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.

 

Bush : How Many Troops Died : 3660 or 40,000 +

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   
93?

So a decade later its worthy to remove him?

Saddam diminshed his efforts.
In 2000-2003 I believe he was ain NO WAY committing acts even remotley comparable to his late 80 early 90deeds.

Again, society in Iraq was picking up.
Livestyle, quality of life, medical facilities, education..
it was almost the beacon of civilised life in the middle east.

Again, answer me, why would he even WANT wmd's from 2000 onwards?
What purpose would him having them entail?




posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I am not the brightest on this topic but logically, I considered... if there was a coverup of casualities...what about the families of all of the deceased?

Wouldn't it be an easy thing to determine?

You can't hide from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Surely there is a simple way of ascertaining this?

The Registrar is publicly available.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by Thurisaz]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
There were WMDs. I saw them, personally. My NBC NCO was sent home from radiation poisoning after guarding an Iraqi weapons depot with suspicious barrels in the back.


That is a very big statement and considering the fallout from not officially finding any WMDs, why isn't the Govt relying on your personal testimony?


There were WMDs and anyone who thinks different is not paying attention.


I apologise in advance but why is it I am reading proof of WMDs here and the US Govt can't provide me with the same?

The US Govt is certainly not publicly confident with this issue. I believe and please correct me at any time, that this issue has not been offically determined!






[edit on 6-8-2007 by Thurisaz]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I dont believe this nonsense for several reasons:

1) The left wing owned media like CNN, NY Times, etc would be all over it.
2) The Democrat candidates for 2008 would be all over it.
3) Our soldiers are actually alot better then you people think. The Iraqi insurgents can hardly even aim their own rifles and they actually kill more of their own people with their IEDs and bombs then they do our troops.

This is 2007, not 1967. Medical technology has come a long way and what may have been fatal in Vietnam, Korea, WW2, etc can now be treated.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Here is a tip to find out who has been killed. Pick up a military newspaper, like the AF Times, and they list all those who were killed.

This isn't some secret and if anyone thinks there is any possibility or capability of these deaths being covered up you need to get a grip on reality and spend your time studying the facts. This would be a huge blow to President Bush and the media, let alone the Democrats, and would eat this info up just like some other people have said.

That fact alone would be enough to disprove this idea or it will instantly put all Democrats and Republicans in the same boat and that would cause a lot of trouble with the upcoming elections. Who would you vote for if they are all liars?

Think about who would have to be involved and what they would lose if this were to ever happen. It is nonsense but you have your own opinions.

Off topic, the people who would know about the WMDs in Iraq are the military NBC personnel. If anyone was sent there to check things out, on the military side of the house, it would be these people. Nobody else has the equipment to monitor NBC and they are trained to do so. They have found WMDs over there, but if you don't think that they might have moved most of them out of the country then you need to rethink a few things.

Why is there an Iraqi AF General asking Iran to return the military aircraft that Iraq moved into Iran before the conflict broke out in 2001? If they moved the military aircraft to Iran I would think that they moved the more important assets, including WMDs and whatever else ranks above aircraft, first. Intel would be another asset to move as well as money and personnel.

Maybe some of you are not aware of this fact but it is true and what would be the first thing you move out of the country, aircraft or WMDs?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Is it so that the 3000+ number is the deaths that happen immediately or in some hours after the soldier have been wounded?
They dont count to the official number the ones who die for example in US hospital in Germany?
Nevertheless 40 000 seems to be pretty exaggerated...



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   
The 40,000 number is bogus and is being pushed to support special agendas. It is fairly easy to count the numbers of dead from Iraq and Afghanistan. I am from Ohio so I will give examples from Ohio which is a big state and has a lot of men and women serving in the military.

When a soldier dies anywhere in Ohio it makes every news channel. There are huge funeral services that whole towns attend. Military families know everything about what happens to military units - who died, who was injured, etc. They network together closely. Veterans groups also diligently follow every aspect of military service.

