Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on April 29, 2004, 01:25:08 PM
-
Accoring to this websight:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/page6.html
There have been 843 coalition deaths, 737 Americans, 59 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, one Estonian, 17 Italians, two Poles, one Salvadoran, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and six Ukrainians, in the war as of April 29, 2004
Of the 843 deaths reported, one would believe they were combat related.
After reading the list of causes of death, 501 were combat related.
The bulk of non-combat related deaths were traffic accidents, with a few heart attacks and one soldier accidentally drowning in a swimming pool.
Though I believe every death is a tragedy, the situation in Iraq is not as bleak as the media makes it out to be, and it's certainly no Vietnam.
-
BTW, I did not know we lost 2 F-15E's and a British plane was knocked down by a Patriot Missle Battery.
-
Yes but wasn't the fighting suppose to be over a year ago? And this month it's some 100 + killed already. I cease to see the difference between combat and non combat. Still a casualty in theatre. Dosn't make it any easier for the family.
True you can't compare to vietnam and hopefully it never will be compared to vietnam but it's early days still in Iraq.
Oh, you forgot the civilan casualties. 10,000 plus? Who knows how many dead there.
Pesonally I think the casualties in Iraq are alot worse then we were ever led to believe they would be. And certinly not suppose to be any fighting still going on at the scale we see today one year out. The fighting seems to be esculating if anything. Which is why the Generals have just requested more heavy armour.
Funny considering Bush's little victory speech "end to major combat operations" a year ago. Seems the major combat operations are only just starting.
...-Gixer
-
You cannot count combat and non-combat together, because if a guy was going to have a heart attack, he was going to have it in Qatar or Iowa.
There were several soldiers who died in their sleep. A few died while training...ie:running.
If these soldiers were at home, then the accidents would have happened there.
It is unfair of the media to prop up the casualty lists just to create a panic and sell a newspaper, while undermining the war effort.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
and it's certainly no Vietnam.
It will be if it goes on for 25 years, as one senator from Nebraska has mentioned.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
It is unfair of the media to prop up the casualty lists just to create a panic and sell a newspaper, while undermining the war effort.
Yeah, the media is misleading us big time on this. You know that if a soldier gets wounded and is medivac'd then dies enroute to the med facility he's not included in the official combat death rolls in Bush's war?
Yeah, only the media has the audacity to fudge these numbers.
-
MrLars
your always posting stuff like this and never posting a link.
Sounds like BS to me.
-
BS, Lars...
Look at the casualty list I posted. Read the causes of death. I counted every last one of them.
If a soldier was wounded and died in Germany, Its counted.
If a soldier drowns in a swimming pool in Iraq...it's counted.
Tell me that's not inflating the number to sell panic.
-
1st Lt. Michael W. Vega 41 223rd Military Intelligence Company, 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion, California Army National Guard Lathrop, California Vega was injured when his military vehicle rolled over in Diwaniyah, Iraq, on March 11, 2004. He was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, in Washington, D.C., where he died on March 20, 2004.
This was one of many who were injured in traffic accidents, evacuated state side and died of their injuries in the USA.
They were counted as combat casualties by the press.
First page I pulled up...read the causes and then comment, Lars.
-
Muck
lol you're so optimistic!
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
1st Lt. Michael W. Vega 41 223rd Military Intelligence Company, 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion, California Army National Guard Lathrop, California Vega was injured when his military vehicle rolled over in Diwaniyah, Iraq, on March 11, 2004. He was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, in Washington, D.C., where he died on March 20, 2004.
This was one of many who were injured in traffic accidents, evacuated state side and died of their injuries in the USA.
They were counted as combat casualties by the press.
First page I pulled up...read the causes and then comment, Lars.
He was injured in a combat zone, correct?
A soldier injured/killed in theater should be shown as a combat casualtie... Seems reasonable..
dude
-
Yes but wasn't the fighting suppose to be over a year ago?
Did you get that from a Quiji board?
I don't remember anyone saying that fighting would be done by a certain date. Only Bush saying that major combat ops were finished. Unless you would consider the tit-for tat in Fallujah to be major combat ops (I don't), the major combat ops have been over. Now it is more just small guerilla tactics, nowhere near what would be described as "major".
