It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
To count the deaths while in Iraq you'd calculate /120,000 , not 955,000. That'd be 1700/120000 which is a lot higher. That's even with the skewed death count. The real number is arround 9,000 probably. 9000/120000
The following is a list of U.S. Fatalities who have died in hospitals in Germany and The United States. Some have claimed that The Department of Defense does not report these deaths, they are obviously mistaken.
Note: these deaths are included in our overall totals.
Originally posted by skippytjc
Bottom line: If you take the entire group of soldiers who have spent time in Iraq, and compared them to a simularly aged group of civilians, the death rate of the civilians is slightly HIGHER than the soldiers.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
For it being indisputable, I sure see a lot of dispute and no official data, just a group of regular guys throwing numbers around. Which is fine, but hardly "indisputable FACT". Sorry, I don't believe it.
The fact is that we are not experiencing casualty rates anywhere near past conflicts, nor for that matter as bad as during peacetime. There were weeks in Vietnam when 350-400 Americans died, and in other wars thousands would die in single battles. Nothing like that is happening now.
From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan each year. Yes, that was mostly from accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps. Yet, while protesters in Crawford, Texas and elsewhere would have you think that our military can't survive with the low casualty rates of this war, I wonder why they were willing to accept the much higher peacetime casualty rates of the past? We lost around 3,000 innocent people on September 11, and with four years of war and the toppling of two regimes, we haven't lost that many in combat.
My wife is in the National Guard. Theirs is an interesting experience right now in that there have been more casualties by accidents and reckless behavior off-duty than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are protesters not upset about that? Sadly it appears that much of the media are obsessed with defeatism.
Considering that out of a population of 285 million, less than one-tenth of one percent are going to war right now, and considering the huge impact we are having on the world, this is a wonderful time to be a soldier in the U.S. Army.
Originally posted by skippytjc
The reason why I want this is so I can calculate the percentage of dead vs. served. If I measure against the amount on the ground right now, I get about .1%, or 1 in a 100.
Originally posted by skippytjc
You only need a few of numbers to come to the conclusion, and those numbers we used ARE OFFICIAL NUMBERS.
Im sorry Ben that this FACT goes against your opinion and you dont like the results,
Originally posted by Uncle Joe
All im saying is that this thread is sicjk since people here only seem to care about US casualties.
Theres more to this war than US forces.
watch this then erase the US and look that the deaths.
Originally posted by Britguy
Do the figures take into account only the dead or the many more seriously maimed, suffering psychological problems and the possibility of an early death due to the effects of DU?
Critics have attempted to attribute an alleged increase in the rate of birth defects in the children of Gulf War veterans and in Iraqis to depleted uranium. A report written by an Irish petrochemical engineer stated that in Iraq, death rates per 1000 Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 2.3 in 1989 to 16.6 in 1993 and cases of leukaemia have more than quadrupled in areas where DU was present. Dr Richard Guthrie, an expert in chemical warfare at Sussex University, argues that due to the fact that no pathological evidence exists linking depleted uranium to birth defects, a more likely cause for this increase in birth defects was the Iraqi Army’s use of mustard agents during its war with Iran. Sulphur mustard is also known to cause cancers, leukaemias and birth defects, even for relatively low exposures levels. The children of the residents of Halabja as well as those of Iranian veterans of the Iran Iraq war have developed cancers and birth defects.
Further studies by the New England Journal of Medicine analyzing 34,000 babies of Gulf War veterans , as well as by the Department of Veterans Affairs  found no evidence of an increase in the risk of birth defects among the children of Gulf War veterans.
Gulf War syndrome is the name given to a variety of psychological and physical symptoms suffered by veterans of the Gulf War (although it is not clear that any of these symptoms are related to Gulf War service, or to each other). The symptoms have been remarkably wide-ranging, and sometimes somewhat ill-defined, but typically include chronic fatigue, loss of muscle control, diarrhea, migraines, dizziness, memory problems and loss of balance.
- Depleted uranium poisoning
- The side-effects of drugs given for protection against nerve agents
- Autoimmune diseases induced by squalene, an adjuvant used in anthrax vaccines to speed up the development of anthrax immunity.
- Biological or chemical weapons including the nerve gas sarin.
- Exposure to pesticides
- Fumes from oil well fires
- Exposure to inhibited red-fuming nitric acid (IRFNA), a rocket fuel/oxidizing agent used in SS-1 Scud (and derived) ballistic missiles, SA-2 Guideline surface-to-air missiles and possibly other pieces of Iraqi military technology.
- Mass hysteria
The study is the first to suggest a direct link between military service in the Gulf and illnesses suffered by veterans of that war and directly contradicts previous theories which had suggested GWS was not a physical illness, but a response to the stresses of war. Similar syndromes have been seen as an after effect of many conflicts - for example, 'shell shock' after World War I, and post-traumatic stress disorder after the Vietnam War.
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)