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

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

No you changed it; See below

Kindly note you did not use UPI in this example and that is what I was addressing

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

If you had checked you would have found that they were quoting Aljzeera.

www.aljazeera.com...



Just for clarification here is the original link you used which lead me the the link I used.

Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003

now click on your original link then discussion and you will get the very same link I quoted above which is not UPI :shk:



[edit on 4/2/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
If you had checked you would have found that they were quoting Aljzeera.

www.aljazeera.com...

Well if YOU checked, this Aljazeera.com is not the SAME as the Real and the Original Aljazeera.NET

About Aljazeera.com

Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV (also known as Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel) station whose website is Aljazeera.net.

But that ofcourse has no importance to you...

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by shots
If you had checked you would have found that they were quoting Aljzeera.

www.aljazeera.com...

Well if YOU checked, this Aljazeera.com is not the SAME as the Real and the Original Aljazeera.NET

About Aljazeera.com

Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV (also known as Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel) station whose website is Aljazeera.net.

But that ofcourse has no importance to you...

Irrelevant Souljah. You stated it was a UPI source when it was not.

Originally posted by Souljah
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]

Your back peddling to cover your error is duly noted



[edit on 4/2/2006 by shots]

Can you blame the thread author for his suspicions of the factualness of the MOD figures? Personally I would trust Al-Jazeera over Blairite spin-doctors anyday.

One casualty of the Iraqi war seems to be Souljah. I imagine
Souljah has spent more time on his keyboard forecasting disaster
for the troops in Iraq than most Iraqi Casualties have spent
in the hospital. It appears Souljah has spent more
time on the internet, finding everybit of news that can be
spun into some sort of disaster, that he must have entirely lost
normal contact to life. Maybe not though, maybe Souljah is
actually a team of 5 Muslims who spend their spare
time figuring out bad news for the US and Britain. I wonder
if after this is all over shortly and Bush and Blair have
had their way, if Souljah is going to have some sort of post
traumatic stress syndrome, or possibly carpal tunnel syndrome.
Ah yes, the terrible casualties of this war, takes its toll
in so many ways.


[edit on 2-4-2006 by MajorCee]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by MajorCee]

Originally posted by MajorCee
One casualty of the Iraqi war seems to be Souljah. I imagine
Souljah has spent more time on his keyboard forecasting disaster
for the troops in Iraq than most Iraqi Casualties have spent
in the hospital. It appears Souljah has spent more
time on the internet, finding everybit of news that can be
spun into some sort of disaster, that he must have entirely lost
normal contact to life. Maybe not though, maybe Souljah is
actually a team of 5 Muslims who spend their spare
time figuring out bad news for the US and Britain. I wonder
if after this is all over shortly and Bush and Blair have
had their way, if Souljah is going to have some sort of post
traumatic stress syndrome, or possibly carpal tunnel syndrome.
Ah yes, the terrible casualties of this war, takes its toll
in so many ways.


[edit on 2-4-2006 by MajorCee]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by MajorCee]

Wow Major - did you know that you did not write a word about the current topic of this thread? Yep, yet again it was all about Me. Yes, apparently people find me more interesting then the News posted here or in any other of posts of mine. Yes, apparently I have become more important then the Iraqi war or the Effects it brings to the entire world, or the People who DIE everyday, or the People who have lost their Hands, Legs, Mind, Soul, Husband, Wife, Mother, Father, Brother, Sister. Yes all of that has NO importance to dear mister Major! No Sirree!

So tell me Major, are you still on US Army payrole to write this kind of Pro-War propaganda dribble, or are you doing it just for "Fun of it"?

Wow Major - did you know that you did not write a word about the current topic of this thread?

I believe the Major just showed us that there are many forms of casualty in a war, and he used you as an example. By the way Souljah, the majors post was amusing and entertaining, if that doesn’t belong in a doom and gloom thread, then I don’t know what does.

