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.

 

Almost 9000 Dead U.S. Soldiers

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
And it's 1800 in Iraq, but that's not stopping people from saying it's 9,000+. So what's to stop them from rewriting history so that Vietnam had 100,000 because 40,000 didn't die IN Vietnam, like they're claiming so many didn't die in Iraq so they aren't added to the total from there. We're all well aware of how many soldiers died in Vietnam, but if they can claim Iraq is so high, they can claim that Vietnam was higher, and hey, why not go back and change Desert Storm and Korea while we're at it.




posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I guess people don't like the war yet they cannot claim that 1800 is a big number because if you study military history it not. So they do the next best thing and make up some ridiculous story like always about mass casualties being hidden. Then they simply say you don't know about it because its hidden.
Its truly sad


[edit on 2-7-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
The standard ratio of casualties to wounded in war is 3:1...which would mean about 3000 are dead according to numbers of wounded, by the ratio...you also have to remember they don't report deaths of special forces, as well as non-US citizen deaths. Plus the ones that are shipped to hospitals outside of Iraq while wounded, then die outside of Iraq. I'm not sure if the toll is as high as 8 or 9000, but I'm sure it's quite a bit higher than 1800.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
what you have here is a bad case of "fuzzy math"

One of Bush's forgotten catch phrases.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Fuzzy Math!! I love these anti-war fools. Many of them couldnt piss thier way out of a paper bag. They have no idea what its like to fight for ones country. They have no idea that once your in battle, your not fighting for your country, but your fighting for the guy next to you, and hes fighting for you. They can never understand that. Then when their cousin or whoever they can use dies in Iraq, they say that he was against the war. They dishonor his memory by using his corpse as a political message.

9000 deaths in Iraq is not possible, so these fools will keep comming back and say that its true. They just want to argue about it and skew the truth.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
The standard ratio of casualties to wounded in war is 3:1...


1. Being wounded is a casualty
2. Where did you get that ratio from? Well it really doesn't matter where you got it from because it's false. There are no "standard ratios" in war because each war is different. Modern times you're going to have much more wounded than dead thanks to better meds, better armour, etc.



...you also have to remember they don't report deaths of special forces

lol, yes they do.


as well as non-US citizen deaths.


This thread was about US soldiers.


Plus the ones that are shipped to hospitals outside of Iraq while wounded, then die outside of Iraq. I'm not sure if the toll is as high as 8 or 9000, but I'm sure it's quite a bit higher than 1800.

This is a false rumor started in this thread. That is not true. They DO count those deaths as part of the 1800 number. Another false rumor in this thread was that they don't count the silly stuff the soldiers do and die as a result. Completely false. The combat death toll is not even 1400 yet, meaning there are over 400 deaths due to accidents, mistakes, ect.
People keep saying "I'm sure the number is higher". Why? Why are you so sure? There's nothing to indicate the number is higher. There's no reason for the number to be higher. The army certainly doesn't owe it to anyone to lower the number. As I said before, most army leaders didn't even want this war the way it's been fault, so there is absolutely no reason why they would hide the death count.

Again, people have to remember we're not fighting an organized army here with enough equipment to cause that many deaths. In fact that 1800 number is too high. It should be much lower than that, but the US didn't plan it right. If the combat deaths reach close to 2000 I'd be EXTREMELY surprised.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Yes that's true they not only count the number of soldier killed due to enemy action but they count the number of accidental deaths too, when you add that all together you get 1800. Now take away the accidental deaths and the number of deaths as a result of hostile fire is close to 1300-1400.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WissNX01
They have no idea that once your in battle, your not fighting for your country, but your fighting for the guy next to you, and hes fighting for you. They can never understand that.


So why are you sitting on your ass in Riverside California instead of volunteering for deployment to Iraq if you are so pro war? Its good enough for the guys who actually don't want to be there, but not for you? Your hypocrisy is too deep to fathom.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I assure you the 9000 figure is acurate, for example during the Vietnam era 58,000+ soilders died, but the US. Gov didn't give the figure until 1975 if you do a search on ALL the Nightly Vietnam war reports from ABC/CBS/NBC from 1961 - 1972 you'll see they reported 1-3 soilders killed every day, but if you add the numbers up it would only come up to about 11,808 dead ( thats also counting the 2 leap years ) but we new by 1975 that the actual figuer was 58,000+ which means if divided evenly that every day from 1961-1972 it was an average of 14 1/2 soilders being killed, so the same pattern is happening now in Iraq just as in Vietnam the U.S. Gov is just saying 1-2 soilders are killed in Iraq in reality it's more like 10 are KIA every day and around 6-8 are DOA by the time they are in Germany and around 3-4 die because of complications while they are recovering in Germany.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 2-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
'Hell' would be frozen before I would take your self-assured word for that 9,000 figure as being indeed factual, validated, and remotely correct, SiberianTiger. Bet.

Using the case of a war that ended nearly 30 years ago is absurd and unfounded.

