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.

 

Over 800 US fatalities in Iraq so far.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
The total US fatalities just passed the 800 mark today.
The total for the whole coalition is over 900.
For the month of May, there has been an average of 2.78 coalition fatalities per day.
The average since the war began is 2.11 per day.

Here are the fatalities by country:
US: 801
UK: 59
Italy: 18
Spain: 11
Bulgaria: 6
Ukraine: 6
Poland: 4
Thailand: 2
Denmark: 1
El Salvadore: 1
Estonia: 1
Netherlands: 1

Lunaville: Iraq Coalition Casualties
CNN U.S. & Coalition/Casualties

Since the war began, a few countries have pulled out.
Spain withdrew it's 1,300 troops deployed in central-southern Iraq.
Honduras withdrew it's 370 soldiers who were clearing mines and providing medical care in Iraq.
The Dominican Republic has announced it will also bring its 302 troops home early.
Nicaragua withdrew its 115 troops in March for economic reasons.

There are many countries who still have troops in Iraq:
COUNTRIES WITH TROOPS AND MILITARY PERSONNEL IN IRAQ




posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
theres more fataities then that. i think it's around 1000 or so, these deaths are just numbers from the known US troops, not including special forces.

do you really trust CNN? they are well known to be biased



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Lets not forget the Iraqi's who died during the war. There was an estimate of 20,000 Iraqi's who died. Some were loyalists but most were too close to US forces and became casualties. It makes me sick that we say "we are fighting for them" and then disregard and fail to mention those Iraqi's who died on the streets who were not even involved in the conflict. Granted our military was in a hot zone and maybe had no choice but dont ignore the facts because these people who died during the combat should also not be forgotten.

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by Raphael]



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
WOW a 1000, thats has to be one of the lowest numbers in any war. They must be doing a pretty good job to keep it down. Look at the big picture people.

You being against the war is one thing but using death numbers to act like its a bad thing to me defeats your purpose. Do some research and find out how many americans have died in other wars

www.rationalrevolution.net...

World War II Deaths

Country Military Civilian Total
Soviet Union 13,600,000 7,700,000 21,300,000
China 1,324,000 10,000,000 11,324,000
Germany 3,250,000 3,810,000 7,060,000
Poland 850,000 6,000,000 6,850,000
Japan 1,506,000 300,000 1,806,000
Yugoslavia 300,000 1,400,000 1,700,000
Rumania 520,000 465,000 985,000
France 340,000 470,000 810,000
Hungary ? ? 750,000
Austria 380,000 145,000 525,000
Greece ? ? 520,000
Italy 330,000 80,000 410,000
Czechoslovakia ? ? 400,000
Great Britain 326,000 62,000 388,000
USA 295,000 N/A 295,000
Holland 14,000 236,000 250,000
Belgium 10,000 75,000 85,000
Finland 79,000 ? 79,000
Canada 39,000 N/A 39,000
India 36,000 ? 36,000
Australia 29,000 N/A 29,000
Spain 12,000 10,000 22,000
Bulgaria 19,000 2,000 21,000
New Zealand 12,000 N/A 12,000
South Africa 9,000 N/A 9,000
Norway 5,000 ? 5,000
Denmark 4,000 ? 4,000
Total 23,289,000 30,755,000 55,714,000



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
WOW a 1000, thats has to be one of the lowest numbers in any war. They must be doing a pretty good job to keep it down. Look at the big picture people.

You being against the war is one thing but using death numbers to act like its a bad thing to me defeats your purpose. Do some research and find out how many americans have died in other wars


I think you should come out from the rock your living under and realize technology is far different now from WWII. People or the USA has not gotten better but technology has..



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I remember seeing somewhere that the average casualty ratio for WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, is a remarkably consistent number, something like 1 in 15.


[Edited on 23-5-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Rapheal u must be one of those tree hugging hippys!



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 05:22 AM
link   
1: to compare this to WW2 is patently ridiculous, this is a much smaller situation and seeing as its not actually a "war" such comparisons are pointless.
2: "Casualties" are far higher than this, I believe the NYT reports "casualties" at around 4000 with an undisclosed number dead.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I remember seeing somewhere that the average casualty ratio for WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, is a remarkably consistent number, something like 1 in 15.


[Edited on 23-5-2004 by HowardRoark]



Exactly, heres a number that puts it in to perspective.

Other Wars 1/15 Died

This war 1/1300 We have about 130,000 troops and I rounded up to 1000 troops.

Again like I said you can be against the war, but dont use this as your argument. I doesnt make sense.

BTW I am not a bush supporter, But you left left people are just as bad the the Right Neo Cons, YOu dont get your facts straight and color the truth to your liking. Lies and partisin Politics are what is killing this country.

Also to the person who said 4000 US were killed. Again FACTS!!!!! not meaningless posts.

lunaville.org...



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
You know, going off half cocked like that just makes your posts easier to eviscerate.

"Other Wars 1/15 Died
This war 1/1300 We have about 130,000 troops and I rounded up to 1000 troops. "

This is not a conventional "war" It can't even really be defined as a war because there is no specific enemy. Comparisons with World War 2 are stupid, they're as stupid as those made by your "left left" people between Bush and Hitler.

"Also to the person who said 4000 US were killed. Again FACTS!!!!! not meaningless posts."

Ok. I'm going to repost what I said, then I'm going to carefully point out where you have missed the point, then I'm going to give you an opportunity to retract that statement.

Here what I said:

"2: "Casualties" are far higher than this, I believe the NYT reports "casualties" at around 4000 with an undisclosed number dead."

As you will note casualties is in brackets, that is because a casualty of war is not a dead person, it is a person who has, through a situation due to the war, been removed from it. the "casualties" include people with multiple limbs missing, poisoning, missing body parts etc and there are around 4000.

Note where after I say that I continue to say "with an undisclosed number of dead" I believe the actual figure widely reported last week was 600, this was then increased to 800 but, to be frank, no one actually knows. Nowhere in my post do I say 4000 people are dead, in fact I specifically say that they aren't

here you go. Its as useful a source as any.

lunaville.org...

Finally, I don't mind being called out about something I've said, that's fine and dandy, but don't go calling people out unless you are 110% sure your correct, otherwise you end up looking like the idiot. ESPECIALLY if your going to emphasise your mistake with exclamation marks


VzH

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   
war in Irak ? war?

The war is supposed to be ended since 1 year !




BTW it is obvious that the real number of casualties of troops is censured.
It is also obvious that Coalition forces are seen as occupation forces by locals. There is an active iraqi resistance. However, beware, the resistants ARE NOT "terrorists", ARE NOT THE SAME as Al Qaeda...



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   
A good breakdown of historic casualty rates

As you can see, we are no where near the casualty rates for Korea or Veitnam.

And yes, it is true there is a difference between the type of combat, but, still, it was worse in the past.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   
First off there was no rant. or even a spew. But the topic is 800 US Fatalities. So when you post nothing more then 2 sentences and use 4000 it hard for anyone to get your point. I would hope you could see what I am saying.

You say you cannot compare the war because they are on different scales.

You are right that the war is on different scales, but the 1 in 15 was across a few wars and remained constant. What the 1 /1300 shows is 1) our weapons are better or should I say more precise. and that in past conflicts or wars this isn't as bad a people who seem to use it for political reasons are saying, I am here for the TRUTH not political rhetoric. NOT that it is the point here about 800 deaths.

So how do you Judge a conflict or war or battle. The number of troops.? The Size of the country? We here alot of talk about Vietnam and Iraq but again 58,000 US died in Vietnam. Was this more of a war than Iraq , if so Why? Please state your reasons.

I truly believe that you are going on your View of why the US is there compared to any true military facts

In fact lets take the Korean War. Great example of time an troops we had there.

Time 37 Months ( If Figure we will be in Iraq for longer if not the same)
33,651 US Died 136,000 Casualties. Korea about the size of Iraq if not half the size. What makes this war any more a war?

The fact is 800 KIA in any conflict isn't as bad as it has been in past conflicts.
These are facts I am presenting not politcial views.

Keep opinions to the Mud Pit

Again I am not a Bush Supporter, but when trying to show people the facts about the topic this thread is about. Get what I am saying?



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Its not hard for people to see what I'm saying, it does seem that its hard for you to get what I'm saying. The post clearly states 4000 casualties with an unconfirmed number of deaths, If you simply don't get that then I really can't help you.

Secondly This "war" differs from all the "wars" you have so far specified because it is being fought not against an enemy but towards an amorphous goal. The end of "terrorism" and the liberation of Iraq. There is no defined "enemy" so there is no war.

There can be no comparison between this and the wars you mention, the closest I suspect we can get is the last Gulf war but that really isn't applicable either as it did have a specific enemy.

Regardless, your going on ignore.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Again your correct in the fact I didn't see you said Casualties (I prostate myself in front of you lol ). But the thread is not about that is was about 800 deaths. I am just trying to show the facts of previous wars. again This is considered a war and you have shown no proof to show other wise, just your opinions.

Ask yourself this, have I presented any false information.
By you saying its not a war. Really means it is not when the Majority says it is? Tell that to someone in the Iraqi army. In Vietnam there was thing called the VC. We didn't know who they were either. SO was that not a war.?

Your right in the fact that you or I wont be able to change anyone's mind. But all I have done is present facts so people have something to compare and think about. What have you done?

Have a fantastic day!



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Trying to compare this to either WWII, Korea or Vietnam is laughable.

Are you fighting an organized Army? Like, say, a country's armed forces?

No, in fact for the most part you're fighting untrained civilians and people using guerrilla tactics. The most powerful military in the world against a ragtag bunch of wackos. And the wackos are winning.

You invaded a country with no Air Force, no anti-aircraft weaponry, and you carpetbombed large tracts of it from the air with no risk of taking enemy fire.

So you can't really compare it to a war where it's Armed Forces vs Armed Forces.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
800-1000 casualties, most after major combat excercises completed (airstrikes, ect) Man these people love us so much


I am happy for the nations who are leaving this worthless war in order to work on things that advance ones society.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
So how do you Judge a conflict or war or battle. The number of troops.? The Size of the country? We here alot of talk about Vietnam and Iraq but again 58,000 US died in Vietnam. Was this more of a war than Iraq , if so Why? Please state your reasons.


The main reason is (as Jakomo pointed out above), we're not fighting an army in Iraq. All other wars involved an actual organized army, with real weapons. That's definitely the biggest reason, IMO. If you don't see that, you're not looking very hard.


[Edited on 5-24-2004 by Satyr]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join