Total *CONFIRMED* Iraq Casualties So Far: 612
--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--
2x to get the real amount. They also haven't released any figures on how
many trucks and other assorted unarmored vehicles have been destroyed. I
also doubt they're reporting all the destroyed UAVs. Wounded so far are
over 11,000 according to *hospital* reports. The Pentagone continues to
deny it...
Coalition servicemen killed in the war against Iraq:
Killed announced as of 27th of January: 612 (514 US, 57 UK, 18 Italia, 10
Spain, 5 Bulgary, 3 Ukraine, 2 Poland, 2 Thailand, 1 Denmark)
Missing: 3 (3 US)
Casualties divided by service branch:
Note! The number in brackets indicates how many of the total casualties are
from Territorial Army, National Guard or Reserves.
87 (US Marine Corps)
409 [48] (US Army)
5 [1] (US Air Force)
6 (US Navy)
9 (US Special Operations Command)
6 (Royal Navy)
4 (Royal Air Force)
11 (Royal Marines)
36 [3] (British Army)
1 (Danish Army)
3 (Ukrainian Army)
8 (Spanish Intelligence Center)
2 (Spanish Army)
2 (Polish Army)
18 (Italian Army)
5 (Bulgarian Army)
2 (Thailand Army)
Aircraft losses by aircraft type and nationality:
10 Attack Helicopters (US)
14 Transport Helicopters (US)
1 Combat Assault Hel. (US)
2 Medevac Helicopters (US)
5 Reconnaissance Hel. (US)
2 Transport Planes (US)
2 Strike Planes (US)
1 Attack/ASW Planes (US)
4 Fighters (US)
1 UAV (US)
2 Transport Helicopters (UK)
1 Strike Plane (UK)
1 UAV (UK)
Armor losses by vehicle type and nationality:
13 Main Battle Tanks (US)
10 Infantry Fighting Vehicles (US)
6 Armored Personnel Carrier (US)
1 Self-propelled Artillery Piece (US)
1 Main Battle Tank (UK)
--
--=( Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян )=----- ----- --- - -
Rebel Alliance Galactic Usenet News Service
--- --- ---=================----------- - -
http://rebelnews.modblog.com/files/profile/files/RebelNews.gif
King Pineapple
wrote in message news:OBK947DA05F...@r2-dv8.anarchy.gov...
> Keep in mind these are the Pentagone figures, so multiply them by at least
> 2x to get the real amount.
Rationale for such "logic"?
>
>
> Coalition servicemen killed in the war against Iraq:
>
> Killed announced as of 27th of January: 612 (514 US, 57 UK, 18 Italia, 10
> Spain, 5 Bulgary, 3 Ukraine, 2 Poland, 2 Thailand, 1 Denmark)
>
> Missing: 3 (3 US)
That's about the same number of service people killed in non-combat
accidents in any given year. Next?
"We're not inflicting pain on these f*ckers.
When people kill us, they should be killed
in greater numbers.
I believe in killing people who try to hurt you.
And I can't believe we're being pushed
around by these two-bit pricks.
Bill Clinton, quoted by George Stephanopoulos,
"All Too Human: A Political Education"
--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--
<saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Idle College Vacant Apartment "--= Ö§āmā ßķń Kėń0ßķ =--"
> <ab...@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
> news:OBK947DA05F...@r2-dv8.anarchy.gov...
>
>> Keep in mind these are the Pentagone figures, so multiply them by at
>> least 2x to get the real amount.
>
> Rationale for such "logic"?
Spec Op,intelligence agent, contractor, and civilian casualties not being
reported. Those dead from "accidents" not always being reported.
Also those dying later in hospital usually not being reported. Then the fact
that 11,000 have needed evacuation out of Iraq for various medical reasons
shows there are a great deal of incidents than we are being told about.
Also the fact that they did the same thing in Vietnam and no one found out
for years.
Btw, after I wrote the original message, 6 more U$ troops have been killed.
You can read about it later.
>>
>> Coalition servicemen killed in the war against Iraq:
>>
>> Killed announced as of 27th of January: 612 (514 US, 57 UK, 18 Italia,
>> 10 Spain, 5 Bulgary, 3 Ukraine, 2 Poland, 2 Thailand, 1 Denmark)
>>
>> Missing: 3 (3 US)
>
> That's about the same number of service people killed in non-combat
> accidents in any given year. Next?
Well then you can count it as 1200 if you want. Afghan casualties not
included.
But I realize casualties are not the only thing that determine who wins or
loses a war. The thing is, the U$ is losing in all respects so far.
> "We're not inflicting pain on these f*ckers.
> When people kill us, they should be killed
> in greater numbers.
> I believe in killing people who try to hurt you.
> And I can't believe we're being pushed
> around by these two-bit pricks.
>
> Bill Clinton, quoted by George Stephanopoulos,
> "All Too Human: A Political Education"
Yes, the key part of that quote being "WHO TRY TO HURT YOU".
The Iraqis didn't try to hurt us, we invaded them.
--
--=( Ö§āmā ßķń Kėń0ßķ )=----- ----- --- - -
FP
counted, Occupation foreign contractors, Occupation foreign intelligence
agents, and Western journalists killed in Iraq. Throw in the possible
100 CIA/DIA dead, and you get 813.
--
Islamic Jihad leader Shaik Nafez Azzam 12-03:
"You the Jews are invited to live in safety in Palestine, the whole..."
Wait, but I thought the nasty A-rabs wanted to toss the poor Jews into
the sea!
FP
>
> A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, "King Pineapple"
> <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > <ab...@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
> > news:OBK947DA05F...@r2-dv8.anarchy.gov...
> >
> >> Keep in mind these are the Pentagone figures, so multiply them by at
> >> least 2x to get the real amount.
> >
> > Rationale for such "logic"?
>
> Spec Op,intelligence agent, contractor, and civilian casualties not being
> reported. Those dead from "accidents" not always being reported.
I am. I have another 101 from those at least, or maybe 201.
>
> Also those dying later in hospital usually not being reported.
I have 6 so far, and 3 other US military KIA not reported.
Then the fact
> that 11,000 have needed evacuation out of Iraq for various medical reasons
> shows there are a great deal of incidents than we are being told about.
Usually not killed.
>
> Also the fact that they did the same thing in Vietnam and no one found out
> for years.
Not true.
>
> Btw, after I wrote the original message, 6 more U$ troops have been killed.
> You can read about it later.
Correct, my total now 719, or 819, take your pick.>
> >>
> >> Coalition servicemen killed in the war against Iraq:
> >>
> >> Killed announced as of 27th of January: 612 (514 US, 57 UK, 18 Italia,
> >> 10 Spain, 5 Bulgary, 3 Ukraine, 2 Poland, 2 Thailand, 1 Denmark)
> >>
> >> Missing: 3 (3 US)
> >
> > That's about the same number of service people killed in non-combat
> > accidents in any given year. Next?
>
> Well then you can count it as 1200 if you want. Afghan casualties not
> included.
Pineapple's logic is insane and he is either stupid or a LIAR. Fact is,
we need to look at total US force in Iraq: 129,000. Death rate = ~76
per year in peacetime for that size force, or 6.3 per month or 1.5 per
week, or .2 per day. Since we have been in Iraq now for 43 weeks, that
means the US force that size would have suffered 64-65 killed in USA.
That is the real figure - so there have been 550 excess US deaths,
minimum in Iraq so far. Those ppl would not have died in USA.
>
> But I realize casualties are not the only thing that determine who wins or
> loses a war. The thing is, the U$ is losing in all respects so far.
Well, the war is unwinnable.
yonner
> Correct, my total now 719, or 819, take your pick.>
Either way that's pretty good for a major campaign I'd say.
Remind me how many died in any given 12 month period of WWI & WWII ?
Tempest
> FP wrote:
>
> > Correct, my total now 719, or 819, take your pick.>
>
> Either way that's pretty good for a major campaign I'd say.
A major campaign?
Against a country who couldn't defend itself?
Has American sunk so low that a war against a clawless tiger is now
considered a "major campaign"?
> Remind me how many died in any given 12 month period of WWI & WWII ?
Apples and oranges.
What if Germany had the same capabilities as Iraq?
droode
"Tempest" <mordacp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2df29c5c.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "yonner" <yon...@bedroomtalent.com> wrote in message
news:<bv8l1h$o5rkd$1...@ID-132564.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > FP wrote:
> >
> > > Correct, my total now 719, or 819, take your pick.>
> >
> > Either way that's pretty good for a major campaign I'd say.
>
> A major campaign?
>
> Against a country who couldn't defend itself?
>
> Has American sunk so low that a war against a clawless tiger is now
> considered a "major campaign"?
