point of writing the question, I'm giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. Either way, the question did allow people to accurately predict the news as it was written, at the time that it was written. Like I said, the question saddens me. It's one several on here that make me my stomach churn every time I see it. I chose not to participate in the market, as I'm sure many did. I'm not saying that I disagree with the way you feel about the question...I just wanted to address that one point.

When I saw this Q on the home page 3 weeks ago, I did not even click on it because it was not a fun/exciting market for me to play in. My regret was not reading these 40 plus comments sooner. Wow...Intense thoght provoking dialog here.

spell check: "thought"
Intense stimulating comments indeed.

thought-provoking