|
|
Nearly 9,000 U.S. troops dead?
By: baltimore.indymedia on: 01.07.2005 [20:17 ] (6908 reads)
|
A Nation Call For Infor From Survivors
|
|
(6074 bytes) [nc]
|
|
Temporary offline
by stopwar on 01.07.2005 [22:23 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by CreosoteChris on 01.07.2005 [22:42 ]
|
|
|
OK, I know I'm not going to make myself popular, but here goes......
The idea that 1700 US troops have died in the Iraq theatre, and 7000 or so in transit to Landstuhl, or at the German base, just doesn't hold water. Modern medical care and techniques don't square up with those numbers. On the whole, if a soldier doesn't die within the first hour or so of the injury event, then he doesn't die anytime soon.
Sure, the Pentagon is doing manipulation of the numbers, so many combat deaths are marked up as road traffic accidents etc, but they are keeping soldiers alive, even when they have 3 limbs and most of their face blown away. Injuries which in previous wars would have been fatal, are no longer so.
The very small number of US military deaths seen so far is a direct result of the effectiveness of modern combat hospitals, of evacuation helicopters etc. They are not a measure of US success. However the consequences of this are huge numbers of severely injured survivors, 20-year-old guys who are blind, brain-damaged, with missing limbs, etc. In Vietnam, or other previous wars, they would have been dead meat, but in Iraq they survive.
The truth is that the mortality figures are low, but that isn't any sort of success for the US. The many thousands indymedia talks about aren't dead, they're back home with brain damage and bits missing.
They'll never date another pretty girl again, their lives have been comprehensively ruined by the consequences of modern war and modern medicine. Perhaps it would be better (for them) if the evac helo hadn't been there to help at all.
But hey, that's what they signed up for....
Cheers Chris
|
by Deathtodubya on 01.07.2005 [23:09 ]
|
|
|
even if at the end they double them when including the extra deaths in the 'non-theatre' and hence non-war column as in previous wars. I think that 30% up to 50% more casuaties can be easily enough hidden from the public by just releasing news to families that their son died in Korea or somewhere and so wasn't a part of the war, but 9000 is such a jump that it would be hard to shut up so many.
You're right about medical treatment, and when you take that into account along with better technology, you can see that actual adjusted casualty rates are probably even higher than Soviet casualty figures in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, look at the death figures of the 'Gulf War'...first it was 147 dead, then 500 with the 'accidents'. Now they have 1500 'extra' dead in that time period died 'out of theatre'!!!! That's a 1000% increase in actual deaths from those reported, and no-one has questioned the figures or looked at them closely just to check them out! So it is is possible that 9000 are dead as if they got away with it in the 'Gulf War', why not try it again?
|
by Neal on 01.07.2005 [23:36 ]
|
|
|
From what I can see there are at least 9789 US killed in Iraq to date.
Well that is of 30 June 2005 and I've been keeping an eye on it since al Fallujah when we received the German reports.
Oh and don't forget the 103,000 wounded Bush miss calculated from figures in 2002 ... before the official invasion of Iraq.
But don't discount a Zionist attack on Iran ... look at yesterdays propaganda. Here's a clip form a post I put out yesterday.
What luck, can you believe it?? If my luck could run like the American Admin luck I'd be taking a loto ticket.
Of all the people in Iran to become president it had to be the one the Americans could hate the most.
I feel an excuse for a war coming on ...
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president ... Ringleader who held 52 or is that 63 Americans hostage 444 days in the
US embassy siege ... the ordeal that shook America !!!!!???
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president ... the episode still seared on America's collective memory
(that collective memory must be very small ... I'd say 50 meg of ram at max to believe this s*it)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president ... US embassy was seized on 4 November 1979 he would have been 23,
about the average age of the student hostage-taker ... god it has to be him doesn't it?.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president ... the internet images shows a dark-haired and bearded young man leading a
blindfolded hostage ... an AMERICAN HOSTAGE !!!
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president ... "This is the guy; there's no question about it," Chuck Scott a retired US
army colonel told the Associated Press. "You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and
I'd still spot him." He was a "hard-ass ... he was very strict, and very anti-American."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president ... retired Navy captain, Donald Sharer said "He was not a very nice fellow;
he called us pigs and dogs," a , David Roeder said: "He was present at my personal interrogation."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president ... William Daugherty, CIA said Mr Ahmadinejad was in a group escorting a
Vatican representative early in the crisis. "It's impossible to forget a guy like that," ... "the way he acted, the fact he gave
orders, that he was older. Certainly he was one of the ringleaders."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president ... the man who single handedly caused a sandstorm brought down US
helicopters, killing eight .... After two weeks 13 female and black hostages were released. A rescue mission failed
dramatically when a sandstorm (Created and caused directly by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president) brought
down US helicopters, killing eight.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president ... statements from former hostages "raise many questions" about the man
about to lead the government of a country classified by George Bush as a founder member of the "axis of evil". The US
was trying to establish the truth (as Bush sees the truth) about the questions, which it was taking "very seriously".