>
can you recall ANY war America has fought in and won? They were too little
too late in both world wars of the last century and lost badly in Nam....
since then they have been invading places like Panama and calling them
"major campaigns" They even lost the first war against Iraq...Saddam stayed
in power, Badgdad never fell. ..
--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--
> In addition, at least 101 Coalition civilians, 9 more US military not
> counted, Occupation foreign contractors, Occupation foreign intelligence
> agents, and Western journalists killed in Iraq. Throw in the possible
> 100 CIA/DIA dead, and you get 813.
Any idea how many dead in Afghanistan? There were 7 U$ troops killed today
alone. Maybe we have already hit past 1000?
Anyway, this is exactly what happened in Vietnam, Amerikans were sitting
around feeling patriotic, they were repeatedly told everything was fine by
embedded reporters, until some slightly more honest reporters discovered just
how many troops were being killed and FORCED the Pentagone to admit the
truth. Amerikans went into shock, their whole worldview was turned upside
down.
They'll get an even bigger shock when they learn what the Bu$h family was
really up to all these years.
--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--
>> Also those dying later in hospital usually not being reported.
>
> I have 6 so far, and 3 other US military KIA not reported.
Where did you get these figures?
> Then the fact
>> that 11,000 have needed evacuation out of Iraq for various medical
>> reasons shows there are a great deal of incidents than we are being
>> told about.
>
> Usually not killed.
Yes, but look at how many incidents they have covered up. They still refuse
to acknowledge what the hospitals have reported.
>> Also the fact that they did the same thing in Vietnam and no one found
>> out for years.
>
> Not true.
People didn't even know how many troops were involved at first. The
casualties started getting reported when we started getting 1000+ dead per
month. We weren't being told the casualties from small operations and day
to day skirmishes, ambushes, etc. It's only after the Pentagon Papers that
the whole truth had to be told.
>> >>
>> >> Coalition servicemen killed in the war against Iraq:
>> >>
>> >> Killed announced as of 27th of January: 612 (514 US, 57 UK, 18
>> >> Italia, 10 Spain, 5 Bulgary, 3 Ukraine, 2 Poland, 2 Thailand, 1
>> >> Denmark)
>> >>
>> >> Missing: 3 (3 US)
>> >
>> > That's about the same number of service people killed in non-combat
>> > accidents in any given year. Next?
>>
>> Well then you can count it as 1200 if you want. Afghan casualties not
>> included.
>
> Pineapple's logic is insane and he is either stupid or a LIAR.
I think he's a liar with a distinct agenda, but could be both. :^)
> Fact is,
> we need to look at total US force in Iraq: 129,000. Death rate = ~76
> per year in peacetime for that size force, or 6.3 per month or 1.5 per
> week, or .2 per day. Since we have been in Iraq now for 43 weeks, that
> means the US force that size would have suffered 64-65 killed in USA.
> That is the real figure - so there have been 550 excess US deaths,
> minimum in Iraq so far. Those ppl would not have died in USA.
How many died in the first year of major combat in Vietnam? Also, the
number of troops in Vietnam was much higher than in Iraq.
I don't think Iraq is going to be another Vietnam, but I do think it's
going to be like the USSR's Afghanistan. The Soviets conquered Afghanistan
in two weeks, then slowly bled to death. That war basically put the last
nail in the USSR's coffin, not because of casualties alone, but the COST of
the war. The U$ is headed for exactly the same thing.
I don't see what the point of all this is, except for certain factions in
the U$ which still dream of creating an global Empire.
>> But I realize casualties are not the only thing that determine who wins
>> or loses a war. The thing is, the U$ is losing in all respects so far.
>
> Well, the war is unwinnable.
Yep.
--
--=( Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян )=----- ----- --- - -
--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--
<yon...@bedroomtalent.com> wrote:
You can call it WW2 when the entire world counterattacks against Amerika,
because it is Amerika that is playing the role of the Nazi Empire right now.
Good intentions or not, people don't like to be forced to do things by guns
(or cruise missiles) held to their head. Even more so when their supposed
"liberator" calls them "evil", "terrorists", and "primitive".
Vietnam or the USSR's Afghanistan campaign are a much more accurate
comparison than WW2. Even Vietnam is not really that good to compare against
because there you had 5x as many troops involved. So I guess multiply Iraq
casualties by 5x if you want to compare it to one year of combat in Vietnam.
What I don't understand is why the Iraqis couldn't just fight a more
conventional war instead of allowing all their equipment to be destroyed.
They could have hid their tanks and artillery, etc., instead of just dumping
it in the open.
--
--=( Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян )=----- ----- --- - -
Tempest
"--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--" wrote:
>
> A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, "yonner"
> <yon...@bedroomtalent.com> wrote:
>
> >> Correct, my total now 719, or 819, take your pick.>
> >
> > Either way that's pretty good for a major campaign I'd say.
> > Remind me how many died in any given 12 month period of WWI & WWII ?
>
> You can call it WW2 when the entire world counterattacks against Amerika,
> because it is Amerika that is playing the role of the Nazi Empire right now.
> Good intentions or not, people don't like to be forced to do things by guns
> (or cruise missiles) held to their head. Even more so when their supposed
> "liberator" calls them "evil", "terrorists", and "primitive".
>
> Vietnam or the USSR's Afghanistan campaign are a much more accurate
> comparison than WW2. Even Vietnam is not really that good to compare against
> because there you had 5x as many troops involved. So I guess multiply Iraq
> casualties by 5x if you want to compare it to one year of combat in Vietnam.
>
> What I don't understand is why the Iraqis couldn't just fight a more
> conventional war instead of allowing all their equipment to be destroyed.
> They could have hid their tanks and artillery, etc., instead of just dumping
> it in the open.
Most of Saddam's military leaders were bribed by the CIA and just walked
away from the front line.
Iraqi soldiers are quoted as saying their leaders told them not to fight
back.
--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
- George Orwell
FP
Ok, cool honcho. So how much longer does it go on. Whether it is good
for a major campaign or not (I agree with you) is not relevant. War is
politics by other means. What matters is how many casualties the US
will tolerate and whether this war accomplished anything intelligent, or
made things worse. Or else is rather unimportant.
--
"You the Jews are invited to live in safety in Palestine, the whole...".
Islamic Jihad leader Shaik Nafez Azzam 12-03.
"(Hamas)...is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the
followers of other religions. Under the wing of Islam, it is possible
for...Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in peace and quiet with
each other." Hamas Charter, 1988.
In a 8-8-82 speech before the Israeli National Defense College, Menachem
Begin admitted that Israel started the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1982, not
the Arabs.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm
FP
>
> "yonner" <yon...@bedroomtalent.com> wrote in message news:<bv8l1h$o5rkd$1...@ID-132564.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > FP wrote:
> >
> > > Correct, my total now 719, or 819, take your pick.>
> >
> > Either way that's pretty good for a major campaign I'd say.
>
> A major campaign?
>
> Against a country who couldn't defend itself?
>
> Has American sunk so low that a war against a clawless tiger is now
> considered a "major campaign"?
By my calcs, we had 288-1 advantage and much more postwar. That is like
a Sumo wrestler vs a 2 yr old girl. Of course he kicks her ass. Of
course we did too. Big deal!
FP
>
>
> >> Also those dying later in hospital usually not being reported.
> >
> > I have 6 so far, and 3 other US military KIA not reported.
>
> Where did you get these figures?
From a news article, 6 of the 6000 medevac'd due to illness died at
home, reportedly all from "mystery illness" whatever TF that is. 2
suicided due to being bummed about mystery illness and 4 died from
mystery illness itself. All not included in DOD I guess. Another is
Rachel Lacy, dead 4-4 of apparently the anthrax vaccine and 2 guys
overboard on ships going home. None included, so I get 9.
>
> > Then the fact
> >> that 11,000 have needed evacuation out of Iraq for various medical
> >> reasons shows there are a great deal of incidents than we are being
> >> told about.
> >
> > Usually not killed.
>
> Yes, but look at how many incidents they have covered up.
?! U live in US? You cannot hide deaths in war in USA. CIA, DIA and
*perhaps Special Forces, yes, all others no way.
They still refuse
> to acknowledge what the hospitals have reported.
No they do not at all. Those high medevac figures come from military
folks at those hospitals.
>
> >> Also the fact that they did the same thing in Vietnam and no one found
> >> out for years.
> >
> > Not true.
>
> People didn't even know how many troops were involved at first. The
> casualties started getting reported when we started getting 1000+ dead per
> month. We weren't being told the casualties from small operations and day
> to day skirmishes, ambushes, etc. It's only after the Pentagon Papers that
> the whole truth had to be told.
Well wait a minute. Some guy dies, no report? How bout his relatives?
