truth that angers
It's very easy to conclude one very easy rational fact. High numbers of dead can stop a country's foreign policy. If the death figures are a lot higher the public doesn't accept it as being worth it. If the death figures are a lot lower the public accepts it as being worth it. Once we acknowledge that basic truism, the following facts fall into a perfect line. I mentioned this in a past thread somewhere but I feel it bears repeating. The following is how the American military keeps track of their casualties in the theatres of battle. When an American GI is blown to bits outright (a relatively rare way for an American GI to die), he's listed as KIA, or killed in action. When a soldier is clearly dead from rocket or small arms injuries, he's listed as KIA. But here is where the US planners' cunning comes into play. And they do so with valid means, specifically the basic desire for doctors to save lives. If an American GI is wounded, he's listed as wounded. When the GI is mortally wounded, but is not yet dead, he is listed as wounded (out of the doctor's desire to of course hope against hope while praying for a miracle). Even if the GI dies en-route to the nearest field hospital, his 'wounded' list is not updated for the media. And that's how there is more dead GI's than we've been hearing about. And it all makes perfect sense if you wish to win a war by any means possible. So when you read about 1 GI dead and 6 GI's wounded, the odds are heavily in your favor that at least one and likely even two of those listed as wounded died while on the way to the field hospital or the military hospital in Germany. If the GI dies one second after being listed as wounded, he's still officially listed as wounded. If the GI dies three weeks after he was listed as wounded, he's not moved to the dead column for the media. So people, understand the official death figure is a lot more than what they are saying. And think about it. We're supposed to rely on numbers and statistics coming from an industry which buys 1" bolts for $55 each and which lied and lied and lied and lied in the past all all all all all the time? Collectively awaken from the hazy slumber and understand what the truth is.

Comments
on May 16, 2005
I'd like to see you reveal your source here. I'm a member of the US Army and I happen to know this is not how we do business. If a Soldier is wounded, he is listed as wounded because that is the fact. If a Soldier later dies from those wounds, the lists are in fact updated. That may not happen immediately. Usually the next of kin will be notified first. Then the name is moved. I happen to know this is a fact, as I've seen it happen. I've checked. I've attended funerals. I've met family members.

So, please, reveal your source. I'd like to call them a liar.

Or maybe it's just you.
on May 16, 2005
So, if the soldier dies 5 years later, does he still count as an Iraqi war dead?

IG
on May 16, 2005
So, if the soldier dies 5 years later, does he still count as an Iraqi war dead?


That's an interesting point. We're not 5 years past this war, but we are even today attributing cancer and other illnesses to chemical agents from the Vietnam War, so while those veterans are not KIA's, they are indeed casualties of the war, I'd say. And that gets reported that way. Someone that dies as a direct result of their wounds after the fighting is over may not be an official KIA (as the IA means "In Action") but we don't lie and say they didn't die as a result of the conflict in order to cover up losses. But that is the filthy lie the OP is trying to spread in an attempt to further an agenda.

I say again - I know of individuals who have died after combat was over as a result of the wounds they received during a firefight and they ARE on the official death list and counted as casualties of this war. I have researched it. I have spoken to the family members. I have seen the pictures carried in wallets. I've seen the loss in their eyes. And I have felt their loss and the sting of tears in my eyes. I am deeply offended that someone would claim that the US Army is trying to cover up losses and being less than honest when I know that is not the case.
on May 16, 2005
So, if the soldier dies 5 years later, does he still count as an Iraqi war dead?


And what, exactly, is your point? You're no more intellectually honest than RH, who ain't.

And thanks, chprj, for rebutting so pointedly and poignantly, and for your service in our behalf.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on May 16, 2005
Chip you make a valid point but what you're actually saying is not taken in the proper context. I am not and have never said the military itself doesn't keep written track of which and how many of their soldiers are getting killed or wounded. There are, after all, lots of paperwork involved for his beneficiaries to complete, and of course the dead are remembered and buried. What I am saying, and have always been saying, is that no one in the military officially updates the media en masse, meaning in such a large way there is no way to hide these facts from so many people. We could find out the true number of dead if the US military would completely open their books for public scrutiny, specifically the detailed information on how many new death benefit payments to the surviving families the military has been making each month. And to my knowledge that information is never disclosed. Not in full, and it's for personal privacy, which I completely agree with. But it's not released (to my knowledge) nonetheless.
on May 17, 2005
Chip you make a valid point but what you're actually saying is not taken in the proper context


No, I am taking it in context. You say that the Army is attempting to obfuscate the numbers of deaths by calling people wounded.

Even if the GI dies en-route to the nearest field hospital, his 'wounded' list is not updated for the media


That is not true. But, in all honesty, the Army does have more important things to do than to keep anyone updated on the minute to minute losses. The lists are updated. The news organizations are updated. In a manner that is as timely as possible, while still taking into account the need to alert the family first, then the masses.