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Irans new president ... the uranium enriching and nuclear weapon toting towelhead.
I feel an excuse for a war coming on ...
Neal
iron_clay@clear.net.nz
|
by turco on 02.07.2005 [02:17 ]
|
|
|
but I don't see what the number 9,000 is based upon. Is it an estimate? especially what is that 9,789 that Neal reports?
We know what 1,746 is based on.
My point here is, "what is the method?" a number without the method of reaching that number explicitly told has no meaning. I needn't even have to ask.
|
by .antiestablishmentarianist on 02.07.2005 [02:22 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by hungry-ghost on 02.07.2005 [04:32 ]
|
|
|
So what if there are more or less dead Usrael scums..to the brave Iraqi fighters they are just warming up...history shows aggressors NEVER won the war
|
by Victorious@ on 02.07.2005 [06:51 ]
|
|
|
Than interesting what is real US body count. If number of dead and wounded downplayed by a some factor than we have in Iraq
(9000+24000)xfactor US out of war (dead and wounded).
Even US says that there are about 60 attacks per day in Iraq.
Even if this is true, I saw videos, where in most of attacks there is about 4-6 US dead and wounded.
|
by TerraHertz on 02.07.2005 [06:58 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by grandpa_jack on 02.07.2005 [07:37 ]
|
|
|
Thru years of bitter experience in the stock market,, I have learned always to toss out the high,, and the low.
The real casulty rate ( dead ) is probably no more than 3000 US .
x
However,, the USA is fielding a lot of proxy latin,, and Eastern European troops,, and their death count could be very much higher, and not counted.
|
by Peter on 02.07.2005 [11:49 ]
|
|
|
badly wounded troops lying about is a good thing for the IR. You can bury the dead, but you can't bury the wounded. When the wounded start coming home to there families maimed for life that will be bad for moral.......sad but true.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 02.07.2005 [12:41 ]
|
|
|
U.S. corporate mercenaries that die are not counted.
CIA spooks who die are not counted.
And to CreosoteChris, even if 7000 did not die enroute to Germany, there are still SOME who did die on the way to Germany who were not counted, even if that some is only a handfull or a few score.
My point is that the 1750 figure is definitely too low. Add on the dead mercs, spooks, and the ones who died enroute to Landstuhl and you have AT LEAST 2000 in Iraq.
Then add Afghanistan.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 02.07.2005 [13:08 ]
|
|
|
What we're losing track of here is that this war is not won by the numbers killed.
There are more important factors. For example,
- the staying power of the resistance,
- the ability of the resistance to mount bold attacks every time the U.S. administration says that there is light at the end of the tunnel
- the ability of the resistance to drive up the price of insurance for U.S. corporations doing business in Iraq,
- the ability of the resistance to destabilize the puppet government
- the ability of the resistance to drain billions of dollars a month from the coffers of the U.S. treasury
- the number of wounded that the resistance can inflict
and many other factors besides.
The IR is accomplishing all of these successfully.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 02.07.2005 [13:21 ]
|
|
|
The combined wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing the U.S. about $9 billion a month.
This is a factor that is more important to the U.S. capitalists than the number of lives they lose.
This is the fact that they need to be frequently reminded of.
|
by Hindu-sister-of-Iraqis on 02.07.2005 [14:23 ]
|
|
|
I have little sympathy for anyone who has signed up to butcher and maim INNOCENT people, particularly KIDS. How many Iraqi kids have been maimed, how many have lost a parent.......how many are going to suffer from long term effects of depleted uranium?
If the perpetrators of such evil spend their lives in wheelchairs, etc.....SO BE IT!
....................................................................................................
Some may deny that religion is a factor in these killings. Not true. While the main factors in play are OIL =oil + Israel + geostrategic Location (for the US), vs. defending one's country, its resources and its people; of course there is a religious element. Of course many Muslims side with Iraqis and many Crusaders side with Bush et al. Then there is racism - Whites vs. ......(Note that the main players are the 3 English speaking countries vs Iraq).
Iraq is supported by many of us from all over the world, who can step back and look at this as a basic transgression of humanity. The butchering and maiming of INNOCENT Iraqi kids. These supporters of Iraq and the Iraqi people include many USANs, many English.....many humanE beings, who can transcend basic ego-based affiliations.