Do they know or not?>
> >> >>
> >> >> Coalition servicemen killed in the war against Iraq:
> >> >>
> >> >> Killed announced as of 27th of January: 612 (514 US, 57 UK, 18
> >> >> Italia, 10 Spain, 5 Bulgary, 3 Ukraine, 2 Poland, 2 Thailand, 1
> >> >> Denmark)
> >> >>
> >> >> Missing: 3 (3 US)
> >> >
> >> > That's about the same number of service people killed in non-combat
> >> > accidents in any given year. Next?
> >>
> >> Well then you can count it as 1200 if you want. Afghan casualties not
> >> included.
> >
> > Pineapple's logic is insane and he is either stupid or a LIAR.
>
> I think he's a liar with a distinct agenda, but could be both. :^)
>
> > Fact is,
> > we need to look at total US force in Iraq: 129,000. Death rate = ~76
> > per year in peacetime for that size force, or 6.3 per month or 1.5 per
> > week, or .2 per day. Since we have been in Iraq now for 43 weeks, that
> > means the US force that size would have suffered 64-65 killed in USA.
> > That is the real figure - so there have been 550 excess US deaths,
> > minimum in Iraq so far. Those ppl would not have died in USA.
>
> How many died in the first year of major combat in Vietnam?
Hardly any.
Also, the
> number of troops in Vietnam was much higher than in Iraq.
Later on, yes, not at the start.
>
> I don't think Iraq is going to be another Vietnam, but I do think it's
> going to be like the USSR's Afghanistan. The Soviets conquered Afghanistan
> in two weeks, then slowly bled to death. That war basically put the last
> nail in the USSR's coffin, not because of casualties alone, but the COST of
> the war. The U$ is headed for exactly the same thing.
I do not know, but it is unwinnable, and I see it as spreading and there
may be economic consequences. Sounds like disaster to me.
>
> I don't see what the point of all this is,
Basically the typical move of a declining oligarchy lashing desperately
trying to stay in power. Declining rates of US profits are also
involved.
Jews? Israel? Fundamentalist Christians? Conservative warmonger
assholes with a hardon? Corrupt corporations? Military-industrial
complex? Empires need wars, and these guys are going for broke.
except for certain factions in
> the U$ which still dream of creating an global Empire.
Well these dicks woke up and realized that the US military is like the
baddest thing the world has ever seen, US economy is bigger than anyone,
so it is like HEY WTF, let's go for broke, go out and kick ass all over
the place, and do some major hardcore expansion of the US empire, fuck
over Europe, Russia and China, kick ass and take names, become dictator
of the world, make everyone bow down before us, open up the Arab market
to US goods, redraw the Middle East maps, kick major terrorist ass, grab
most of the world's depleting oil supplies......power corrupts man.
The US has had an empire for a very long time. We have been an
imperialist state for a long time. The world is a chess board to the
imperialist powers - they are always trying to fuck each other over,
dominate more territory, open up markets for their products and close
them off for their enemies. War is the natural state of imperialism.
Most imperialist countries are driven to wars the same way businesses
compete. War is one of the ways the capitalist powers compete for each
other for the control of the world's resources. If you are an
imperialist country, you are driven to war, because you either go to
war, or your corporations lose a ton of business in some part of the
world. Imperialism is REALITY not a newfangled thing. These neocons
are just getting more blatant and colonial about it.
FP
>
>
> > In addition, at least 101 Coalition civilians, 9 more US military not
> > counted, Occupation foreign contractors, Occupation foreign intelligence
> > agents, and Western journalists killed in Iraq. Throw in the possible
> > 100 CIA/DIA dead, and you get 813.
>
> Any idea how many dead in Afghanistan?
Yes. US military is like 107 now I think. Other coalition military,
contractors, spies, journalists, coalition civilians, I have no idea!
There were 7 U$ troops killed today
> alone. Maybe we have already hit past 1000?
Add 107 and you get 920. Then someone has to figger out the # in this
category: Other coalition military, contractors, spies, journalists,
coalition civilians. Which I am not about to do!
>
> Anyway, this is exactly what happened in Vietnam, Amerikans were sitting
> around feeling patriotic, they were repeatedly told everything was fine by
> embedded reporters, until some slightly more honest reporters discovered just
> how many troops were being killed and FORCED the Pentagone to admit the
> truth.
Hmmmmm, ok, really it was TET.
Amerikans went into shock, their whole worldview was turned upside
> down.
T - E - T. That did it.