I just love it when people make such statements as the one that. I heard some Iraqi woman asking where is all the money, jobs, etc that the US promised? I never heard us promise any such nonsense. If I could have, I would challenge her to show where that "promise" came from.
dago
-
Was it not said that the US would bring 'peace and prosperity' to Iraqi??
dude
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
He was injured in a combat zone, correct?
A soldier injured/killed in theater should be shown as a combat casualtie... Seems reasonable..
dude
Your missing the point...
Take the same 150,000 soldiers and put then at their home bases. Now one of them has a car accident on Interstate 80...
He's in a Humvee...does that make him a combat casualty?
If you said yes, then we've got a freakin' war zone going on every day in the USA.
Stop being obtuse and for once, be intellectually honest.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Your missing the point...
Take the same 150,000 soldiers and put then at their home bases. Now one of them has a car accident on Interstate 80...
He's in a Humvee...does that make him a combat casualty?
If you said yes, then we've got a freakin' war zone going on every day in the USA.
Stop being obtuse and for once, be intellectually honest.
imo no that would not make him a combat casualty if he was injured and died outside a theater of war...
dude
-
To me, it does not matter where he/she died.
They're heroic just for putting on the uniform.
What matters to me is the cause of death.
Traffic accidents, natural causes, and training accidents that routinely happen when not deployed should not be reported in the casualty lists.
All I want is a fair and honest reporting of the situation. I guess thats too much to ask for from the media, huh?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
He was injured in a combat zone, correct?
A soldier injured/killed in theater should be shown as a combat casualtie... Seems reasonable..
dude
I believe that is the criteria.
Muck, you honestly believe "The Media" is running a covert action against the American people? Do they transport these secret plans to dupe the unsuspecting public in their Black Helicopters? If anyone has been telling lies about the war, it has been Bush & Co.
I do have to agree this is nothing like Vietnam. In Vietnam we were engaged against an enemy that was fighting a guerilla war. You couldn't tell the civilians from the combatants and we were losing hundreds of soldiers each month...hmmm wait a minute.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
I believe that is the criteria.
Muck, you honestly believe "The Media" is running a covert action against the American people? Do they transport these secret plans to dupe the unsuspecting public in their Black Helicopters? If anyone has been telling lies about the war, it has been Bush & Co.
I do have to agree this is nothing like Vietnam. In Vietnam we were engaged against an enemy that was fighting a guerilla war. You couldn't tell the civilians from the combatants and we were losing hundreds of soldiers each month...hmmm wait a minute.
RPM-
I honestly believe the media is a business for profit. Plain and simply. Panic sells. They inflate the numbers. Are they collaborating on this effort to undermine the operation? Of course not. But they are putting their profit margins ahead of the greater good.
No matter how you slice it, at the very least it is poor journalism.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Coalition fatalities due to hostile action: 621 (3,022 wounded)
Non-combat related fatalities: 221 (444 injured)
Total coalition fatalities per 29 April 2004: 842 (3466 wounded/injured)
A nice graph: http://lunaville.com/warcasualties/Timelines.aspx
The total number works out the same, but I do not agree with the 621 due to hostile action.
I personally read every description of every combat death on the link provided and counted them up myself, taking out the ones caused by non-combat action.
-
Was it not said that the US would bring 'peace and prosperity' to Iraqi??
As soon as all the bad guys are dead or dispirited enough, sure. Might take a minute.
BTW, I have still not received my oil. Anyone know how to file a formal complaint?
-
Muck...while they did "inflate" the numbers the media did release the actual causes of death...you calculated the actual combat related deaths...theres nothing stopping anyone else...seems fair enough to me
-
You guys amaze me sometimes. Only 501 combat casualties? Yeah well that's OK then. Much better than that damm lefty media spin including all those accidents to makd GWB look bad and damage his election prospects. You can add the ten US military killed today, Thursday, all combat deaths. How many will die tonight as we sit all cosy and secure in our homes?