May the Divine shield the INNOCENT, give strategy and strength to those who have been invaded to kick the invader out with what he deserves - an inability to cause such transgressions of humanity EVER AGAIN!
USA IS THE MOST HATED country in the world presently and it merits such derision!
|
by Atreides on 02.07.2005 [15:52 ]
|
|
|
"The combined wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing the U.S. about $9 billion a month.
This is a factor that is more important to the U.S. capitalists than the number of lives they lose."
Those $9 billion a month is taxpayer money! Most of it ends up in the pockets of above mentioned 'US capitalists'.
So, the cost of this war is as unimportant as the number of casualties as long the money is transfered into the right pockets.
|
by wings on 02.07.2005 [16:57 ]
|
|
|
It's an invention of war.
That was a very enjoyable post (01.07.2005 13:36). Thank you.
Of course, if a leader looks as good as Iran's new leader, the US government will try to get rid of him one way or another.
First, with the help of the media, they will work on public opinion, through inventing remarks against his character. Then they will try to discredit him with invented past mistakes. This is always crude, but effective with the "haves" group, and those with little education or time. Next, they will invent a reason to TRY and dismantle his position as a religious leader.
The Iranians are certainly aware of this tactic. They were not born yesterday! They will not be phased by this childish effort. The Iranians don't need Fox news to tell them what time it is. American's suffer that continous brain-drain training.
|
by DevilsAdvocate on 02.07.2005 [19:12 ]
|
|
|
That might have missed the point of the post.... I appreciate the "real deal" is elsewhere, and falsified casualty figures are old news.
This article is all about stopping the speculation once and for all and inviting people with knowledge to contribute in exposing the lies. Something mentioned on these pages a while ago.... msot of those killed have relatives or friends who are now missing their loved ones. They between them know how many are dead. So, forget the official figures, find out for yourself. And Baltimore Indymedia are doing just that. Well done.
As for the poor Iraqi's, I hope and pray that one day the truth will be known about the plight they have suffered.
|
by Hindu-sister-of-Iraqis on 02.07.2005 [21:31 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by Hindu-sister-of-Iraqis on 02.07.2005 [21:34 ]
|
|
|
Washington now faces a no-win situation in Iraq
America is facing the real possibility of defeat in Iraq. The insurgency is as robust and as lethal as ever. U.S. troops are overstretched and thin on the ground, while Iraqi troops are far from ready to replace them. Sectarian violence is on the rise, suggesting that civil war is just round the corner. Every day brings its terrible tale of carnage. There seems to be no safety anywhere - and certainly not in Baghdad. Iraq under American occupation is slipping into uncontrollable chaos.
This is the backdrop to the visit to Washington that took place last Friday of Iraq's new Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari. For both Jaafari and U.S. President George W. Bush, this is an exceedingly difficult moment.
What should America do? Should it leave Iraq, or should it stay? No choice has been more difficult for an American president since the Vietnam War. For the first time, a leading American politician and potential presidential candidate, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, was brave enough to say: "The White House is completely disconnected from reality The reality is, we're losing in Iraq."
Even more dangerous for the "war party" - the neoconservative cabal that pressed for war against Iraq - is that it is losing the war in the United States. American opinion is tiring of the war. According to the latest Gallop poll, 57 percent of Americans think the war is "not worth it." Members of Congress report that their constituents are getting restless. As casualties mount, the word from the grass roots is "enough is enough!" Army recruitment rates have plunged, as have Bush's approval ratings, now down to 42 percent from 51 percent after the November elections. In the House of Representatives, a bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans are drafting a resolution calling on Bush to present a strategy for getting the U.S. out of Iraq.
In Brussels last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to drum up international support in men and funds for the Iraq war, but America's allies are extremely reluctant to get sucked into the quagmire. They want Iraqi reconstruction contracts and oil concessions, but they do not want to fight the insurgency. On the contrary, they are heading for the exit. The international coalition has disintegrated. Britain is the only country which still has a substantial fighting force in Iraq, alongside 139,000 American troops.
At a speech at Harvard University on June 7, a former CIA director, John M. Deutch, called for American troops to pull out of Iraq "as soon as possible." Echoing proposals made last January by Senator Edward Kennedy, Deutch said the U.S. should begin the military withdrawal and let Iraqis make their own political decisions.
The opposite view was put last week by The Economist - which has a large American readership. "Recent talk of shipping lots of troops home early next year looks wildly unrealistic," it declared. It quoted "top American officers in Iraq" as saying that the U.S. should not contemplate making significant troops withdrawals for at least two years, perhaps longer.
The Economist was a supporter of the war and still has not had second thoughts. It still thinks America should stay the course and advocates sending in more U.S. troops: "Indeed, if America is serious about vanquishing this insurgency," the magazine argued, "it needs more rather than fewer American boots on the ground To prevail in Iraq, America needs urgently to raise new forces that can be committed to a low-intensity counter-insurgency that might drag on for years."
