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.

 

Britain's casualties of Iraq war total 6,700, MoD says

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

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."

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!




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Nice attempt at Spin there Souljah, but hardly unexpected. You do know that these figures include everything from getting food poisoning, being injured whilst working on a vehicle, road accidents, falling down stairs right up to actual Battle casualties? I know for a fact that many soldiers (usually older NCO's) have suffered age related injuries/deaths as a result of the stress and heat. Several have had heart attacks.

My father was in the Army and never once saw combat (bar some incidents in Northern Ireland) but he managed to sustain many injuries whilst in service, including almost severing his right thumb whilst working on a loading arm in a Chally 2. Not a mujhadeen in sight in peaceful Berkshire, but still managed to get himself in the hospital more than once.

I highly doubt that even 1 tenth of the injuries are as a result of enemy action.


[edit on 1/4/06 by stumason]


[Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary full quote of preceding post. - Jak]

[edit on 2/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Apparently 6.700 Britons are directly Casualties of Iraqi War.



As usual you are way out in left field. Or is your wording intended to make it look worse then it really is? I tend to think the later.


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




I do however give you credit for having a very blatant exaggeration




[edit on 4/1/2006 by shots]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

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.


Oh come on, we know Souljah has an agenda. And also, don;t assume I am pro-war either, as I am not, but he spins things all the time.

He's posted this article with the thought of promoting how much the guys out there are paying. The fact of the matter is that the "casualty" figures would not be much less in a peacetime deployment.

For example, everytime there is an exercise in Oman, for example, many men will be sent home or hospitalised from heatstroke, disease, exhaustion or other conditions, such as heart attack. Some even get injured in traffuc accidents.

Here are some examples of these casualties:

Death of Lance Corporal Peter Edward Craddock in Afghanistan

Death of a British Serviceman in Afghanistan – Corporal Mark Cridge

Neither of which had anything to do with enemy action. These are just examples of how men can die in the Army.

If you bothered to read my own comments from actual expierience with the army, it is not uncommon for men to be injured on a daily basis, because the very nature of equipment they work with is inherantly dangerous.

It is known in the Army that it is not uncommon for Artillery and Tank crew's to be missing digits or part of them.

As pointed out, the VAST MAJORITY of these "casualties" (not an apt description, given the context) were individual medical problems that come with a deployment to a hot, strange climate. Heat, disease and other factors can quickly turn otherwise healthy men into much less.

Also, it is portrayed that these 6.700 are in some way "permament" casualties. I bet my months pay packet that at least 90% are back in their units now, none the worse for wear.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

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.


Oh I read it alright, but I saw right through it. The fact is that the majority were not war related but normal illness that happens no matter where you were. He tried to make it sound like it was because they were in Iraq they got sick, which is/was not the case, there in lies the difference.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
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?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   


Apparently 6.700 Britons are directly Casualties of Iraqi War.


Exactly.

It would seem you didn't then read his post properly.

6,700 Britons are not direct casaulties of the war, as many of these could have happened anyway.

Like i said above, hardly any (less than 10%) would be as a direct result of enemy action.

The rest are run of the mill illnesses, accidents and such like which could have happened anywhere, war or no war.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

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?


With all due respect I think you are misconstruing the meaning of the word casualty. My point is The majority by definition were not casualties, many had only normal illnesses that made it necessary to take them out of action or in some cases the injuries were normal accidents that happen no matter where you are.

Here I will save you some time from looking it up. From American Heritage Dictionary.



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.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
"hospital treatment in Iraq" is a casualty of the Iraq War, er inernational police action, or occupation, or whatever it is nowadays. When Hannibal hauled elephants across the alps to their deaths, those elephants were casualties of the invasion of Rome. If Sgt. Joe Smchoe hurts his back loading crates of ammo in Iraq, then he is a casualty of that operation. Nothing Souljah has said is inaccurate. Would Sgt. joe Schmoe have hurt his back if he wasn't loading ammo in a desert? Probably not, so he now becomes a Direct Casualty. It's a statistic from a reliable enough source, you can throw the definition of casualty around all day but if they got hurt in the operation, then they are a casualty of that operation regardless of how they got hurt. That's a statistic. What did you guys think, you have to get your run through on a bayonette or get your innards splatted out to count as a statistic? There are people that serve their country and get hurt or sick in the line of duty, and I'm sorry to dissapoint anyone, but they too are casualties. You don't have to get your run through to suffer in warfare, and the military, the government, the inernational peacekeepers call them direct casualties. Why don't you?

[edit on 2-4-2006 by twitchy]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   
To put those figures to a perspective Finnish army has about 100 men in hospital due to being ill or injured. And this army is at peace with overall strenght of 30 000 men (during peace time).

Comparing this to the 6.700 men UK has had in hospital during 3 years in Iraq, with it's heat and sand and actual operations going on (stress increases the risk of injuries) The figure sounds quite low for me.

ps. I was in hospital 3 times during 12 months when i served (2 times for flu and once for dislocated shouder)



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
The stats only mention soldiers serving in Iraq.
At no point does it relate to any soldiers killed/injured whilst on training exercises, or on camp.

I know of three that were killed by being run over by a tank whilst training.

Maybe we should see some stats about how many soldiers are ill/injured whilst not in Iraq eh? Bet the figures would be double the amount quoted in Iraq.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   
A direct casualty of the war IS someone who was shot/blown up, etc. A NON-COMBAT casualty is someone who is sick, hurts their back, has a heart attack, etc. Non-combat casualties happen ANYWHERE and are very common. Sgt Joe Smith might hurt his back loading ammo in the desert, or he might hurt his back loading ammo back at their home base during at training exercise. There IS a difference between a direct casualty and a non-combat casualty, even if both happen in Iraq.

[edit on 4/2/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
No matter how much lipstick y'all try to put on a Pig - it is still a Pig.

FACT is, that if there was no UK troops in Iraq, there would be on 6,700 Casualties.

Meaning ALL of them are DIRECTLY Casualties of ongoing Iraqi "Liberation".

So for you people, the ONLY casualties which COUNT are actually D.O.A.'s?

Do people really have to Die in order to stir you up?

And FACT is that there are 6,700 UK soldiers, which are sent BACK Home, which makes almost as many as the total number of British troops still stationed there.

There is no Spin.

If you wanna blame somebody for the "Spin" - blame the Indepenant.

Or better - blame the MoD; they are the ones spinning this issue so hard, that none of you even notice what they are doing to the numbers.

Hell - even the MoD admits that some British casualties may have been overlooked!

Why can't You?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Wrong, so wrong.

If the British had no troops in Iraq, would they be posting the stats of any peacetime casualties? I doubt it.
Its because the British are in Iraq that this has made news.(or your news).

How many are injured whilst in Afghanistan? Have we got any stats on that? Nooooooooooooooo

How many are injured in the UK while at camp? Have we got any stats on that? Nooooooooooooooo.

End of story eh?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

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."

So - if there is Nothing to Hide, why is the MoD then doing that exact thing?

Why have they said that Only 230 UK troops have been Injured, when the Real number of casualties is extremly higher?

Why is the MoD "Unable to publish the Real and the ACCUARTE figures?

Are they afraid of something?

And what about the PST - Post-traumatic stress disorder?

It's the same story Overseas in US - the Pentagon desperatly trying to "Hide" the real numbers from the Public.


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.

Where there is Smoke - there is also FIRE...



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003

Where there is Smoke - there is also FIRE...


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


[edit on 4/2/2006 by shots]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

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


Dear mister shots,

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]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

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]


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.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

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.

And where does it say that they "clearly quote aljazeera in the source"?

Wikipedia used UPI as their source for the numbers - they did not made them up themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join