It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:13 PM

Originally posted by jfj123
All they would need to say is that they needed to have a thorough investigation that had many false leads that finally took them to the culprit. Also, they could simply say they wanted to check all their facts before accusing anyone as this is incredibly serious.

The US waiting quite awhile before launching an attack against afghanistan so there's already a precedent set.

And then people would point out everything that has happened since the beginning of the "War on Terror" and most would call bs, simply because "conducting a thorough investigation" for more years than we fought ww2 is ridiculous and most likely an outright lie, as well as the fact that we've been lied to so many times, there's no reason to take their word for face value.

But that's just me being an optimist.

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:55 AM
Sorry, not making a persuasive argument. I think it's very obvious that if they found anything, they'd be parading everywhere as justification.

The could always claim they found more later that links OTHER WMD's to country X.

Keep in mind their whole official reason for going to war was WMD's. If they could parade found WMD's to the world, they would GAIN and RE-GAIN credibility.

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
If the death toll for the US forces in Iraq was 40,000 the US media would be irrelevant the foriegn media outlets BBC Reuters etc would be all over the story. I have to question why people would believe such an obvious propaganda film.

Because there are some people who just want to keep hating president Bush, and they want you and every other American to feel the same hatred.... Their hatred is so deep they will invent lies and exagerate trying to bring more people into their "haters club"....

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by jfj123
Keep in mind their whole official reason for going to war was WMD's. If they could parade found WMD's to the world, they would GAIN and RE-GAIN credibility.

Perhaps you would do well to actually read the reasons given by president Bush to the UN and the world in the speech he gave before the war.... Maybe if you actually find the facts and then present "FACTS" you might gain some credibility...

Here is a link to that speech, now with a straight face keep claiming "the whole official reason for going to war was WMDs"....

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:31 AM
Maybe some research into how many coffins the pentagon has paid for would help. Here is article from 3/03 on a large number of body bags ordered, which basically means they were anticipating a large number of casulties.

Also might want to chEck the GAO.

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:31 AM

Originally posted by jfj123
If that were the case all they would need to do is say,
We found WMD and nothing more.
Then at a future time say, "we have concluded our investigation and can now prove the WMD came from country X"

Well becasue I dont think it would make any difference. The Bush Administration enemies would say its just another lie from this government to try and up thier political health. Those against this administration are dead set against ever thinking anything he does is good or has a purpose whihc will make life better for anyone but himself and his cronies.

Hey I dont like many of this administrations policies, but I will support our troops as long as they are dieing protecting the values of freedom no matter where they are on the planet. But 40,000 deathes off, Give me a break, it couldnt happen no way no how. This administration has to many powerful opponents which would be all over this if it was true.

Originally posted by Xerimethius
Then they'd have to explain why they were sitting on this information for so long, if there was no ulterior motive. Saying "We were just waiting for the right time...*cough*" probably wouldn't go over well with anyone.

This is a true statement, IMO nothing this Administration does is ever going to be acknowledged by its opponents. Bush has made way to many mistakes with information to ever make it go over well with those who are set against the policies of his administration.

The current administration is lame duck at best and will never gain the support of its opponents. Bush could show absolute proof and their would be those who would say it’s fabricated and it’s another lie from Bushco.

We will have to wait for the next election to see any change in America views toward foreign policy.

Oh that’s right Bush will institute his executive order to stay in power. LOL yeah right !!!!!

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by goose
Maybe some research into how many coffins the pentagon has paid for would help. Here is article from 3/03 on a large number of body bags ordered, which basically means they were anticipating a large number of casulties.

Also might want to chEck the GAO.

Well, there were also several thousand body bags ordered prior to the invasion in the first Gulf War but that doesnt mean they were needed.
As far as the amount of casualties caused by the current wars we are in, id have to say that 40k isnt that far off but a casualty isnt always a death.
Also someone pointed out that if a soldier is wounded in Iraq and is sent somewhere else, like Germany and dies there, then from what I've read
the death isnt counted as a KIA in Iraq.
So the death toll is probably at least a couple of thousand more than the official death count that we are given.