You can bury your head in the sand and console yourself with the figures as much as you like but there are over a hundred killed in action this month alone. There's a real war going on out there. Men are getting killed every day. It's not Vietnam but I dare say the combat soldiers can barely tell the difference.
The video on the news reminds of the footage from another April in Hue during the Tet offensive. Marines fighting street battles and taking casualties. Gunships pouring fire into rebel positions. But it's happening right now as I write this. This is not guerrila tactics. It's street fighting.
At what point do you wake up and realise that the whole damm thing has gone badly wrong. It wasn't supposed to be like this. You really can't blame liberal media spin or John Kerry for this mess.
Only 501 make that 511 combat deaths. Yes that's OK, not so bad.??? But the others died on active service in a hostile country. That counts. They were doing their duty and they died. It's insulting to their families to minimise their loss simply because it's politically embarrassing for their Commander in Chief and makes right wingers like Muckmaw uncomfortable. They died because of the war. End of story.
-
sorry for each loss of life but I think the average soldier accepts it better than the hand wringers back at home as unlike many of them, he believes he is doing the right thing for his country and proud to do it
whats a fireman without fires to fight, police without criminals - its what they signed up to do - let them do it with the knowing we back at home fully support and believe in them, not undermining the cause & thus them, at every turn
-
Originally posted by Eagler
whats a fireman without fires to fight, police without criminals - its what they signed up to do -
As analogies go, I do not think that is a good one.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
"So honor the valiant who die 'neath your sword, but pity the warrior who slays all his foes."
-"The Fall of Kang" by the Klingon poet G'trock
Yeah thats funny.
-
It seems that I was wrong, dead wrong on what I posted in this thread.
My source was similar to Rips source for his WMD post except that it's spin was in the opposite direction. A totaly unreliable and politcaly biased source that I should have never read seriously in the first place.
My apologies.
-
Mrlars!
<>
Takes a good man to admit when he was wrong..
-
Well seeing as your such a trekkie TARD
Live long and prosper:aok
-
Was it not said that the US would bring 'peace and prosperity' to Iraqi??
Oh yeah, we just forgot to flip the "instant peace and prosperity" switch on.
As VOR alluded, bringing about such a change might just take a while, it's a long process.
But please TheDudeDVant, post the link to where that was stated, I would be interested to read it.
dago
-
http://www.stoogeworld.com/_Stooge%20Sounds/Stooges%20waves/Coicumst.wav
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
After reading the list of causes of death, 501 were combat related.
"Bring them on."- George W. Bush
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Mrlars!
<>
Takes a good man to admit when he was wrong..
Yeah, I'm more embarrased than anything else, what a stupid mistake that was....live and learn I guess.
-
I'd be really interested to also know how many have been WOUNDED in Iraq.
We can assume most of the combat casualties are wounded.
Didn't they say theres like 8-10 wounded to 1 death? that would mean some 5000 wounded.
-
If anything Muck the media is under reporting causalities. Car accident?.. how?.. was he putting the peddle to the metal to get away from whom?.. a tank rolls into the river how?... did they have to make a sudden quick move?.. A 22 yr old perfectly physically fit solider dies from a heart attack. Now I gotta ask.. Did something happen to trigger this heart attack?.. something so terrible as to scare this kid quite literally to death?
Lately they’ve been reporting the deaths but not the wounded.. As we know, for every solider killed three are wounded.. seriously wounded to the point of having to be evacuated from the battlefield.. we’re talking spinal injuries, brain damage, amputations. Your list does not include fatalities that happen over time.. a few months later from infection.
You are also not including sub-contractors that provide security to firms like Halliburton. Using sub-contractors is always a good way to fudge causality numbers.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
If anything Muck the media is under reporting causalities. Car accident?.. how?.. was he putting the peddle to the metal to get away from whom?.. a tank rolls into the river how?... did they have to make a sudden quick move?.. A 22 yr old perfectly physically fit solider dies from a heart attack. Now I gotta ask.. Did something happen to trigger this heart attack?.. something so terrible as to scare this kid quite literally to death?
Lately they’ve been reporting the deaths but not the wounded.. As we know, for every solider killed three are wounded.. seriously wounded to the point of having to be evacuated from the battlefield.. we’re talking spinal injuries, brain damage, amputations. Your list does not include fatalities that happen over time.. a few months later from infection.