>
> They'll get an even bigger shock when they learn what the Bu$h family was
> really up to all these years.
The US has basically been ruled by a gang of particularly nasty
criminals since Vietnam, IMHO. The Bushies a *prime* example!
--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--
wrote:
>> What I don't understand is why the Iraqis couldn't just fight a more
>> conventional war instead of allowing all their equipment to be
>> destroyed. They could have hid their tanks and artillery, etc., instead
>> of just dumping it in the open.
>
> Most of Saddam's military leaders were bribed by the CIA and just walked
> away from the front line.
I get the feeling many of them just wanted to get rid of Saddam, but had no
intention of genuinely siding with Amerika. Many of the same leaders are now
no doubt fighting over who will lead the new government.
Still, why not hide some heavy firepower, especially artillery and AA guns?
One 20mm AA gun mounted on a pickup truck, or hidden in some bushes could
take out a whole U$ convoy and then be hidden again to be used later.
Maybe they're saving the heavy stuff for the civil war that's to come after
the Amerikans are kicked out.
> Iraqi soldiers are quoted as saying their leaders told them not to fight
> back.
But obviously they or someone planned to resist the occupation afterwards, so
why not prepare for it?
--
--=( Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян )=----- ----- --- - -
Rebel Alliance Galactic Usenet News Service
--- --- ---=================----------- - -
--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--
> "--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--" wrote:
>>
>> A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, FP <F...@fp.can> wrote:
>>
>> >> Also those dying later in hospital usually not being reported.
>> >
>> > I have 6 so far, and 3 other US military KIA not reported.
>>
>> Where did you get these figures?
>
> From a news article, 6 of the 6000 medevac'd due to illness died at
> home, reportedly all from "mystery illness" whatever TF that is.
> 2 suicided due to being bummed about mystery illness and 4 died from
> mystery illness itself. All not included in DOD I guess. Another is
> Rachel Lacy, dead 4-4 of apparently the anthrax vaccine and 2 guys
> overboard on ships going home. None included, so I get 9.
They managed to cover up that vaccine problem pretty well, didn't they? It
was responsible for ~200 soldiers getting sick, and at least the ones
mentioned above dying from it. The families of those soldiers should sue
Merck, or whoever it was that made that faulty vaccine, not just sue the
military.
>> > Then the fact
>> >> that 11,000 have needed evacuation out of Iraq for various medical
>> >> reasons shows there are a great deal of incidents than we are being
>> >> told about.
>> >
>> > Usually not killed.
>>
>> Yes, but look at how many incidents they have covered up.
>
> ?! U live in US? You cannot hide deaths in war in USA. CIA, DIA and
> *perhaps Special Forces, yes, all others no way.
You can't hide some of them, but you can publicize them so that they seem far
less worse than they are. You can classify them so that they could be
seperated to artificially lower the total. You can delay their reporting
until a time when they will slip under the radar as seemingly insignificant.
You can also do the things mentioned here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij01312004.html
> They still refuse
>> to acknowledge what the hospitals have reported.
>
> No they do not at all. Those high medevac figures come from military
> folks at those hospitals.
Yep. I bet the people who reported them got a visit shortly after too.
Haven't heard anything from them again. The wounded now must be up to 13,000
at least, from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
>> >> Also the fact that they did the same thing in Vietnam and no one
>> >> found out for years.
>> >
>> > Not true.
>>
>> People didn't even know how many troops were involved at first. The
>> casualties started getting reported when we started getting 1000+ dead
>> per month. We weren't being told the casualties from small operations
>> and day to day skirmishes, ambushes, etc. It's only after the Pentagon
>> Papers that the whole truth had to be told.
>
> Well wait a minute. Some guy dies, no report? How bout his relatives?
> Do they know or not?
They could be told months later. Even if they were told, what would they do?
We had an even more secretive government back then than we do now. We didn't
have quite the same mass media to scandalize things as quickly, and we didn't
have the internet.
Basically, it was alot easier to keep people quiet back then.
This is why the same old crowd from the Pentagone is having alot of
unexpected trouble keeping their crimes quiet now. They didn't anticipate how
much of a role the internet would play.
Look at how much of the info we have now is coming from websites and Usenet,
just imagine if this was not here what Bu$h could have gotten away with.
