It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9% US casualty rate? At this rate, will their be a military in 5 years?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   
According to the US military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, the hospital has treated 20,802 US troops for injuries received in Iraq. According to the Pentagon's figures, 54% of the wounded are too seriously injured to return to their units. If that figure is correct, it would mean that the insurgents have put 11,233 US troops out of action. Add in the 1,254 US troops who have been killed for a total of 12,487. That's 9% of our total force in Iraq and a much higher percentage of our combat force.

www.counterpunch.com...




posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   
well to be realistic, if the numbers of troops dropped down to critical levels and the war was still in full swing the Gov. would have no other option but to implement some form of Draft.

So the logical answer to your question would be "In 5 years there will still be a military"



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Psychoses
So the logical answer to your question would be "In 5 years there will still be a military"


A very unhappy one


I had my suspicions about all the US wounded, the only reason alot of them are wounded and not dead is because of their vests. They lose their limbs and eyes while the vital organs and brain are protected. The result is alot of wounded who cant return to the field or do much at all.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Remember the news from Landstuhl Hostpital in Germany ? They already treated over 25.000 heavily wounded, of whom 80% cannot return to service. That would give a casualtity figure of over 20.000, and closer to 20% losses...



[edit on 7-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Link to the source Moku?


seekerof



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Wasn't the casualty rate for the allies in wwii higher than that? Wasn't the casualty rate for the british in their south african wars higher than that, and they had an all volunteer army. They made up for the loss by having more people volunteer.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Link to the source Moku?
seekerof

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
That would give a casualtity figure of over 20.000,
and closer to 20% losses...


You wish. The figures in the article that you quoted included
EVERY reason for the personnel to be leaving ... pregnancy,
blood disorders, cancer, stomach ulsers, appendix surgery,
whatever. Pregnancy, blood disorders and cancer don't
count for combat casualties. True, they leave the service
during a time of war for medical reasons ... but they are
NOT combat casualties.


[edit on 12/7/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Flyersfan, you have a point there. But do you really believe that the US had 5.000 combat casualties in Iraq, and over 15.000 non-combat casualties from cancer, syphillis, etc ?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
It is fairly obvious that the reports of the US causalties are under reported, while those of the Iraqi "terrorists" over reported. In the same way, the Iraqi's shown on CNN and BBC, seem to be healthy and happy with the occupation. They don't show you what's happening with 90% of the rest, because of course if they did, everyone would know the truth.

Yet, even if they did, our sheeple would justify it in some way to themselves. it's called propoganda, my friends, and it was used and admitted in the first gulf war.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
9% in Iraq. 9% of who in Iraq, I still can't find a link, maybe they mean 9% of infantry forces or 9% of forces ingaged in direct combat. So what is 9% of the rest of the US armed forces combined? 3% less?

And I always thought casualties included both dead and wounded? Am I mistaken?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Perhaps this link can shed some light :

US soldiers in Iraq suffer horrific brain and mental injuries

www.wsws.org...

I would consider these to be combat-related casualties...



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Remember the news from Landstuhl Hostpital in Germany ? They already treated over 25.000 heavily wounded, of whom 80% cannot return to service. That would give a casualtity figure of over 20.000, and closer to 20% losses...



[edit on 7-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]


Your figures are over inflated and incorrect as of November 29, 2004 the figures are

Landstuhl doctors treated 17,878 U.S. soldiers from Iraq and 3,085 from Afghanistan through Sunday, hospital spokeswoman Marie Shaw told The Associated Press.

Soldiers From Iraq, Afghanistan Nov 29 2004

And those figures include *ALL* types of injuries serious and non serious, combat related and non conbate related, from both Iraq and Afghanistan.


You are only off by approximately 5000, keep in mind the figure given of over 25,000 are yours not mine.

Also note your original link was dated 3 days prior to when those figures I gave were postd by CNN and others. Amazing how some sources are claimed to be unbiased by some, yet proven biased and inflatted by others.

www.abovetopsecret.com...









[edit on 12/7/2004 by shots]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

And those figures include *ALL* types of injuries serious and non serious, combat related and non conbate related, from both Iraq and Afghanistan.


... not really ...

Landstuhl treats almost only heavily wounded patients, the lightly wounded are treated in Iraq or Qatar, in local medical facilities.

If 80% of those don't return to service, how can you say they are non-seriously wounded



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

And those figures include *ALL* types of injuries serious and non serious, combat related and non conbate related, from both Iraq and Afghanistan.


... not really ...

Landstuhl treats almost only heavily wounded patients, the lightly wounded are treated in Iraq or Qatar, in local medical facilities.

If 80% of those don't return to service, how can you say they are non-seriously wounded


You did not even check the link source I gave did you? it clearly states;


The patients were treated for anything from gunshot wounds to noncombat ailments such as kidney stones, she said.


As I stated your figures are inflated and incorrect. You are also incorrect in stating that minor injuries are all treated in Iraq see above>>>>




posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
If that was true, and all the soldiers are treated there for kidney itch and acne, how come they cannot return to their units after treatment ?


[edit on 7-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

If that was true, and all the soldiers are treated there for kidney itch and acne, how come they cannot return to their units after treatment ?


[edit on 7-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]


Who said they could not return? You are trying to make something out of this that is not there. No where does it state that some of them do not return from Germany to Iraq after treatment. (You Just would l;ike others to think they do not and you are wrong dead wrong) I can assure that some do.
One man by the name of Timothy La Sage, age 29 was wounded last month around the 4th of November and he volunteered to return to Iraq, you can take that to the bank.. Need more examples??????








[edit on 12/7/2004 by shots]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

If that was true, and all the soldiers are treated there for kidney itch and acne, how come they cannot return to their units after treatment ?


[edit on 7-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]


Who said they could not return? You are trying to make something out of this that is not there. The articles are very clear they state only that they are treated in Germany. No where does it state that none of them do not return from Germany to Iraq after treatment.




then please read them again



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
then please read them again


Now why on earth would I want to read them again? It was not me who read them wrong the first time and had you waited a minute or two longer to reply you would have seen my edit that included one example that did get injured and he returned to Iraq.

I hope you realize all you are doing is not doing any research. Had you done a simple google search you would have found out that you jumped to comclusions before answering.


[edit on 12/7/2004 by shots]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:03 AM
link   
These figures come from the Pentagon, from the horses mouth, as they say. So if they say these men are injured and unable to return to combat, undoubtedly it is more than gallstones as some of you let on.

Lets be real here, would the pentagon lie to you? I would think the figure would be higher. Amazing how many accidents there are.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join