What I am saying, and have always been saying, is that no one in the military officially updates the media en masse, meaning in such a large way there is no way to hide these facts from so many people. We could find out the true number of dead if the US military would completely open their books for public scrutiny


Then how do I know of the dead and the policy to update the death list? I don't have an inside track or knowledge. The Army doesn't send me personal emails about them. I've done all my research through websites, including the media websites. And I happen to know that if someone dies from wounds after a conflict, they are in fact added to the death list, which is in turn updated at news organization web sites. What more do you want? The Army to buy air time in your town and broadcast the by name list on a daily basis? Minute to minute basis?

Do not try to back track and say I don't understand what you're saying. That is false. You say the updates aren't happening. The updates happen. Blame the news organizations for not publishing them in a manner that makes you happy. But do not slander my Army or my goverment by claiming there is a conspiracy to keep the sheep in line.

I will give you one point. There may come a time when the deaths are too much to stomach. That is true. But the Army I serve in is doing it's damn best to make sure we complete the mission before that line is crossed, not trying to hide how close to it we are.
on May 17, 2005
And what, exactly, is your point? You're no more intellectually honest than RH, who ain't.


Settle down....

RH made the assertion that "When the GI is mortally wounded, but is not yet dead, he is listed as wounded"

My question is how long would satisfy him? If a "mortally" wounded soldier survives for 3 days, would he still be a war dead? 1 year?

IG
on May 17, 2005
IG -

Sorry I misread your tone & intent. Please accept my apologies. I see where you were going with that now.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on May 17, 2005
No biggie. I wrote it quickly.

IG
on Jun 27, 2005
You would think RH, with all of his whacked out news sources that do not support their claims, would have a scrolling list of the dead in Iraq.

Frankly, I wish we were in the days of WWI and WWII. Then you only got bits and pieces of information and people supported the war effort. The more we shove media into our military the more people are going to twist the story to get viewers. Let’s face it the better the story the more people who watch it. News organizations do not follow the journalistic rules to determine if a story is news worthy anymore. It is only printed or broadcast for ratings.
on Jul 07, 2005
Once again you show your allegiences you lying fart in the wind!!!

Army Sgt. 1st Class Pedro A. Munoz
47, of Aquada, Puerto Rico; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg, N.C.; died Jan. 2 in Shindand, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained Jan. 1 when his patrol encountered enemy fire. Link

Marine Gunnery Sgt. Javier Obleas-Prado Pena
36, of Falls Church, Va.; assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.; died Dec. 1 at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, from injuries sustained Nov. 25 by enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq.Link

Marine Cpl. Kyle J. Renehan
21, of Oxford, Pa.; assigned to Marine Air Control Squadron 2, Marine Air Control Group 28, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C.; died Dec. 9 in Kaiserslautern, Germany, of injuries sustained Nov. 29 by enemy action in Babil province, Iraq.Link

Army Pfc. Joshua A. Ramsey,
19, of Defiance, Ohio; assigned to the 95th Military Police Battalion, Mannheim, Germany; died Dec. 12 in Baghdad of non-combat-related injuries.Link

Army Spc. Lizbeth Robles,
31, of Vega Baja, Puerto Rico; assigned to the 360th Transportation Company, 68th Corps Support Battalion, 43rd Area Support Group, Fort Carson, Colo.; died March 1 at the 228th Command Support Hospital in Tikirt, Iraq, from injuries sustained Feb. 28 in a military vehicle accident in Bayji, Iraq. Also killed was Army Sgt. Julio E. Negron.Link

Army Sgt. 1st Class Michael D. Jones,
43, of Unity, Maine; assigned to the 133rd Engineer Battalion, Maine Army National Guard, Belfast, Maine; died March 3 in Syracuse, N.Y., of a non-combat-related illness after returning from duty in Iraq. Link


Need I go on? These were found at "Military City.com", they are all based on official reports of KIA from the DoD. Notice, some died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Hospitals in Germany and even the U.S AFTER sustaining injuries the later proved to be fatal.

Once again you let your lies get past your slimy stench, and I'm here to show you just how bad your crap stinks!
on Jul 07, 2005
RH

What I have always been more dubious about is the fact that CNN, BBC, CBS ect… will report that two soldiers died to an IED on Monday, but change the write up about the event, then report the same attack Tuesday and again on Wednesday too. Making the uninformed or those not listening closely to believe that six soldier died. Maybe we should be looking into the reasoning behind the media extending the stories.

As a soldier myself, I have not seen events that your talking about. But I am sure that if this was happening it would be a front page story.

As for the survival rates for military casualties, it is sitting at 1.6%
Link. This is almost the lowest in the history of modern recorded warfare (the first Gulf war was lower at .5%). Even if your theory about a major cover up is true, it would only be around 24 personnel.

While I can see where your trying to lead this, but I see no bases or reason for your theory.