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.


Deafening Silence. Casualities in Iraq

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:07 PM
Intersting how they keep any related deaths from Iraq that were not in the field from the total fatalities.

So if you are wounded to die later from you wounds your death is not tagged to the fatalities but will be counted on the overall death count of soldiers in the military from any given reasons.

Kind of trying very hard to keep the almost 4000 deaths just under the 4000 mark for now.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by marg6043

Did you even bother to read what I wrote, and quoted from the site that you used to support your position? It stated that casualties that die later are still counted. You might want to find another site to try to support your opinion, as that one's not particularly helpful with furthering your agenda.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by andy1972
If your numbers were indeed fact..dont yo think the silence from the media would be the last thing you´d expect.

Casualties at an all time low !!!...look...were ARE winning the war etc etc.

What i thinks happening here is a fact you dont seem to mention..

CHRISTMAS IS HERE..and who wants to learn about their sons dying in some foreign field when he should be at home shoving his face with turkey.

I think over the winter period the mainstream media will go quiet on all the things you dont want to know and show nothing but videos of Condoleeza Rice serving servicemen their apple sauce on a surprise visit.

Its all lies and crap..but meant to shield humans from heartbreaking facts at the most sensetive time of the year.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by andy1972]

What were the stats last Christmas? There are no secret casualty figures that are reported only after holidays/elections. It would seem that you are in the "don't confuse me with the facts" mode. It sounds like you desparately want to believe things are worse than they are, and get pissed off by positive news. Even staunch anti war politicians have the intellectual honesty to admit things have improved vastly.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:04 PM
I dont care if the troops have been ordered to hide under their beds until Christmas is over. I am just pleased to see the number go down.

I dont agree with the war, I wouldn't go fight the war but I do feel for the troops out there and hope they return home safely.

Let's just be happy that the number is down and enjoy xmas eh?!

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:31 PM
Just because the U.S. casualties are down does not mean we are "winning." It would be nice to have accurate numbers to compare to, such as Iraqi forces and civilian deaths and insurgent deaths. That really does not matter much either though, I wonder if we are patrolling the same areas, and if we are patrolling as heavily.

The main point is though, if we are "winning," what exactly are we winning?!?!? Lower oil prices? Less people in Al Queda? Less people in the Middle east want to bomb Americans? Unfortunately, none of those are the case. If we come home and secure our own borders, the number of casualties will drop to an unprecedented level in the War in Iraq; ZERO.

Vote Ron Paul!

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:47 PM
Bravo Bravo!

Your statistics only reflect that we are better at saving lives! Duh!

We still have over 20,000 casualities, of course that doesn't count to Repukecans!

Count the dead, ignore the battle scarred and for christ sakes give the rich a tax break, life is so tough for Jenna Bush!

Heil Rush Limbaugh!

Death is Good!

Die Die Die!

I am Rush, I have a boil on my butt, I can't fight, but I can mouth off!

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

You have to admit, the mood about conflict reporting does go down around the holidays. People do not want to hear about bad things. Have you ever brought up a sad topic ,whether it be the war, the economy, crime, at the dinner table and someone chimes in "That's enough of that, you shouldn't talk about sad things during the holidays. The Holiday season is for joy and celebration."
That's all fine and dandy, but the truth of the matter is is that this world is not doing very well as a whole. We all know how bad things are here at home let alone abroad.
And remember, Iraq is not the only place where people are dying.
Enjoy the holidays and your family yes, but we must not take a break from what is really going on around us. Turmoil does not stop just so we can pass around gifts.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:36 PM
Of course, it is getting better, it has to. Thank you for the thread. IMO the insurgency is being beaten and the local criminals who strolled out of the prisons when Saddam let them out are being re caught or buried. The local Shiite and Sunnis factions who are fighting each other are IMO questioning exactly why they are fighting the US and its allies.

IMO they are finally being allowed to think for themselves and see that working together gets the US out of Iraq in an occupation type environment faster than fighting would. Face it the US will always have a presence in Iraq from now on as well as the UN most likely. And it’s a good bet we will have a base there for use by our military for joint exercises with the new Iraqi military. And also because our troops and others spending money will help the economy continue to strengthen.

After WW2 US service members spending helped jump-start the new economies of Germany and Japan. Its part of what is called winning the hearts and minds of the people. I think its taking from the news lately. After time the people of a war torn area start to realize life is better with out an evil dictator with his boot on their throats.

I don’t think for one minute the regular Iraqi citizen thinks the US is there to do them harm. They see we are bldg, training, and willing to be a friend IMO. They hated saddam and they hate the insurgency fighting by non-Iraqis. they are a smart people and they can see through any so called evil plans by our military or government to do anything more than help them get back on their feet and to protect them from a radical take over of their sovereign country.