All I have to say is that 6700 is a relatively small number of injuries for a war campeign such as that the size of Iraq. Only 30-40 years ago we had tens of thousands of DEATHS as a result of the wartime operation. IMO to have 6700 injuries of which most were not fatal in an operation like Iraq shows you are probably better fighting in a war in this age than in decades passed.

I means its been three years, from a logistical standpoint this is an operational success. Of course we must not forget the fact that these are not just numbers, but individuals who have families and are suffering in a number of ways not physical.

Then again there are hundreds of thousands of civilians that suffer just as bad as these soldiers in the highest crime areas of America, as well as Britain. People who lose their children in gang fights and shootouts. That never ends.

I guess my point is, its war. 6700 injuries is small potatoes considering the size of this war. Everyone serving volunteered knowing their risks. There are many civilians who live lives with similar conditions to these soldiers in our own countires with casualties at a much higher number. Most of them had no choice, they were born into it. I feel remorse for the families and their suffering, but they made the choice to join.

All go Points DYepes, but that is not the case here.

Souljah with his usual zeal is trying to make it look like the figures is that high when they are not.

The article clearly stated theses are not all injuries, many are just normal illness or accidents that happen no matter where the troops are.

Well even if Souljah is trying to put some spin on this issue and this number is exaggerrated a bit, do you still agree that it is a very low number from a logistical standpoint considering the size of the operation? Because IMO if we can agree on that, it does not matter what kind of spin he is trying to put on it.

Unfortunately I do not see this kind of success possible with any type of Iran action and pity those who believe it will be a cake walk.

Anyways Souljah, I respect your opinions but hey its a simple fact that even that high of a number makes this probably the safest and bloodless war (coalition anyways) for this size of a campaign ever. Korea isnt even as large as Iraq and it was estimated that about 30,000 US dead in the same timeframe we now have.
Source
Government Archives

I guess we can count on one thing, Democracy will continue to be spread forcefully as long as we can maintain these low figures.

Originally posted by DYepes
Well even if Souljah is trying to put some spin on this issue and this number is exaggerrated a bit, do you still agree that it is a very low number from a logistical standpoint considering the size of the operation?

Exaggerated a Bit???? He is blowing it way and I mean way out of proportion.

As I understand it the UK had roughly 2,000 troops at any given time yet he claims that over 6,000 are casualties, which is totally unrealistic.

I do however agree with you on your points, just not his vivid exaggeration that is what I object too.

Well, let me say this about all the gloom and doom
that Souljah is able to find about this war. First
of all I have actually been to combat, and I may not
describe myself as a freedom fighter, or guerilla
field marshal, but my experience in combat was not
all that disastrous. I actually lived through it and
so did my country. Also the times that I spent under
medical care, which was fairly often, never did happen
because of being one of some kind of massive disaster
that is attempted to be identified with the US and Brittain
in the casualty count that Souljah appears to be trying
to invent. Also my wife served as an Army nurse and
got to see combat casualties first hand, in Gulf War
I. She spent the conflict in the desert of Saudi Arabia
patching up casualties from that conflict. Her account
of casualties was that nearly all of them were Iraqis.
Most of them injured pretty good from encounters with
the US troops. The US troops on the other hand, were
few and far between, with most being things like
sprained ankles. One exception was an American who
picked up an undetonated artillery round and fooled
with it until it went off. He was about the only
American hurt bad. One of the things they had to
watch for was a relatively unhurt American patient
who kept wanting to kick butt on the many patched up
and recovering Iraqis. We are not now on active duty
but have kept touch with some who are there, and
it is my impression that the fighting is still decidedly
one sided when it comes to casualties, and the side
taking almost all of them are Iraqis. The insurgents
have pretty well figured out that going head to head
with Americans is the last thing they want. This
has brought about the only action against Americans
that you now see, that of some emprovised explosive
device being laid in place to where it might hurt a
passing American. This is the much preferred tactic
of the insurgents who have learned that straight up
encounters with American troops is a good way to the
grave yard. Even this tactic of laying explosive
devices is getting its share of dead insurgents, from
stake outs of an expected area by US snipers who sit
and patiently wait for the bomber to show up with
shovel and bomb, only to get blown away from about
500 yards off in cross hairs of a sniper scope. These
casualties don't appear on the 6 oclock news because
the Americans simply do not report them. You can also
bet that Souljah wouldn't report them, even if he knew
about them. This whole subject has got me to thinking
that I should put up some kind of post showing just
how good this war is going. Maybe I will do that tomorrow.
I think I will.