>> > Fact is,
>> > we need to look at total US force in Iraq: 129,000. Death rate = ~76
>> > per year in peacetime for that size force, or 6.3 per month or 1.5
>> > per week, or .2 per day. Since we have been in Iraq now for 43
>> > weeks, that means the US force that size would have suffered 64-65
>> > killed in USA. That is the real figure - so there have been 550
>> > excess US deaths, minimum in Iraq so far. Those ppl would not have
>> > died in USA.
>>
>> How many died in the first year of major combat in Vietnam?
>
> Hardly any.
No, in first year of major combat, not the first year. AFAIK it was ~2000. It
was years later when Vietnam hit the peak it was remembered for. For the
first several years people didn't think much about the casualties, the media
didn't even bother to check. We had tens of thousands of troops quietly
deployed there that Amerikans didn't even know where there in such force!
> Also, the
>> number of troops in Vietnam was much higher than in Iraq.
>
> Later on, yes, not at the start.
They also didn't do any serious fighting at the start, mostly supported the
South Vietnamese and bombed a few things here and there.
>> I don't think Iraq is going to be another Vietnam, but I do think it's
>> going to be like the USSR's Afghanistan. The Soviets conquered
>> Afghanistan in two weeks, then slowly bled to death. That war basically
>> put the last nail in the USSR's coffin, not because of casualties
>> alone, but the COST of the war. The U$ is headed for exactly the same
>> thing.
>
> I do not know, but it is unwinnable, and I see it as spreading and there
> may be economic consequences. Sounds like disaster to me.
Economic consequences for everyone except the military/Homeland SS
contractors, and energy companies. Not surprisingly, most with direct ties to
Bu$h-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Perle.
This is just a money grab, embezzlement of tax $$$. They don't care about
what happens to the economy because they're not going to affected by it. All
they had to do is keep squeezing money out of taxpayers that could have been
used for much better things.
Not to mention outsource all the tech jobs away to India, and flood the
country with illegal Mexicans.
Why? All for their own personal profit. They're using this phony war to
divert attention away from their schemes, and in part, using it to plunder
taxpayers.
Every time Bu$h wants a law passed, or $$$ embezzled, he merely needs to
mention the war on terror and Amerika bends over and opens wide.
Bu$h IS the terror.
>> I don't see what the point of all this is,
>
> Basically the typical move of a declining oligarchy lashing desperately
> trying to stay in power. Declining rates of US profits are also
> involved.
Agreed.
> Jews? Israel? Fundamentalist Christians? Conservative warmonger
> assholes with a hardon? Corrupt corporations? Military-industrial
> complex? Empires need wars, and these guys are going for broke.
Agreed.
> except for certain factions in
>> the U$ which still dream of creating an global Empire.
>
> Well these dicks woke up and realized that the US military is like the
> baddest thing the world has ever seen, US economy is bigger than anyone,
> so it is like HEY WTF, let's go for broke, go out and kick ass all over
> the place, and do some major hardcore expansion of the US empire, fuck
> over Europe, Russia and China, kick ass and take names, become dictator
> of the world, make everyone bow down before us, open up the Arab market
> to US goods, redraw the Middle East maps, kick major terrorist ass, grab
> most of the world's depleting oil supplies......power corrupts man.
Exactly.
> The US has had an empire for a very long time.
WW1 did it. The U$ waited for Europe and Russia to screw themselves over,
then came in as saviour. The U$ now could call itself the "good guys" and it
was difficult to dispute it, most fell for it. WW2 comes around and they do
the same thing again.
WW2, with Prescott Bu$h and many other U$ businessmen helping to finance the
Third Reich.
> We have been an
> imperialist state for a long time. The world is a chess board to the
> imperialist powers - they are always trying to fuck each other over,
> dominate more territory, open up markets for their products and close
> them off for their enemies. War is the natural state of imperialism.
> Most imperialist countries are driven to wars the same way businesses
> compete. War is one of the ways the capitalist powers compete for each
> other for the control of the world's resources. If you are an
> imperialist country, you are driven to war, because you either go to
> war, or your corporations lose a ton of business in some part of the
> world. Imperialism is REALITY not a newfangled thing. These neocons
> are just getting more blatant and colonial about it.
Agreed. But I think it's about time to stop it. At least, everyone must do
everything they can to screw these scumbags back... and make $$$ in the
process.
That's the mistake of the hippies, don't drop out of society, don't hope for
peace, fuck society and make it pay.
--
--=( Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян )=----- ----- --- - -
Rebel Alliance Galactic Usenet News Service
--- --- ---=================----------- - -
--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--
>> They'll get an even bigger shock when they learn what the Bu$h family was
>> really up to all these years.