You are also not including sub-contractors that provide security to firms like Halliburton. Using sub-contractors is always a good way to fudge causality numbers.
The list of maimed and crippled has got to be huge I'm afraid.
Very good points above 10bears.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
You cannot count combat and non-combat together, because if a guy was going to have a heart attack, he was going to have it in Qatar or Iowa.
There were several soldiers who died in their sleep. A few died while training...ie:running.
If these soldiers were at home, then the accidents would have happened there.
It is unfair of the media to prop up the casualty lists just to create a panic and sell a newspaper, while undermining the war effort.
you dont know that the accidents would have hapenned at home because they didnt. They only real way to make your point would be to look at accident figures from years before the war.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Did you get that from a Quiji board?
I don't remember anyone saying that fighting would be done by a certain date. Only Bush saying that major combat ops were finished. Unless you would consider the tit-for tat in Fallujah to be major combat ops (I don't), the major combat ops have been over. Now it is more just small guerilla tactics, nowhere near what would be described as "major".
I just love it when people make such statements as the one that. I heard some Iraqi woman asking where is all the money, jobs, etc that the US promised? I never heard us promise any such nonsense. If I could have, I would challenge her to show where that "promise" came from.
dago
wow dago you are spinning like a top
-
strk
Easy to drop and insult and run, now maybe you could explain, offer counterpoint and show me wrong?
If you are capable that is.
dago
-
Originally posted by Eagler
sorry for each loss of life but I think the average soldier accepts it better than the hand wringers back at home as unlike many of them, he believes he is doing the right thing for his country and proud to do it
When you are in that situation you are fighting for the integrity of your unit and your brothers who are in it.
Combat deaths are very bad for morale. Ever heard of the Ghurka warrior? They are fierce, skilled warriors and fight with a curved knife that must draw blood each time it is unsheathed.
The Ghurka will attack a camp at night, and slit the throat of every other man.
-
LOL... fess up..
ldsurfer53 (2 posts) Thu Apr-29-04 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Combat Casualty Reports?
I had read somewhere that a wounded soldier that dies during a medevac isn't included as a combat causality in the official reports. Is this true? Anyone have more details if so?
Reason I'm asking is that I'm involved with a UBB group for a WWII era combat flight sim/game that is dominated by RW neo types. There are just a few of us, and I proudly say, LIBERALS and debunking all the RW spin there is a daunting task. Please help me here.
Yes I'm new, been lurking for many, many months.
who it it???!!!! now who is oldsurfer? lol
saw this on democratic underground
-
Originally posted by Dago
strk
Easy to drop and insult and run, now maybe you could explain, offer counterpoint and show me wrong?
If you are capable that is.
dago
ok sure. you dont have to get so snarky about it.
remember when Cheney said "They will welcome us with open arms" - like the allies in France they would throw flowers at our feet. Guess what? they are throwing grenades.
And weren't we supposed to be down to 30k troops at the end of last summer? Bremer had to disband the army and that left no power structure to keep control. What we have seen since then is the radical mullahs gaining importance and power as the iraqi youth come to see the US as invaders in a religious war. Ever hear of the Crusades?
Compare that to the US south, we got our tulips kicked by the yankees in 1865 and we still ***** about it. Why should we expect the Iraqis to accept their invaders any easier?
And yeah, I think that the fighting in Fallujah and Najaf is major combat operations. WHat they are doing is combined artillery, air strike and troop movements in a population center of a foreign country. Does'nt sound like a little "tit for tat" to me. Its not an exercise. Do you think it is some kind of freakin game? Do the deaths have to reach a certain number before they are considered "major" combat ops? Lets plop your bellybutton in the middle of Fallujah and you can come back and tell me if you were in "major" combat or not. Maybe then you will see why the distinction doesnt really mean too much.
Bush was over eager to proclaim victory and have his photo op. You seem a little over eager to defend him. spin spin spin!
