Skip to comments.
U.S. Military Report: The High Death Rates Exposed (?????)
TBR News ^
| June 12, 2005
| Brian Herring
Posted on 06/16/2005 1:56:30 PM PDT by lugsoul
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
Okay - this is obviously pretty wacky. But it does raise an interesting question about the reporting of deaths, since the announcements usually track the news stories reporting deaths on the ground. Is it true that DoD is not including the death of those evacuated with injuries in the total count? If this is not true, it needs to be debunked.
Any evidence on the topic would be helpful - including correlation of names on the official list with soldiers, sailors, or marines who have died in Germany or elsewhere.
1
posted on
06/16/2005 1:56:31 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
To: lugsoul
I doubt its true, but so help me God if it is . . .
Alas, I'm not going to give it a second thought until I get more proof!
2
posted on
06/16/2005 1:58:24 PM PDT
by
ruiner
To: lugsoul
Soldiers die in war. Why do you think it makes such a big difference between 1700 or 1791? Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy to underreport only 5% of the fatalities?
3
posted on
06/16/2005 2:00:07 PM PDT
by
econ_grad
(The US Constitution presents no significant challenge to the government.)
To: ruiner
It is not true. Every Death is reported, even those who die in the hospital, which have been very few.I have a friend who works in the ICU at Lundstrum and they do a wonderful job of keeping our guys alive and able to recover.
4
posted on
06/16/2005 2:02:23 PM PDT
by
milbuf
To: lugsoul
This is an obvious anti-Bush website. Just so ya know.
5
posted on
06/16/2005 2:02:33 PM PDT
by
xrp
(Fox News Channel should rename itself the Missing Persons Network)
To: lugsoul
I'd think it would be pretty odd if Ted Koppel was reading the names of every single American killed in Iraq and there were like 14,000 parents who didn't hear their kids name.
To: lugsoul
It's not true. I've a son in Ramadi. I follow DOD list religiously. Those that die of wounds later are reported.
Nor did Bush order the casket pictures to be kept secret. That happened years before. And I am no Bush fan.
To: lugsoul
Liberal propaganda. Ignore it.
8
posted on
06/16/2005 2:03:55 PM PDT
by
Right_at_RiceU
(You don't need a gun to kill hippies, just soap or work.)
To: All
...This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 either deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 dead, over 16,000 seriously wounded* (See note below. This figure is now over 24,000 Ed) and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians ...
This is crap.
9
posted on
06/16/2005 2:03:57 PM PDT
by
DHerion
To: lugsoul
I wouldn't be surprised if the total dead is higher. And the seriously wounded is in the thousands..... we are stupid if we expect to replay vietnam exactly and are waiting for victory.
If you want victory you have to fight like WW2. We are Naming this thing.
There is NO reason we should allow Syria to kill our troops without even lifting a finger - DO YOU HEAR ME mR. BUSH!
10
posted on
06/16/2005 2:04:05 PM PDT
by
TomasUSMC
(FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
To: xrp
Anti-Bush that is putting it mildly. It appears to be some sort of screwball pro-Nazi revisionist, moral equivalence site.
To: econ_grad
U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted. They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005.
This is the claim they're trying to make.
12
posted on
06/16/2005 2:04:26 PM PDT
by
andyk
(Go Matt Kenseth!)
To: econ_grad
I don't think that's what his numbers say, though that seems to be what the headline says. Looks more like he is saying it isn't 1700, or 1791, but 7000.
That being said, if medevacs aren't included in the total, that would likely be more than 90 or so. We've had several thousand medevac'd from Iraq, and one could assume they are the serious cases. I doubt the fatality rate would be that low.
13
posted on
06/16/2005 2:04:45 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
To: lugsoul
Iraqi civilian casualties are never reported but International Red Cross, Red Crescent and UN figures indicate that as of 1 January 2005, the numbers are just under 100,000. That's not true (if "casualties" means "deaths"), so presumably the rest is equally dubious.
14
posted on
06/16/2005 2:04:59 PM PDT
by
untenured
(http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com)
To: xrp
The Army is not organized enough to keep this many deaths secret for this long. This is not a true statistic. We've lost the better part of 2,000 young men and women and we should not lose sight of that, but as you say, this is an anti-Bush website and appears to have little regard for the truth.
Thag
15
posted on
06/16/2005 2:05:18 PM PDT
by
thag
(Cuffs and leather and a whip that stings-These are a few of my favorite things.........)
To: lugsoul
Where did you get this dumb story?
16
posted on
06/16/2005 2:05:26 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(The Left cannot win a national election ever again.)
To: Question Liberal Authority; lugsoul
* OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM includes casualties that occurred on or after March 19, 2003 in the Arabian Sea, Bahrain, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Persian Gulf, Qatar, Red Sea, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirateshttp://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
17
posted on
06/16/2005 2:06:06 PM PDT
by
Coop
(In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
To: Admin Moderator
Moderator please pull out this lie.
18
posted on
06/16/2005 2:06:06 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(The Left cannot win a national election ever again.)
To: robowombat
Yeah, I just looked over it in more detail and it is clear that it is anti-Christian, anti-Bush, anti-conservative and anti-American.
19
posted on
06/16/2005 2:06:10 PM PDT
by
xrp
(Fox News Channel should rename itself the Missing Persons Network)
To: lugsoul
Only read the headline. Stand corrected.
20
posted on
06/16/2005 2:06:33 PM PDT
by
econ_grad
(The US Constitution presents no significant challenge to the government.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson