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.
Independant
Almost 6,700 Britons have needed hospital treatment in Iraq since the invasion three years ago - almost as many as the total number of British troops still stationed there. About 4,000 were sufficiently injured or ill to be sent home to Britain.
The figures include soldiers and civilians injured in accidents or taken ill, or who have suffered psychological problems, as well as those injured in fighting. They were posted on the Ministry of Defence website yesterday, on the day that MPs dispersed for their Easter break, after months of criticism directed at the Government for refusing to give details about the "forgotten" British casualties.
Even now the MoD admits that some British casualties may have been overlooked, particularly during the invasion itself, "when the tempo of operations meant that some minor injuries may not have been reported in the heat of the action". They also said that they cannot keep a central record of all casualties because it might breach "patient confidentiality"
"The MoD is finding it extremely difficult to get their figures right. I welcome the fact that they have now made these figures public, but they show that we are paying a far higher price than we realised for what is not a very productive role in Iraq. This is an argument for getting our troops out."
Originally posted by Souljah
Apparently 6.700 Britons are directly Casualties of Iraqi War.
The MoD stressed that many of the injuries or illnesses treated will have been relatively minor and that the majority who were flown home were ill, rather than injured.
Independant
Originally posted by twitchy
In what war has the recording of casualty statistics EVER been any different? 70,000 Americans died in Vietnam, some of them from malaria or typhoid fever, does that mitigate their sacrifice? If you had bothered AT ALL to read Souljah's quote, it pretty damned clearly says "Almost 6,700 Britons have needed hospital treatment in Iraq". A casualty is a casualty... that's not spin, that's the news.
Originally posted by twitchy
If you had bothered AT ALL to read Souljah's quote, it pretty damned clearly says "Almost 6,700 Britons have needed hospital treatment in Iraq". A casualty is a casualty... that's not spin, that's the news.
Apparently 6.700 Britons are directly Casualties of Iraqi War.
Originally posted by twitchy
Actually, all souljah said was "Apparently 6.700 Britons are directly Casualties of Iraqi War. Well that Ofcourse is not the Reason to get Troops out of Iraq at all!" which still doesn't change the definition of the word casualty does it?
1. (n.) A person who is made to suffer injury, loss, or death:
• victim
• fatality
• injured party
• statistic (colloquial)
• sufferer
No external source it came off my computer dictionary.
Scotsman
"These are not great statistics," he said. "We are fully aware that there may have been hundreds of others with superficial injuries but we don't have those figures." MOD SPOKESMAN
THE Ministry of Defence has admitted that it issued misleading figures for the number of British soldiers injured in Iraq after a Scotsman investigation found that they were wildly inaccurate.
John Reid, the Defence Secretary, last week claimed that about 230 UK personnel had been wounded in action in Iraq since the start of the war in March 2003. The new figure was substantially smaller than previous estimates and would mean British troops had a ratio of deaths to injuries of roughly 1:3, compared with the US ratio of 1:7.
However, analysis of the MoD's own statements, interviews with senior officers and published reports of casualties from Iraq shows there have been more than 230 injuries. A study of reports from Iraq filed over the past three years found reference to 263 wounded soldiers, but uncovered evidence to suggest that the MoD routinely under-reports casualties. Military analysts believe that the true figure is closer to 800.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, demanded to know why the MoD was unable to publish accurate figures.
"This is not good enough," he said. "The British public and our servicemen and women deserve to have a much clearer picture of what is happening in Iraq."
Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003
The total number of non-fatal coalition casualties of all kinds has never been comprehensively reported. For U.S. troops only, though, as of September 15, 2004, UPI reported that 16,765 had been medically evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses not directly related to combat, and The Pentagon's figures showed that 7,245 had been wounded in combat in Iraq by that time. The unspecified fraction of the former group who were evacuated from Afghanistan would not be included in the count for this conflict. However, estimating that the 9-to-1 ratio of U.S. troops killed in Iraq vs. in Afghanistan by then would also hold for non-fatal casualties, then about 15,000 of the medical evacuations would be from Iraq, so the total number of non-fatal U.S. casualties in Iraq was roughly 22,000 as of September 15, 2004.
In addition, the study on posttraumatic stress disorder found that the percentage of troops suffering from PTSD increased by between 7-10% after deployment to Iraq, which would represent 25,000 to 35,000 initial periodcases of PTSD among the roughly 350,000 U.S. troops who have served in Iraq.
Originally posted by Souljah
Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003
Where there is Smoke - there is also FIRE...
Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003
This article has been cited as a source by Aljazeera in their article "Iraqi Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003"
Originally posted by shots
You left out the most important part Souljah.
Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003
This article has been cited as a source by Aljazeera in their article "Iraqi Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003"
Yeah Aljazeera as the source why does that not surprise me
Originally posted by Souljah
IF you did not Notice, the Article comes from Wikipedia, not Al Jazeera - and suprisingly, that same article I used for my sources, uses SEVERAL links and sources in their research.
Furthermore, the specific part of this article I used for quotes, comes from UPI, which stands for United Press International, a news agency, which birth goes to 1907.
So where exactly does Al-Jazeera come in, Sir?
[edit on 2/4/06 by Souljah]
Originally posted by shots
The Wikiipedia clearly quotes aljazeera as the source for the information contained within it that is where it comes in. Also it very well known that anyone of us could change many of those figures in a heartbeat if we wanted to due so. Using wiki is usless for just that reason.