Most states also have tributes and memorials that list every single soldier's name who has died in these wars. Ohio has the Ohio Fallen Hero Memorial. The name of every single soldier killed since 911 can be found there. Very hard to hide a big lie when all of the names are right there for the world to visit and read. If thousands and thousands of names were missing we would know about it, military families would know about it and veteran groups would know about it.

www.ohiofallenheroes.org...


[edit on 6-8-2007 by zerotime]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I have absolute faith in American casualty figures preseted by the Al-Rashedeen Army. This peace-loving group of Arabic journalists is known around the world for their objectivity and fairness.

I'll be making room at the bottom of this post for the "WARN" flags and ban notices now, since posting blatantly false info to ATS is a major no-no, and the preceding paragraph was so filled with bullcrap that it made one of the silk roses on my wife's desk start to grow.

A quick look around the news of the world for the last few years will show you a stack of links between the Al-Rashedeen Army and IED attacks on American forces and other assorted acts of social maladjustment. Their casualty figures for American troops (and frankly, any other information they present) should be viewed with one eye on the content, and one on their anti-American bias.

And just to toss my cowboy hat into the "Iraqi WMD" discussion that seems to have popped up...Iraq never had any WMDs...all of those Kurds who died were nothing more than victims of the well-known Kurdish habit of smoking several pounds of tobacco per day...they died of lung cancer, and "Chemical" Ali got his nickname from his zealous efforts to procure chemotherapy drugs for that poor, suffering ethnic minority.

Crud...that silk rose just had another growth spurt.

The Iraqi army obviously *had* chemical weapons at some point in the past, and I recall seeing at least a couple of CNN clips from the early days of the occupation when water samples from the Tigris river were reported to be contaminated with trace chemicals linked to mustard gas production. I also remember several dozen empty chemical-warhead artillery rounds being found that also contained 'interesting' chemical traces. We can argue over whether or not the weapons were a threat to the US (probably not), or whether they were a sufficient 'casus beli' (also probably not, IMO).



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Technically, debilitating injuries count as "casualties", and it turns out that 40,000 is about how many "casualties" there are.



Originally posted by cavscout
Actually, there are many soldiers who saw first hand Iraqi WMDs, and many of them are talking about online, in fact right here on good old ATS.

Like I said, anyone who is paying attention would know that.


Ok, so the Establishment is covering up this "fact" that there were weapons, but they cant coverup that many 'deaths'? This is madness.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3_Libras
Ridiculous suggestion, seriously. Any Bush hater would tell you the same thing aswell.


I don't like Bush or his administration but yeah its a bit ridiculous so you're right.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I'm going to agree with the OP, sure i definitately agree that the toll is higher than 3660. even if it is 3661. now i cant provide proof of the 40k. but who can/can't?
unless of course we find the list of those that have died during the course of this terroristic invasion by the bush clan.
but no matter whether the count is off by one or by 10k. a lie is a lie.
and there is a good portion of people that think bush and his fellow cowards lied.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I will watch it so that I have the right to comment...but I have the feeling this is BS propaganda.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

There were WMDs. I saw them, personally. My NBC NCO was sent home from radiation poisoning after guarding an Iraqi weapons depot with suspicious barrels in the back.

There were WMDs and anyone who thinks different is not paying attention.


I beg to differ, there are plenty of people that pay attention to the facts regarding our lead-off to this war and the never-found WMD's and consequently the White House disagrees with you as well.

You claim to have seen the WMD's and that is a pretty impressive statement to make considering you haven't provided any sort of proof to this.

If you indeed have proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (not the ones we sold him from the CIA front in Chile and elsewhere) I suggest you send it to this administration ASAP since they seem confused on the matter.


"BUSH: Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction..."

White House Says No Weapons



No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

CNN also


Suggesting that you have personally seen the WMD's is as peculiar as the notion that 40,000 American troops have died. Suggesting that those people that saw through the lie of WMD's straight-off aren't paying attention is just plain insulting. Many of this administrations top officials had doubts to those claims as well.

I'm not saying this isn't possible but why would the Bush Admin cover up such a smoking gun for their own agenda?