>
> The US has basically been ruled by a gang of particularly nasty
> criminals since Vietnam, IMHO. The Bushies a *prime* example!
>
No, since JFK was taken out of the picture. My guess is that he didn't want
to escalate in Vietnam beyond the initial advisors.
The criminals happen to be from Texas, starting with Lyndon Johnson.
--
--=( Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян )=----- ----- --- - -
Rebel Alliance Galactic Usenet News Service
--- --- ---=================----------- - -
Don W. McCollough
> A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, "yonner"
> <yon...@bedroomtalent.com> wrote:
>
> >> Correct, my total now 719, or 819, take your pick.>
> >
> > Either way that's pretty good for a major campaign I'd say.
> > Remind me how many died in any given 12 month period of WWI & WWII ?
>
> You can call it WW2 when the entire world counterattacks against Amerika,
> because it is Amerika that is playing the role of the Nazi Empire right now.
> Good intentions or not, people don't like to be forced to do things by guns
> (or cruise missiles) held to their head. Even more so when their supposed
> "liberator" calls them "evil", "terrorists", and "primitive".
>
> Vietnam or the USSR's Afghanistan campaign are a much more accurate
> comparison than WW2. Even Vietnam is not really that good to compare against
> because there you had 5x as many troops involved. So I guess multiply Iraq
> casualties by 5x if you want to compare it to one year of combat in Vietnam.
>
> What I don't understand is why the Iraqis couldn't just fight a more
> conventional war instead of allowing all their equipment to be destroyed.
> They could have hid their tanks and artillery, etc., instead of just dumping
> it in the open.
Because Saddam Hussein is not a sane human being. Nobody sane would
have taken on the entire world fighting on behalf of Kuwait.
If Saddam Hussein were a tactician he would have trained the army to
fight as if the U.N./U.S. had successfully occupied Iraq. This would
include guerilla tactics etc.
Then again, I don't think that Saddam expected the U.S. to actually
invade Iraq. He was wrong.
Big Bush Supporter
"Don W. McCollough" <let...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:67468b.040131...@posting.google.com...
> "--= Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí =--" <ab...@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
yea! stupid Saddam! look at us now1 we rule!controlling Iraq is the best
thing ever! most american soldiers are poor, so nobody misses them when they
die!
FP
>
> "--= Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян =--" <ab...@anarchy.gov> wrote in message news:<OBK947FA893...@r2-dv8.anarchy.gov>...
> > A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, "yonner"
> > <yon...@bedroomtalent.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Correct, my total now 719, or 819, take your pick.>
> > >
> > > Either way that's pretty good for a major campaign I'd say.
> > > Remind me how many died in any given 12 month period of WWI & WWII ?
> >
> > You can call it WW2 when the entire world counterattacks against Amerika,
> > because it is Amerika that is playing the role of the Nazi Empire right now.
> > Good intentions or not, people don't like to be forced to do things by guns
> > (or cruise missiles) held to their head. Even more so when their supposed
> > "liberator" calls them "evil", "terrorists", and "primitive".
> >
> > Vietnam or the USSR's Afghanistan campaign are a much more accurate
> > comparison than WW2. Even Vietnam is not really that good to compare against
> > because there you had 5x as many troops involved. So I guess multiply Iraq
> > casualties by 5x if you want to compare it to one year of combat in Vietnam.
> >
> > What I don't understand is why the Iraqis couldn't just fight a more
> > conventional war instead of allowing all their equipment to be destroyed.
> > They could have hid their tanks and artillery, etc., instead of just dumping
> > it in the open.
>
> Because Saddam Hussein is not a sane human being. Nobody sane would
> have taken on the entire world fighting on behalf of Kuwait.
Right.
>
> If Saddam Hussein were a tactician he would have trained the army to
> fight as if the U.N./U.S. had successfully occupied Iraq. This would
> include guerilla tactics etc.
Oh he did that all right. They had been doing that for the last 5
years. How do you think they figgered out how to make all these
roadside bombs? ;)
>
> Then again, I don't think that Saddam expected the U.S. to actually
> invade Iraq. He was wrong.
I think he did at the end. The even let a few dozen Al Qaeda take up
residence in Baghdad (closely watched) in the last 6 weeks on the basis
that the US was probably going to attack anyway. Al Qaeda were under
orders to have no contact with the regime. Their attitude was, US is
comin in, everyone who wants to fight em be our guest.