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.

 

73,846 U.S. Troops Dead - Iraq War

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Although I don't trust this administration at all, I find those numbers are not very plausible because there is to much civilian oversite and too many individuals who want to end the war and do have a public forum and would use this information instantly to create outrage.




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Would a MOD please change the misleading, obviously false title of this thread? (LOOK! A ONE LINE POST JUST TO GET THE MODS ATTENTION!!!!!!)



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by craig732
 


One could look on it as misleading... Or one could look at it as extremely accurate in relation to the OP's agenda... I guess it's a matter of perspective but I think the title is incredibly enlightening.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by craig732
 


It's no use,

IF you ignore it,

IT will go away.....

The OP intended you to react this way, let it go....

What's that saying?

You can lead a monkey to bananas,

But you can't make them eat fling poo?





PS: rassin frassin, got sucked in here again.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I think the only way you can put these numbers into perspective is to take the total number of troops that died (from all causes) vs the total number of troops involved from 1990 to present. Compare this ratio to the death ratio of a similar number of non military young, active men (and I suppose a certain percentage of women whatever that is) in the same age group. Ie. death rate compared apples to apples, military vs non military.

One of the unfortunate events associated with living is dying no matter what the age group or activity. Does miliitary duty associated with the Gulf affect ones probility of dying? The VA report does not address that. I suppose someone should before we get upset about the report!



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by craig732
 


One could look on it as misleading... Or one could look at it as extremely accurate in relation to the OP's agenda... I guess it's a matter of perspective but I think the title is incredibly enlightening.



There is no room for perspective or interpretation here.

Go read the report that the OP posted as his evidence for his title.

It clearly states that 73,846 is the total number of deaths of all of the people that have served in the US Military from 1990 to present, from all causes. The report clearly does not state that 73,846 military personnel have died in the Iraq War.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by craig732]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
This is nothing more than an Internet hoax. So many people hate President Bush and anything American so much, they will believe anything that puts him or us in a bad light. Ain't this internet thing great.

Hilliary will get stuff straightened out once she gets in.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 


When Hill (and Bill) get back in office the scandals, corruption and other picadillys will distract the media so much we all will forget the war and daily mortality counts will be overlooked. What a way to lead a country!



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by craig732
 


I'm well aware of what has been posted; it is I who tracked down the uncited external quotes and provided the links, and I also watched as the OP edited the title to what it is now. I am also more than well versed in the interpretation of statistics, and as a U.S. Navy Veteran well acquainted with the machinations of the V.A. If you can't appreciate the reason for keeping the title as is, then I can't help you but it is appropriate... And quite telling.

Sometimes you use a pooper scooper for a turd, and sometimes you use a gilded necklace.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Sometimes you use a pooper scooper for a turd, and sometimes you use a gilded necklace.



Are we at a restaurant? Cause somebody JUST got served



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   
The term troop in this context in conjunction with Iraq is a misquote both in the title and in the documention link provided.

The Jist of this article is that Since 1990, 73K Military personel ranging from combat to desk position, non deployed as well as deployed have passed away; The Majority of which are natural causes non combat related.

Veterans that just died of old age. People that worked desk positions that died from whatever cause and the such. The only combat deaths claimed are around 5k total with a higher number of injured.

The title imo is deceptive as it infers that we have incurred 73k war dead in this conflict.

Raises hand for a Title change.

Peace



[edit on 30-9-2007 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Yep the OP has a history of using completely misleading titles on his threads to annoy members. It's obvious to anyone who has been following the war that it's completely bigus. I notice that the OP slinks away when he's been so convincingly proven wrong, typical tactics of this person.
The mods won't change the title because it is attracting attention, exactly what a site like this needs to keep up their revenues from advertising. This site is all about making money now, so the more visitors the better.

I remember the days when I joined up with a little under 300 members and all the threads were real and informative, unfortunately now there are so many morons. But hey it's all about the money remember that.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
The mods won't change the title because it is attracting attention, exactly what a site like this needs to keep up their revenues from advertising. This site is all about making money now, so the more visitors the better.


Thank you for clearing that up MS. I was sure there was a reason... I couldn't come up with any reason myself why such a flagerent violation of TOS would be allowed; now it is much clearer. I have seen many times in the past that thread titles were changed or members were warned, I guess that isn't happening anymore.

So I will save this thread as proof that from now on we are all allowed to put whatever title we want on threads whether or not they are true.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join