It's highly dubious that 40,000 troops have died but this number was covered up or that you saw WMD's so I suppose I'll have to look at both claims with skepticism.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
There were WMDs. I saw them, personally. My NBC NCO was sent home from radiation poisoning after guarding an Iraqi weapons depot with suspicious barrels in the back.

Our little cards that measured the dosage of radiological contamination were taken away from us when they started to show dangerous levels and we were sent on our ways (they said we weren’t using them right, but there was no way to use them but to clip them to our shirts and have them read later.)

There were WMDs and anyone who thinks different is not paying attention.

And not all of them were relics from the 1980s. We found some pretty high tech artillery shells that tested positive for nerve agent, new manufacture.


I personally would like to see a thread from you outlining, in acute detail, your experiences regarding this topic. Any evidence to back it up would help. Talking to a mod ahead of time and providing them w/ a paper trail to illustrate that you were deployed at a specific location and doing that specific job would be great. That way the mod could vouch for you and you wouldn't have to post personal details online.

I'm not mocking you, I'm not challenging your assertion, I'd just really like to read more and know that an ATS moderator can vouch for the authenticity of the claims.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
i agree that the toll 40,000 is outrageous but also i do not believe the figure 3,000+ put out by the gov. this is likely higer probably double maybe triple 8( and that they do not account for casualties that happen a day/'s, week/'s, month/'s later etc.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
There were WMDs and anyone who thinks different is not paying attention.

And not all of them were relics from the 1980s. We found some pretty high tech artillery shells that tested positive for nerve agent, new manufacture.


So, they found the answer to the age old question of "where are the WMD?" but failed to report them? I call fowl. Sorry. If we had found ANY WMD, we'd be hearing of it to justify this war. We haven't, so therefore we didn't.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CreeWolf
and fathered those two brutal sons (Uday and Qusay?) who had even more of his own people killed.


So, the parents of the Columbine kids should take responsibility for them? I understand what you are saying, but to fault someone for what their children have done is just plain...well you know.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
So, the parents of the Columbine kids should take responsibility for them? I understand what you are saying, but to fault someone for what their children have done is just plain...well you know.


Hi Griff hope all is well, I do have to jump in here and touch on this topic. I would have to say yes parents should be held more responsible for what thier MINOR kids do. They should have realized something wasnt right with these kids and stepped in and done something, instead of saying oh kids will be kids. Thats the biggest load of crap i have ever heard. Parents have for years slowly become more irresponsible when it comes to thier underaged children, and how they are brought up. Lots of children these days do not have the parenting that they did years ago. Underaged kids are the responsibility of the parents plain and simple.

I dont have kids but if i did, would it be the Governments fault or the schools fault that my kid goes crazy one day and kills fellow students? Well in a nut shell yes it is my fault to an extent. I should have watched my child and saw that something wasnt right and intervened. The kids they hang with, the element they are subjected to etc..... What kind of music , movies, video games is my child playing and watching and listening to. its high time parents became a bit more interested in what thier kids are doing and stop blameing society or someone else for thier mistakes as parents.

PS: If your dog craps on the nieghbors lawn , who's responsible? The dog or the owner for letting him get out? I think Children are more important that pets dont you agree? SO yes parents are responsible for thier underaged children any way you slice it.

Sorry to be off topic....... I dont believe the numbers are that inflated. Maybe off a bit becasue of confusion, but not 40,000.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
There were WMDs. I saw them, personally. My NBC NCO was sent home from radiation poisoning after guarding an Iraqi weapons depot with suspicious barrels in the back.


I hate to do this, but this is what people do here on ATS. Got any proof?

What were the circumstances of you being there? Have you ever started a thread on this and are there any other witnesses to back your story up. Ever tried to go public with your story?


I think it's interesting that you say this. Why would the government want to cover this up? If this is true, then it appears we did go in for WMD, but it must have been for totally opposite reasons. It must have been because they got the WMD from us or our allies. Or, we allowed them to produce such weapons in hopes they would be turned on a neighbor?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I agree with the underage children arguement to an extent.

Saddam's children were grown adults. That was my point. I guess Columbine wasn't a great comparisson since they were underage.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join