Those who argue that America should fight on in Iraq point to the danger of "handing victory to the terrorists." An American withdrawal would, they allege, encourage extremists to redouble their campaign, not only against America and its interests in various parts of the world, but also against its regional allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.
This is precisely the argument used by those who oppose Israel's disengagement from Gaza. An Israeli withdrawal, they claim, would hand victory to Hamas and spread the message that terrorism pays. The thought of Hamas members dancing on the roofs of Jewish settlements seems to be the ultimate Israeli nightmare.
The opposite - and more convincing argument - is that Israel's brutal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is the main cause of anti-Israeli violence, and that Israel's security would best be served by evacuating, rather than settling, occupied Palestinian territory.
In the same way, the longer the U.S. stays in Iraq, the more attacks it will face. As I wrote long before the war, occupation breeds insurrection. A further argument for getting out is that the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq is turning that country into a training ground for nationalist and Islamic militants from many different countries who, sooner or later, will spread violence elsewhere. As a breeding ground for jihad, Iraq seems set to be playing the same role as Afghanistan in the 1980s.
There has, as yet, been no candid debate in the mainstream U.S. media, still less in Congress, on the controversial question of America's war aims. Why did the U.S. make war on Iraq? The official reasons - Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and its links with Al-Qaeda - have now been shown to be lies. What then were the real reasons?
It would seem that men like Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Bush himself - advocates of using military power to shape the world to America's advantage - were persuaded that Iraq presented a tremendous prize. Its oil reserves were equal to those of Saudi Arabia; its reconstruction was estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars to American firms; while its strategic position made it an ideal place from which to project U.S. military power to the oil-rich Gulf and to a vast region beyond. Seizing Iraq and turning it into a client state was a tempting goal.
Prominent neocons in the Pentagon, such as the former deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, his associate Douglas Feith, and their many friends and colleagues in and out of the administration, pressed for the destruction of Iraq and its army in order to make Israel more secure. They had long advocated regime change in Iraq, but the September 11, 2001 attacks gave them the pretext to push the case for war with greater urgency. They peddled the fantasy that, freed from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, a "democratic" Iraq would be a model for the entire Middle East, which could then be reshaped and restructured to make it pro-American and pro-Israeli.
The Iraq war was in fact the product of parallel American and Israeli ambitions. Israel's objectives have been achieved: Iraq has been weakened for at least a generation. But America's war aims remain out of reach. If the U.S. leaves Iraq, its efforts will have been in vain. But if it stays, the cost in men and treasure will inevitably mount, with no guarantee of political, economic or strategic benefits at the end of the day.
This is the disagreeable dilemma with which Bush, the U.S. Congress and the whole American defense and foreign policy establishment must wrestle with in the months ahead.
Patrick Seale, a veteran Middle East analyst, wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 02.07.2005 [23:32 ]
|
|
|
While the taxpayers would care (if FOX news would tell them about it) the capitalists are benefitting from it.
So, it seems that driving up the cost of insurance for U.S. businesses in Iraq is the thing to do.
|
by Hindu-sister-of-Iraqis on 03.07.2005 [00:44 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by adil_nazeem on 03.07.2005 [01:17 ]
|
|
|
be it in Iraq,Afghanistan,Chechnya,Kashmir and all over the world.
|
by adil_nazeem on 03.07.2005 [01:53 ]
|
|
|
"DEMOCRACY"??????
|
by stopwar on 04.07.2005 [02:41 ]
|
|
|
Yes, you are right. I didn't fully understand what these people are doing. Good for them. I hope the truth comes out.
|
by hellsbells on 06.07.2005 [11:10 ]
|
|
|
The Iraq war was in fact the product of parallel American and Israeli ambitions. Israel's objectives have been achieved: Iraq has been weakened for at least a generation.
Patrick Seale, a veteran Middle East analyst, wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
Hey, this commentator eventually got to the crux of the REAL reason for the debilitation & invasion of Iraq. Even mentioning the zionist entity in the same sentence as the destruction of Iraq is a no-no in polite society. Yet no other reason really makes sense. The Wolfowitzes, Perles, Feiths et al. who drummed up the war are zionists for whom only the benefit of 'israel' is ever considered. Oil, bases & lucrative contracts were just the bait, not the actual reason.
If yankee journalists are starting to spell 'i-s-r-a-e-l' in their analyses of the Iraq War they are finally calling the shots as they really are ... and about time.
Ordinary yankees have worked it out already. They don't want to die for zionism.
|
|
RSS feed for articles and news