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:59 PM
I don't know if you're a US citizen. I also don't know if you watched TV prior to the Iraq invasion.

In any case, the reason that was plastered all over the NEWS MEDIA for going to war was Sadaams failure to comply with the WMD deal. I'm not saying that was the REAL reason but it's the reason that was paraded all over the media in the US.

The administration dragged out a whole host of characters including Colin Powell to point to non-descript factory like buildings and tell everyone these were WMD buildings.

So, before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and I have no credibility, maybe you should KNOW YOUR FACTS yourself.

Again, I'm not saying that the WMD deal was the REAL reason, I'm just saying that was the primary reason the administration parading before the media.

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:04 PM
I seriously doubt that the number is 40,000... Some of you are almost hoping that it were that number... That would just give people more cause to support your cut and run agenda...

Cut and run America... Cut and run.... That seems to be what we have grown to do best. I weep for the future of this country and the world... Good bye freedom... Hello to the NWO of Islamic extremism.

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:46 PM
I think this thread started because someone misread or misunderstood something. There have been approx. 40,000 casualties. Casualties are considered injuries of all types, not deaths. Thats why if you check numbers you'll see:
approx. 40,000 casualties
approx. 3660 deaths

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 02:28 PM
I have to go along the lines of Zerotime. I live in Texas, another big state, and when someone dies, it is all over the news. But still, the number is higher then the official number. Its really sad because 1 is to many, but no one ever talks about the Iraqi's that where killed. Now there's a number well over 40,000.

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:37 PM
Well a little common sense tells you that far more troops have been killed. If you remember in the first gulf war we had in excess of 550,000 troops on the ground. In this current war in iraq, we have around 160,000, with what? 20,000 in Afganistan, and we moved half the troops out of North Korea. Yet it still seems like we have a big troop shortage and that our forces are stretched thin. That because many more have been killed then 3,000. If you add 160,000 to the 20,000 we have in Afganistan and round up to 200,000. That is still far less than the 550,000 troops we had on the ground in Iraq in the early 90s. Simple math. There are a huge number of injured and dead, and that three thousand dead number is pure bull crap.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:56 AM
Because you're going to be on the front lines when you're injured!

The fact of the matter is soldiers are being injured left and right, and thanks to our advances in medicine, they're surviving. However, if you're missing a limb, you're not going to be doing very much, and so your time as a soldier is up. 36,000 (rough estimate) injured soldiers The death toll isn't at 3,000. At this point, it's somewhere around 3700 if I remember correctly. As you said, there are 200,000-ish troops altogether. Subtract 37,000 wounded, and 4000-ish dead and bam. That's why more troops are needed.

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:08 AM
this report may be the truth because it splits the difference to around 20k

take a look, you can even get a list mailed to ya

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:57 AM

Originally posted by cavscout
There were WMDs. I saw them, personally.

A statement in complete contradiction to that of your commander and chief.
Bush stated there was no WMD in IRAQ.

You are suggesting he is a liar, and co-conspirator with most of your military commanders, and that the US government has most likely done something with these weapons in order to keep them out of public attention, at the cost of their reputations and too be ridiculed forever for their initial claims.

Originally posted by cavscout
My NBC NCO was sent home from radiation poisoning after guarding an Iraqi weapons depot with suspicious barrels in the back.

Americans and the UK have exploded tons of DU ammunition in Iraq.

WHO studies depleted uranium in Iraq Two years before Iraq Holocaust 2.0.

Depleted uranium casts shadow over peace in Iraq April 2003, start of Iraq Holocaust 2.0

During the Gulf war in 1991, the US and Britain fired an estimated 350 tonnes of DU at Iraqi tanks, a figure likely to be matched in the course of the current conflict. In the years since then, doctors in southern Iraq have reported a marked increase in cancers and birth defects, and suspicion has grown that they were caused by DU contamination from tank battles on farmland west of Basra.

Did you happen to be in posession of DU rounds yourselves, or be using vehicles that have previously been in a fire fight anywhere in the vacinity of the use of DU?
Were your vehicles used in the Balkans or Kosovo where tons of DU were also used?

Depleted Uranium, Diabetes, Cancer And You By Alan Cantwell, MD

DU weapons were developed by the US Navy in 1968, and were first given to Israel by the US in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Since then, the US has tested, manufactured and sold DU weapons systems to 29 countries. Vieques Island, a testing site in Puerto Rico, was repeatedly bombarded with DU in 1999 prior to its use in Kosovo.

Depleted Uranium Whistleblowers
Major Doug Rokke is a leading DU expert who has become a whistleblower against its use. He claims each tank round is composed of 10 pounds of solid uranium-238 contaminated with plutonium, neptunium, and americium. The round is pyrophoric, meaning it generates intense heat on impact, easily penetrating a tank because of the heavy weight of the metal. When DU munitions hit, they produce a firestorm inside any vehicle or structure, resulting in devastating burns and injuries to those who escape immediate death and incineration. On impact, DU produces uranium oxide dust and pieces of uranium explode all over the place. Once inside the body the tiny nanoparticles enter the lungs and blood stream and are carried throughout the body. When Rokke and his team were assigned to "clean up" the DU after the first Gulf War, all his men got ill within 72 hours with respiratory problems, rashes, bleeding, and open sores. In an Australian interview with Gay Alcorn in 2003, Rokke admitted: "After everything I've seen, everything I've done, it became very clear to me that you can't take radioactive wastes from one nation and just throw it into another nation. It's wrong. It's simply wrong."

The weapons cash you guarded could very well have been sold to Iraq via America durng the Iran-Iraq war, or originated in America and sold via a third party distributor.

Oh and Mysterious barrels could have been any kind of industrial waste.
There are billions of these barrels all over the United States.

Five of my high school teachers died from cancer caused by "mysterious barrels" on a shut down paint factory lot in our tiny town, left opened, tipped over, leaking, for decades, and feeding into 18 natural wells used for drinking water, until they too were all shut down.

I'm sure those five weren't the only Americans killed by such negligence.

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 08:03 PM
Something is wrong with the numbers. Like I stated we had 550,000 on the ground in Iraq in the early 90s, and still had our more of our national guard at home, and still had the full 37,000 in South Korea.

We are stretched thin now, yet we have less than 200,000 in Iraq and Afganistan combined, and we moved out most of the troops from South Korea, so where are all our troops at. We are missing several hundred thousand.

During the first 6 months of operations in Iraq the general in charge of logistics, moving wounded from Iraq to Germany to back home, was asked about the number of wounded who were unable to return to active duty. The number or 20,000 wounded and unable to serve was given. The general confirmed that number but added give or take a couple thousand. 20,000 in 6 months is an unacceptable number of casualties.

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:00 PM
I'm sure you know this, but most injuries are a direct result of IEDs. It's kinda hard to avoid those since they can be just about anywhere. Obviously the fix for this is to supply armored humvees, but that probably isn't going to be happening.

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:46 PM
google video search:


Several short films of note there of the same nature as the Rashedeen.

This is another group that is releasing propoganda of the same sort; actual casualties are much greater, etc.

The point is made that many coalition casualties are in the form of "civilian contractors".

also google video
shia resistance, islamic resistance, ied attack, rashedeen, mujahideen

I can attest, there are enough "ied attack" videos out there of humvees blowing up to leave you counting.

also google video
"Iraq for Sale" greenwald

and also on the subject of war casualties:

"depleted uranium alert"



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 06:05 PM
"Civilian contractors" don't count as military personnel. They're just mercs.

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 07:52 PM

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
So a government that cant cover up Pat Tillman, Abu Ghraib, 9/11, WMD,
Haditha etc. Is good enough to keep 40,000 casualties out of the Media and out of view of the American people. 40,000 soldiers with dependents living on military bases and now collecting benefits for the rest of thier lives plus a substantial SGLI payout is being hidden.

And they even trying to hide this, but the Stock Market Crash is Coming.

Ben “Helicopter” Bernanke desperate to Save the Stock Market Crash

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in