Provide 'here and now' facts instead of conjecture. Better yet, simply pull more of that accurate and concise indymedia sourcing...I am sure that anything and everything they put to print is well-sourced and validated....NOT.
:shk:






seekerof



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
SiberianTiger you assure us its accurate? Oh well case closed folks, its written in stone because we all know if Siberian tiger is sure of something there is no point arguing, it must be true! Please man if you have nothing more than just theory's and speculating don't post.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I'm finding something quite disturbing here; those who denounce these numbers of dead soliders as biased gross exagerations based around speculative dogma seem to contrive nothing but thier own speculation to contest the numbers. By simply denouncing a site purporting to have numbers of dead soldiers based around x justifications with nothing but simple ' you're a leftist, thus you have x bias' rethoric, you fall into the same, if not worse, level.

Personaly, I would not doubt such claims as this current administration is one of dubious accord.

Luxifero.



[edit on 2-7-2005 by Luxifero]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Actually we're denouncing a site that claims that the Jews are setting off car bombs for the Americans so that we can get more troops from Australia, and the Jews are brainwashing children in Iraq, and Rumsfeld curled up in the fetal position sucking his thumb the sescond time Saddam went walking on the street, and the Russians sold the insurgents speed of light plasma guns, etc. With a force the size of the one in Iraq, and knowing what I do about the military I don't see a way they could keep 9000+ deaths a secret. I could see MAYBE 2500 at the most, but NOT 9000+



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Interesting Find Siberian Tiger. Kinda goes with an interesting few hour conversation i had. On a flight back from St.Louis last month, i played dj for a soldier just coming home from iraq for a 2week stay. my laptop is loaded up with tunes and she hadnt heard new stuff in almost 2yrs so i plugged her into my jack splitter. We were sitting there chatting, of course i also carry my massive conspiracy folder of info, pics and vids. Anywhoo, we were chatting about what she did. She was a mechanic for a medical unit. when i asked her about how she felt being over there. she hated it, stating the numbers of wounded and dead they are showing on TV isnt even close. the weekly numbers are DAILY of what she sees and hears, and was not happy in the least about the lying. Of course she said she could get in trouble so i will not post her name. Kinda fits in with this thread. Believe me or not dont really matter. things have been cooraborated so i thought i would share what i knew about the subject.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Zaphod,

I don't seen anything in the initial article that suggests that Jews are planting bombs to further perpetuate this war; why you stated as such can only conclude that you're not willing to listen logical deductions a priori of other members. Siberian and others hinted at a very simple and rational conclusion as to why the deaths of so many soldiers has been witheld; Americans have many times in the past, denounced wars on the basis of deaths of thier citizens, this is ample reason to believe that with such an administration that walked into this war with the intent on perpetuating it for thier own purposes, to withold casualities would be far more productive to them.

To believe that the citizenry of a country who already believes that they have been misled throughout this war will allow 9000 of thier beloveded to perish is foolish, and this current administration is just not that foolish.

Luxifero.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Actually, he used different articles from the same page for a different thread. They came out and quite explicity said how the Jews were doing this or that in Iraq and other things along those lines. It lost all credibility with me when it made those claims and others. Not to mention that they can't even put the page together so their pictures they use as evidence don't go over the article they want you to read, which makes it harder to get the information they want you to get.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by Zaphod58]


MBF

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I was told by someone there that if someone was wounded badly that they would be taken out of Iraq very fast so that if they died they would not be counted as being killed IN Iraq.


Yeah and I was told by someone that they have been to 10 alien planets and speak an alien language.

This same person told me when the war would start about a year before anybody knew there would be a war in Iraq. Seems like he was right, there was a war in Iraq wasn't there?



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Ok, so everybody that DIDN'T see war with Iraq coming before 9/11 raise your hand. Bush stated almost from day 1 that he wanted Saddam out of power, no matter what it took.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WissNX01
I love these anti-war fools. Many of them couldnt piss thier way out of a paper bag.



Wouldn't know if i could. Glad you took the effort to find out thou.

Hope you changed your socks.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WissNX01
I think you forget the VA treats all veterans, not just ones from Iraq. There are still about 20 million veterans alive that have fought since WWII. YOu dont think all those heros should be turned away from the VA because it doesnt have money, do you? No, they shouldnt. They are every bit as valuable as an Iraq War veteran.


I assume your talking to me since i posted the article that states clearly that they don't have enough money ($2.5 billion short) to fund the amount of Veterans coming back from these middle eastern wars.

I don't know why you getting defensive at me for stating a fact when its the government your defending that is in the hole right now for mis-calculating the number by 70,000. Where did i say they shouldn't get treatment? I said the government can't afford treatment but obviously that's not my fault now is it? Who are you defending and who are you blaming here? Think about it.

Try pointing your energy at the people in the whitehouse because i have nothing to do with the VA budget. If it's anti-American to blame the government then stand in front of a mirror and blame yourself if you voted for them.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join