-
Originally posted by strk
And yeah, I think that the fighting in Fallujah and Najaf is major combat operations. WHat they are doing is combined artillery, air strike and troop movements in a population center of a foreign country. Does'nt sound like a little "tit for tat" to me. Its not an exercise. Do you think it is some kind of freakin game? Do the deaths have to reach a certain number before they are considered "major" combat ops? Lets plop your bellybutton in the middle of Fallujah and you can come back and tell me if you were in "major" combat or not. Maybe then you will see why the distinction doesnt really mean too much.
B
Yeppers sounds like a war to me !
And I can only assume that If you could ask the Marines on the ground there they would tell ya its a war too!
-
Originally posted by stratman
Yeppers sounds like a war to me !
And I can only assume that If you could ask the Marines on the ground there they would tell ya its a war too!
amen
and God bless the United States Marine Corps
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Was it not said that the US would bring 'peace and prosperity' to Iraqi??
dude
Maybe in Iraq your own AK47 (the peace) and 20.00 a month (prosperity) ?
Noone promised em JOBS ...Just peace...and with peace will come prosperity.
I would guess though that in that part of the world...My former statment would be closer to correct
:confused:
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Maybe in Iraq your own AK47 (the peace) and 20.00 a month (prosperity) ?
Noone promised em JOBS ...Just peace...and with peace will come prosperity.
I would guess though that in that part of the world...My former statment would be closer to correct
:confused:
Actually it's otherway around.
Jobless people are restless people, no peace until they have something to do.
Then comes peace when most of the people are able to plan the future.
THEN comes prosperity.
When a person is unsure of his future, he is not peaceful
-
Muckmaw,
I think your the one missing the point. Do you really think for a moment that the family of that soilder care whether he was killed in a accident or to enemy action? To them he/she died in combat in a theatre of operations. That's why they count towards KIA figures. Don't try and seperate it to try and make the casualty numbers look lower.
Either way it's just as tragic. Worse thing I've seen regarding casualty figures is when they don't include the dead and wounded from the original invasion. Only since the occupation. To make the numers look lower then the Iraq war has truly cost.
I think that's a outrage to those that have fallen prior to the occupation.
...-Gixer
-
No Sir the real outrage is that any of them have had to die at all!
-
Worse thing I've seen regarding casualty figures is when they don't include the dead and wounded from the original invasion. Only since the occupation. To make the numers look lower then the Iraq war has truly cost.
04-2004 : 143
03-2004 : 52
02-2004 : 23
01-2004 : 52
12-2003 : 48
11-2003 : 110
10-2003 : 45
09-2003 : 33
08-2003 ; 43
07-2003 : 48
06-2003 : 36
05-2003 : 41
04-2003 : 79
03-2003 : 92
Total : 845
845 includes before occupation, as 03 and 04-2003 was the invasion time frame. I have never seen a news story where they do not include 03/2003.
It is not my intent to be callous here, and to a mother or a brother I am wrong, but this is extremely light casualties when taken in an historical perspective. During the January '68 tet offensive, US, Korea, and Austrailian forces lost 1,536. The battle of Iwo jima (Feb 19-Mar 26) cost 7,000 lives. Gettysburg lost 60,000 in three days, an average of over 833 an hour.
-
and there was a wee bit more men involved in these fights and fightning against rather equally armed enemies.
Can't compare "actual" war losses to iraq "war" losses.
Bad thing is this: Bush says Iraq will have it's own goverment in place during this year and there are still areas which are very volatile.
Major operations caused less losses than the aftermath they're undergoing.
Thats something to worry.
If US leaves Iraq too soon, it'll be an another afganistan. Hello Taliban.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
...Major operations caused less losses than the aftermath they're undergoing....
Not to get bogged down in statistics, but we lost over 7 per day during 3/03, the invasion.
During April 04, we lost over 4 per day. The reason we lost fewer during the invasion, is that it lasted only a few weeks, where the occupation has lasted a year.
We have lost more to indirect causes, i.e. traffic and other accidents, in the year than we lost in combat during the invasion.
We do need to wrap it up, but we need to finish the job first.
-
Yeah LOL but Bush is putting some of saddumbs ex generals incharge of fallujah LOL.
Hows that for CRAZY!!