What are the TRUE US military death counts?

mainer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 08:07 PM
Original message

What are the TRUE US military death counts?

According to this site, which lists each death with name and circumstances, 90 U.S. soldiers have died in the month of April. Yet all the up-to-the-minute news reports state there are "about 70 deaths." That's a big difference, 90 vs. 70. Whom to believe?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_apr04.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HEFFA

(414 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 08:15 PM
Response to Original message

1. This might be helpful....

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

They list the total for April thus far at 76 U.S. troops and 2 others*

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

laruemtt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. it was 675 a few hours ago

and now it's 677 - don't remember hearing anything in the media about any more incidents. must be some more injured dying.;(

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Striker Davies

(88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 08:17 PM
Response to Original message

2. Lots of evidence that the Pentagon is sharply understating the stats.

A couple of Australian journalists spent some time visiting the hospitals, making themselves very unpopular with the US Commanders, but actually counting the bodies, both Coalition and Iraqi.

At the time when the US death rate was given as 500, the journalists provided data showing the real death toll was over 1,000. The figures on wounded are worse, never mind that the term "wounded" covers everything from minor injuries to multiple limb loss, lost eyes, paralysis, etc. Evidence suggests over 6,000 Coalition wounded.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Amerpie

(380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 08:19 PM
Response to Original message

4. Casualties?

We still can't get a good count on the maimed (the press calls them wounded)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

shockingelk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #4

8. odd that there's no reported wounded

No reported wounded or even non-hostile deaths yet this month - despite the fact that KIA numbers are horrible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bloom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #8

12. They don't want us to know.

It makes sense to me that the number of killed would be at least twice what is reported because of those who died of their injuries days after the initial injury.

Wounded - 5-10 times that number?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mainer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 08:22 PM
Response to Original message

5. Global Security says total of 697 US deaths for the war

Both hostile and non-hostile. Again, this is a large discrepancy with the "official" number. I'm inclined to believe this site because it does list each death by name and circumstances.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

m-jean03

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #5

9. I have never read the names, one by one like that before and

it really truly made my heart ache, really. You keep scrolling, and they keep coming...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

GeorgeGist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 08:24 PM
Response to Original message

6. I read somewhere

That unless the death occurs on the 'battleground' they are not counted as killed in action. So if a medic gets a wounded soldier to shelter and then he dies, it doesn't count. Probably an idea from Arthur Anderson. Makes the books look better.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mainer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. Then I think we should all be following Global Security's site

At least we're getting a truer number.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bloom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #6

10. that's my impression...n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

alcuno

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #6

13. This is not correct.

lunaville has names listed of military personnel who later died in Kuwait, England, Germany and the US. I believe that their record-keeping is correct; 677 US deaths.

http://www.lunaville.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

alcuno

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-12-04 09:12 PM
Response to Original message

11. I compared globalsecurity to lunaville.

The reason for the higher count on globalsecurity appears to be because of names not listed due to lack of notification. The earliest one is April 2. I think they have overlapped listings and believe that the lunaville number is correct; 677 US deaths.

http://www.lunaville.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 11:55 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.