Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Over 1500 dead soldiers. Over 10,000 wounded soldiers. And Ø POWs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 07:09 PM
Original message
Poll question: Over 1500 dead soldiers. Over 10,000 wounded soldiers. And Ø POWs
Edited on Sun Mar-20-05 07:11 PM by NNN0LHI
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. I actually believe that stat.
The Iraqi insurgents have not shown an ability to overrun a military position and hold the ground long enough to evac any captives they might take.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yea, thats the ticket
They only take Halliburton employees when they hit a US convoy. I really, really believe that.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. Those Haliburton convoys aren't militarily escorted for the most part
These are *insurgents*. They don't like attacking hard targets head on. It's an almost certain high casualty loss for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katherine2 Donating Member (319 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think that
Matt Maupin guy is still missing, and is considered a POW. I hope they're not torturing him with frat party tricks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. you are only counted as combat killed if you are dead on the
ground. if you die once you are lifted off, you aren't counted. Consider it 8000 dead and 25-30K wounded. As for pow's, I don't believe zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. NOT TRUE.
YES they are counted if they die out of theater.

If a soldier is mortally wounded in Iraq, then REGARDLESS WHERE THEY DIE, they are counted.

LOOK at the ICCC details page; we show many soldiers wounded in Iraq who died days or weeks later OUTSIDE of Iraq.

YES THEY ARE COUNTED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alpharetta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. If they had a POW, they'd post his pic on one of their websites
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. You really believe there would be something on any web site...
Edited on Sun Mar-20-05 07:26 PM by NNN0LHI
...that we could view during a time of war that our government didn't want us to see? Shit.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alpharetta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. The insurgents have posted full motion videos of IED attacks
and other propaganda set to music
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Our government can shut down porn sites operating anywhere in...
...the world. But yet they are not able to shut down the sites you just described if they wanted to. I wonder why that would be?

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alpharetta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. LOL!
The internet's a peachy clean place where everything's controlled? No porn, gambling, or illegal music downloads?

Come on. If they had a U.S. soldier captive, they could get a picture of him posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Yea, its hilarious
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 09:35 AM by NNN0LHI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alpharetta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. OK fine, you win
There's a US soldier hostage (other than Maupin) and the insurgents are keeping it quiet because there's no propaganda value to it.

Or

Try as they might they just can't get any media traction on the pictures. They can't find an anti-war group or a moslem or arab website to distribute the pictures. The internet is just locked down solid. There's no gambling, porn, or music downloads any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. There are no winners here
Only losers when this kind of shit is happening and we don't do anything about it.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. oh please
it would have been on multiple sites based in coutries around the world. no way in hell the US could have removed them all. al jazeera would have had the tape playing 24/7 and every overseas news outlet this side of the BBC would have been playing it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. US ally Qatar (and home to Centcom) owns Al-Jazeera. Didn't you know that?
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:99jP0t3dRYsJ:www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/13/selling.aljazeera.ap/++al+Jazeera+is+run+by+the+Qatar+government&hl=en

Al-Jazeera's future worries journalists

Qatari government requests privatization plan for TV network

DOHA, Qatar (AP) -- The U.S. government may view Al-Jazeera as little more than an anti-American mouthpiece, yet the journalists who work at the satellite TV station consider it the only bastion of free press in an authoritarian Middle East. And the prospect of being sold to the highest bidder has many deeply worried.

An order by the ruler of this small Persian Gulf country to come up with a privatization plan for the pan-Arab station -- owned by the Qatari government since its start in 1996 -- has many wondering who will buy, and what the station will look like in the future.

"Our editorial policy is the red line," the station's director, Wadah Khanfar, said in a recent interview. "The moment we feel the privatization issue will interfere with our editorial policy, the project will be abandoned."