Democracy can be a great thing in a Muslim country. I feel Iraqi Muslims are a bit more tolerant of human rights issues with in the religion. Iraq will one day IMO show other Islamic countries that they don’t have to suppress their women and live hardship lives to be close to their faith. Change is going to happen whether Muslim fundamentalist in the region want it to or not. People in general want to be free and they want to think for themselves and live their lives as they see fit. Not as some group of mullahs or a radical group like Hamas or Hezbollah or the Taliban feels they should live. Watch it spread throughout the Middle East people.

PS: and the MSM wont tell you about all the good happening in Iraq and Afghanistan it doesn’t make the current administration look bad and it doesn’t help the Democrat’s come election time. The haters will claim the Republicans are fixing the coverage, and a new CT will begin, which will thrill me to death.
The thing to do is listen to the people who have been there recently, and ask them how things are going compared to the past in whole. Britain is leaving Basra and the US will reduce as well. Its finally starting to work IMHO. This will be a victory for the people of Iraq and for the democratic, republic for which it stands system of government.

And Iraq will show the Islamic world how its done and keep in line with thier religious beliefs.

Thank you for reading my rants but anyway………..

We shall see.

Have a good weekend everyone!!


Edit to break up the read, whew seeing that huge para was painful to the eyes.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by geemony]

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by mel1962

Mel its the ultimate crime for sure to kill any life right, but what can one do to bring them back. We cant ever forget their sacrifice becasue it was the ultimate sacrifice. Blameing the current administration doesnt help anything, its getting old man... If it was Gore back then we would still be where we are today IMO. Americans all of us wanted blood after 9-11 plain and simple. Congress damn near all of them approved the war effort. When things didnt go perfect which they never do in war, distaste for the war began to gain momentum with the American people so those in congress chased thier votes and jumped on the bash the administration bandwagon. Hypolitics is what our entire government currently is made up of, Dems and Repubs alike!! Yes alot of people die in war zones. And its a shame thier deaths only have political uses most of the time.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:06 PM
Well here's some holiday cheer. I put my money down that this is the lull before the storm.

I remember back in the 90's I had the Y2K jitters and downright millenium fears. Even if the world didn't go back to the stone ages because of mass computer failure, I was really worried that something really bad was going to happen. New Year's came and went, and weeks turned into months. It was a brave new world. I was never more optimistic about the future. "Hah," I thought, "all the conspiracies and prophecies were wrong after all." I was in happy la-la land for one year, nine months, ten days, eight hours and forty-six minutes.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:15 PM
reply to post by geemony

I agree with your assessment of Dems and Repubs. IMO though, most of the people against the war have that point of view due to the way it was brought about in that we were all led to believe that there were WMD's and we were told it would be swift. The fear was put into us that Iraq could blow us all up. I also believe that it was a far stretch to say that Saddam was linked to 9/11. I guess in some ways, most of the Middle East is somehow linked to terrorism acts, but I still believe that we were misled. I would feel the same way no matter who presented it to us.
I think Bush wouldn't have gotten the OK if he had just said we need to get Saddam out because my daddy didn't do it the first time around. It was easier to put the fear into everyone of possible nuclear attack here at home.
One last question I have is why does it seem like the hunt for Bin Laden is on the back burner. I just have a hard time dealing with the fact that we can't find this guy. How can a sickly man such as him hide from us a lot easier than Saddam? We didn't seem to have that difficult a time finding him in that small rabbit hole. Maybe it isn't on the back burner and we just do not hear about it as much anymore. What will happen if we don't get him after before the next election? Will the new administration keep on the hunt?

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by jmilla
Just because the U.S. casualties are down does not mean we are "winning." It would be nice to have accurate numbers to compare to, such as Iraqi forces and civilian deaths and insurgent deaths. That really does not matter much either though, I wonder if we are patrolling the same areas, and if we are patrolling as heavily.

The main point is though, if we are "winning," what exactly are we winning?!?!? Lower oil prices? Less people in Al Queda? Less people in the Middle east want to bomb Americans? Unfortunately, none of those are the case. If we come home and secure our own borders, the number of casualties will drop to an unprecedented level in the War in Iraq; ZERO.

Vote Ron Paul!

Winning=violence as a whole in Iraq down, not just the numbers of American casualties. i.e. the Al Anbar province is mostly stable, and one year ago it was the worst place in Iraq for violence. Other provinces also have lower violence. It's not a case of different provinces have more violence now that one has been stabilized either. The question is whether or not the Iraqis will take responsibility for their own security, now that conditions are more favorable.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by jmilla

And people here like to compare casualties as to losing. The more casualties the more it means we are losing. When it goes lower, people says it doesn't mean crap.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:09 PM
Well the count is not just American for ALL counts are down, and this is because the inter-fighting has dropped off dramatically. Another reason is because people are just fed up with fighting each other…just think about it, many have either been fighting or killed for five years now and they grow weary of it. Also there reaches a point where they start to run out of people willing to kill each other as they all dies off, but the more moderate Iraqi is still alive.

There is also another indicator that all of you who just pick and choose your news based on your opinion while never getting out of your computer chairs, and that is the neighborhoods are starting to come to life once again with new Commerce and reduced fear.

But then all you deniers would not know that part of it for I think you hardly look outside to see if the sun is shinnying much less actually see how things are changing over there.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Xtrozero]

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by Xtrozero

Also there reaches a point where they start to run out of people willing to kill each other as they all dies off, but the more moderate Iraqi is still alive.

Look, I for one am glad that the possibility of great change for Iraq is still in the cards, but unfortunately there will always be radicals out there. They can never all die off. throughout history radicals have remained. they may become slowed down in their goals, but they always seem to reemerge. Don't you think that there are new Jihadists being trained as we speak? It is not like their leaders say, "Well we do not have any more volunteers, I guess we just give up the fight for our cause." They are like a great boxer that gets knocked down but always seems to get back up. If it isn't Iraq, it will be someone else. There cannot be American democracy everywhere in the world.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:02 AM

Originally posted by palehorse23
Don't you think that there are new Jihadists being trained as we speak?

Actually Jihadists are not what I mean by those that are dying off. In this secular war Jihadists have nothing to do with it. I agree that Jihadists can be a never ending supply, but Jihadists are fighting the US and are not primarily involved in the secular war part. The extreme viewed Iraqis that are fighting each other are not an endless supply and you need to look at things at a much less global level to understand what my other post is getting at.

If you focus more on neighborhoods then you would understand. The fighting, cleanup, and normalized life all start at the neighborhood level. This is also the level that the majority of all Iraqis can only see change in their favor. For us, we look at the big picture, but for them it is more of a question of can they walk down the street safely to an open market than some larger picture of world events.

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by Xtrozero

Alright, after this report, are we still sure that just because numbers are "reported" to be down, that it is getting better in Iraq.

The title of this article is "Violence reportedly hampers Iraq forces."

WASHINGTON - Iraqis have not made enough progress toward learning to manage their security forces because they've had to divert too much attention to continued violence and sectarianism congressional investigators said Monday......"While the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior, with coalition assistance, made some progress since August 2006 in developing their respective logistics, command and control, and intelligence capabilities ... persistent violence and sectarianism, along with immature ministerial capacity, continue to impede this progress," the report said.......The report also criticized the terminology the Pentagon uses for assessing the progress of Iraqi forces.
check link for full article

Violence hampers Iraq forces

personally, I have a hard time trusting any numbers the government tells us about Iraq. It seems to me that no matter how you look at it, we are taking way too long over there to bring "freedom" to Iraq. It just really bothers me that our men and women are still over there fighting a war that seems to not have an end in sight. One day we hear that the numbers are down from province to province. then you hear that the sectarian violence is still impeding progress from Iraq's own internal ministry. I am not convinced that the violence is going to end anytime soon, if ever. And at this point, how can we leave as long is there is not enough internal strength in Iraq. That is why we "supposedly" went there in the first place right? The whole thing just really makes me sick!!

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 09:41 PM

“ More Gulf War Veterans have died than Vietnam Veterans

US Dept. of Veterans: 73,846 US troops dead, 1,620,906 disabled
…The Department of Veterans Affairs, May 2007, Gulf War Veterans Information System reports the following:
Total U.S. Military Gulf War Deaths: 73,846
- Deaths amongst Deployed: 17,847
- Deaths amongst Non-Deployed: 55,999
Total "Undiagnosed Illness" (UDX) claims: 14,874
Total number of disability claims filed: 1,620,906
- Disability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911
- Disability Claims amongst Non-Deployed: 1,212,995
Percentage of combat troops that filed Disability Claims 36%.....” Here is report. (edit: sorry not working. Find pdf in link from source)

We are generally given these figures
US casualties in Iraq as at 14th Nov, 2007 since 2003: 3867 (3864 confirmed, 2 pending)

Official stats from Gulf war 1 :U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths

Any truth to this?

Might have something to do with that 'depleted' uranium that is slowly interferring with DNA and will affect genetics for centuries to come (ie birth defects, increased cancer rates etc)
WARNING some grafic pictures of birth defects:

[edit on 3-12-2007 by cams]

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:39 PM
Its due to a change in tactics, which in a round about way can be seen as step forward. US troops are increasingly staying in well protected bases and only venturing out in heavily armoured vehicles, whilst Iraqi security forces are (meant to be) taking on more front line roles such as foot patrols. A success if this means the US can leave, but one has to wonder what they are leaving behind.

An interesting parallel to draw with vietnam is that 1 in 3 casualties in Vietnam were a fatality, in comparison in Iraq its closer to 1 in 10 due to the much faster response times of heli teams and huge improvements in battle field medicine. Sadly though this means a huge increase in those with one or more limbs amputated. A new phenomenon is a huge increase in those with spinal and brain damage caused by the wake of an IED, rarely seen outside of high speed car crashes. If anything the deafening silence is the story of the soldiers who are returning with little chance of returning or finding employment.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by tarichar

Actually in Baghdad, there have been more presence patrols, use of forward operating bases, etc.. rather than the garrison mentality.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in