Originally posted by shots
Exaggerated a Bit???? He is blowing it way and I mean way out of proportion.

As I understand it the UK had roughly 2,000 troops at any given time yet he claims that over 6,000 are casualties, which is totally unrealistic.

I do however agree with you on your points, just not his vivid exaggeration that is what I object too.

Just in case there is any confusion from your post, Shots, just going to clarify one thing.. I assume when you mention "2000 UK troops at any given time", you are referring to total injured/ill. Just in case anyone thinks this is total deployment, the actual maximum for the UK was around 45,000 men in 2003. It is now down to around 8,000, with a total of 100,000 troops passing through Iraq in the past 3 years.

Now, when almost the entire Army goes through Iraq and combat deaths are as low as they are (around 100), let alone injuries, we can see the situation is far from the situation portrayed in this thread.

As stated earlier by myself and others, most of these figures would have happened anyway, with or without the War.

Originally posted by shots
All go Points DYepes, but that is not the case here.

Souljah with his usual zeal is trying to make it look like the figures is that high when they are not.

The article clearly stated theses are not all injuries, many are just normal illness or accidents that happen no matter where the troops are.

Well I am sorry to break your concentration -

But I have Quoted articles from Independant, which have quotes Ministry of Defence - and I did not Make up these numbers myself, so if you would please stop acting this way.

Secondly, I have quotes United Press International - not Aljazeera.

Thirdly, do you think that US or UK Military tell the TRUTH to the People?

Do you really think they are NOT making and skewing the numbers themselves, to make people feel like they are actually Winning this Disaster of a so-called Liberation? So that the People would not be even more against the war and would support the current US and UK goverments even less?

Naaaaaaaaaaah!

It's just Souljah spreading his Propaganda!

Easiest way to deal with this is to put the Blinders back on ey?

[edit on 4/4/06 by Souljah]

Souljah, the Government may skew the figures, because we know politicains lie but people I know and people my father knows do not.

Trust me when I say this, but 2,000 minor injuires and illnesses a year for an army that exceeds 120,000 personnel is small fry and common place.

I will say agin, the majority of these would have happened with or without the war.

And also, I am not for the War, I was dead against it, but nothing we do is going to change what is happening now and blatantly lying about it, making our guys look bad is not on.

Also, it is my personal opinion of course, but the Independant is a steaming pile of left-wing donkey poop of a newspaper, on par with the Sun and Daily Mail.

Originally posted by stumason
. It is now down to around 8,000, with a total of 100,000 troops passing through Iraq in the past 3 years.

Now, when almost the entire Army goes through Iraq and combat deaths are as low as they are (around 100), let alone injuries, we can see the situation is far from the situation portrayed in this thread.

As stated earlier by myself and others, most of these figures would have happened anyway, with or without the War.

Sorry my mistake I thought the troop level for the UK was set at around 2000 and I stand corrected.

As for your other points, Yes many would have happened anyway (by that I mean the accidents, normal illness etc that will happen no matter where one is.

Originally posted by Souljah
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.

Question - do you have any idea how many British troops have been hospitalised in the last 3 years while NOT in Iraq? This includes RTCs, illness (severe flu, gut rot etc), injuries related to work, household injuries etc?

Fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of troops who rotate through Iraq every month. Who is to say that these troops would not have become ill while at home? Most of the troops who have been CASEVAC'd are non-war related casualties. End of chat.

Sort out your agenda Souljah