Not everyone is so sure. At the station's headquarters here, many employees have begun expressing worries about the channel's future -- and how privatization might affect the newsroom, said a senior editor, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

Few details are known about the privatization plan, or why the Qatari government is pushing it.

more

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. yeah, ok, and the rest of the media??
Ok, that's one media source down, how many million to go??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. See post # 30 and get back to me if you wish. Take care n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. yeah, and.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 01:45 PM by WoodrowFan
they may have one, they may not. Don't tell me you seriously think the US could stop them from announcing it if they wanted.?


(BTW, I am not arguing that there are none, just that the US could not stop it being publicized)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Try clicking on the links inside this thread below and see what you get
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 05:59 PM by NNN0LHI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. once again
once agin you point to US and british sites. Got any evaporated links from sites from OTHER countries? German? French? Chinese? Iranian? Russian? Australian? Any proof the US could somehow censor them??

then again, maybe the "captured" soldier was this guy!!

http://www.snopes.com/media/goofs/gijoe.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Wrong year pal. My link is from last year. Yours is from this year n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. and you still ignore the issue, "pal"
do you really think the US could keep such captures from announcing they had a US soldier hostage via the news and/or the internet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. I have already shown in this thread how they can and do cover this up
Circular arguments bore me. See, ya.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. people who avoid difficult questions bore me
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 09:13 PM by WoodrowFan
You showed nothing but your own fears. "The US govt can censor the ENTIRE Internet and all the world's news!!!" BOL!!! Funnyest idea I've seen since one DUer insisted Terri might grow a new brain.

BTW, today's pointer for you " A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument." Asking someone to answer a question repeatedly because that person is ingoring the issue is NOT a, oh, what's the use, believe what you will.

bye bye!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
7.  I'm not surprised there are zero POW's
Edited on Sun Mar-20-05 11:58 PM by Poppyseedman
A different type of war means different strategies. In old conventional wars, POW's were taken as bargaining chips and a means to weaken the opponent troop numbers. They know we aren't going to give back any terrorist in a trade for our POW's, so it's a waste of their resources and manpower to keep our soldiers even if they did capture them.

That's why they take civilian hostages. Governments and families pay or can be used as propaganda tool.

Of course they can still shot video of toy soldiers and pretend it's real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Just one question
Edited on Sun Mar-20-05 11:40 PM by NNN0LHI
Did you believe that Saddam was preparing to fly his little itty bitty "Drones Of Death" constructed of balsa wood and duct tape supposedly full of anthrax to America as per Colin Powell's testimony at the UN too.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Is this a trick question ?
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 12:00 AM by Poppyseedman
I believe Saddam would have attacked America by any means if he thought he could #1 get away with it and had #2 the means to carry it out.

Both, were not going to happen. He was an evil dictator, not a moron.

Would he have flown little itty bitty "Drones Of Death" constructed of balsa wood and duct tape" elsewhere to cause death? If he was in fact building them, it wasn't for Baghdad's first radio controlled airplane contest!

Powell was being a tool.

One question for you?

Why do you care what I think?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. NO and the US Air Force said NO before bush's illegal invasion of Iraq
Air Force Analysts Feel Vindicated on Iraqi Drones

The US Air Force argued before the Iraq war that the drones were never meant to spread toxins but to fly unarmed reconnaissance missions...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2013-2003Sep25¬Found=true

But hey, why listen to the EXPERTS? BUSH didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
10. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
11. The Figures Seem Reasonable Enough, Sir
Even just ten years ago, probably another thousand of the wounded would have died. The nature of the fighting is not conducive to the taking of prisoners by the Iraqi and Islamicist militants. The overwhelming preponderance of casualties are inflicted by mine and mortar, without any real engagement as generally condtrued; U.S. soldiers are not often out on their own for snatching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. You are addressing advances in modern medicine, Sir
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 08:46 AM by NNN0LHI
I am speaking of a war space where there are no distinct front lines and where the next attack could come from any direction. Even from within Americas own ranks of Iraqi collaborators. I am pretty sure that if the Iraqis can infiltrate US military compounds with suicide bombers they could and probably have taken POWs if they were inclined to do so. And I have read of many situations where responders sent to collect the dead and wounded soldiers after car bombings and then the responders were then also attacked with RPGs and other small arms fire from groups of Iraqis. I have seen photos of Iraqis dimantling military vehicles which had been caught up in these types of attacks. And with more than a few helicopters being shot down inside areas which are considered no-go areas for US troops they just may have managed to take some surviving POWs from them too. But you may be correct? I am just very skeptical of this after over two years of guerrilla warfare.


Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Taking POW's requires attacking US soldiers directly and winning
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 12:43 PM by Zynx
The insurgents tend not to do that. They get their butts kicked when they try because they are not well trained or well-equipped enough to win an infantry engagement.

And the vehicles that are being burned are after the US military has abandoned the area. You think insurgents would do that right in front of US soldiers? Not a good way to stay alive when we'll shoot just about anyone for looking at us sideways.

If the US wants a piece of real estate in Iraq, such as the ground around an ambushed convoy, they'll take it, and take it fast, usually with helicopter gunships.

As far as our aircraft, that's what our CSAR teams are for - and insurgent's don't want to get on the wrong end of one of those. That's another engagement they're not going to win, and that makes it very difficult to shoot down an aircraft and get prisoners out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. It Is Not Impossible There Are Prisoners, My Friend
But the claim that there are none is not implausible, to my view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
47. but but but
how would we know??? Apparently every news source on Earth and every one of the billions of web sites is CENSORED!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
19. Who would take a POW?
The suicide bombers? It's hard to take a prisoner when you are dead.

There hasn't been any kind of attack on US troops that would result in a POW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Maybe these guys?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=6&u=/ap/20050321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

<snip>Late Sunday, an American convoy was attacked with gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades, sparking the clash that killed 26 militants.


Between 40 and 50 militants opened fire on military police and artillery units from the Kentucky National Guard as the Americans traveled along a road 20 miles southeast of Baghdad that has seen a recent increase in violence.


Six soldiers and seven militants were wounded, and one person was arrested. It was one of the largest battles since the Jan. 30 election.


The higher death toll was attributed to the unusually large number of attackers, who often travel in smaller bands or employ hidden explosives. U.S. military officials said it was the largest number of insurgents killed in a clash since the November assault on the former rebel-held city of Fallujah.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. They don't sound very good
If people attacked and of those 26 were killed and 7 were wounded...well...that's not good. Certainly not good enough to take a POW.

Basically, to take POWs, you need to win an engagement or shoot down a jet or helicopter behind enemy lines. Insurgents have not won any engagments yet and there are no enemy lines. So, there you have it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Did you forget the first time the US tried to "liberate" Fallujah?
Over 100 Americans soldiers killed, an unknown number were wounded, and then the US pulled back? The second time they tried to "liberate" them the US just leveled the whole area first. I didn't forget. It was only last year.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. And they got their ass kicked
No POW's for them. This is exactly why insurgents usually *don't* do this. It's a stand-up engagement and we're going to win those, Bush or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. I remember watching the box scores from Vietnam on the nightly news too
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 01:27 PM by NNN0LHI
Here is an example:

879 Viet Cong Killed Today - 1 American Wounded

We later found out that that figures don't lie. But liars sure do figure. We lost that war too.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
30. Had to vote other
The following report was quickly denied, but I'm also sure things have happened that won't ever be reported.

US. Soldier Kidnapped in Iraqi City
posted in LBN by maddezmom on November 2, 2004
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=952352


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. I remember seeing that report
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 01:38 PM by NNN0LHI
Americans would have a hard time being so complacent about Iraqis being tortured by the US if they thought the same things were also happening to American soldiers. That is why we our government will never admit to there being American POWs...if there are any of course.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
31. On April 19, 2004 Matt Maupin was listed as MISSING CAPTURED
If I remember correctly their was a video of him and his captors. He is/was a POW and if he was killed (as has been reported but not confirmed) or not, he is/was still a POW of this war in Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
34. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
38. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
43. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

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.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC