What is the ENTIRE US troop death toll ?

[dogfacedboy]

We hear about how many troops have died IN Iraq. How many more have died in transit out of Iraq, in US hospitals OUTSIDE of Iraq, etc. ?

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Still with this bullshit, eh?

The death count includes those who have died outside Iraq as a result of injuries or wounds sustained in Iraq. Here is a full list of those:

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Dow.aspx

Praytell, where did you get your false information that the death count includes only those who die IN Iraq?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silverhair]

5. Read your own question.

You are asserting that the death toll we see only counts those who died in Iraq, and does not include those who die later, out of Iraq, but of wound sustained in Iraq.

Can you defend your assertation?

[dogfacedboy]

7. I was just wondering whether that is the case or NOT. n/t

[tyedyeto]

11. The link was just provided to you with the info...

check it out.

And please don't call me a dickhead...that is just plain nasty.

[ComerPerro]

16. I understand that this has been a talking point that has since been

refuted (ran out of room)...

but I don't think that the poster was trying to spread bullshit.

I read it as a legitimate question.

Thank you for providing the link to answer the question, but you might want to ease up...

Unless you know something I don't.

[Silverhair]

2. The death toll is NOT kept by the military, it is kept by anti-war groups.

Deaths from battle wounds that occur later in hospitals are counted. Your claim that they aren't counted has been debunked here on DU many times.

It has been demonstrated here that hiding large numbers of fatalities is simply impossible.

If you want to prove that fatalities have been hidden, all you have to do if find a name. Give a name of ONE person whom you know was in service, and has disappeared with no accounting.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silverhair]

6. You begin by assuming an impossible conpiracy.

You make an accusation without any evidence to back it up.

[dogfacedboy]

8. It was NOT an ACCUSATION. YOU presumed it was. n/t

[madokie]

9. down in the lower left hand corner is a little word with but 5 letters

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. yet there are two - at least two areas that are NOT counted.

Post service suicides are approaching 4 figures, if I heard correctly in the VA where I frequently drop off books, and
the multi-spectrum super vaccine the troops were given. Anthrax, and a whole bunch of other shit was given to them, without letting their bodies recover from any of the side effects.

I do not know the exact number of suicides nationally, but here in Illinois, the local VA noted that they alone had 43 of people who had served in Iraq. Yes, Illinois is a big state, but there are 50 others. Do the math.

These injections were given to every troop just before deployment. At least 10,000 were seriously made ill, and several hundred appear to have died from the injections and their side effects.

Should they be counted? Even the suicides?

Yes. Even though they did not die in combat, preparation for combat or deaths related to service activities, or as a result of service which they would have otherwise never undergone - yeah, that's a casualty.

[murray hill farm]

13. Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

A question, not an assumption!

[lumpy]

23. Seems to me YOU are

making an accusation without any evidence to back it up

[Occulus]

18. Because you're dealing with people who

know they depend upon fruit from a poisonous tree- but refuse to admit as much.

icasualties is wrong. Period. Don't trust their numbers; it's all, at the bottom, just a guess based on DOD info. The fact that the very first response on this thread called the idea that their numbers are wrong "bullshit" is one very big clue: they defend themselves too vociferously to be anything but knowingly incorrect.

I've never once thought they were right; they defend themselves far too loudly and bitterly when their methods and results are questioned. It always reminds me of people like FOTF or the Heritage Foundation's "research" and those groups' responses when they are questioned. My experience has always been that if someone gets very angry at even the idea they might be wrong... they usually are knowingly wrong.

Now that we know they have been lied to about the numbers before, there is simply no reason to further trust their results. It is all, truly, fruit from a poisonous tree.

[butterfly77]

12. What ever the numbers ....

they are lies,lie,lies,lies, lies,lies lies,

[Silverhair]

20. The numbers are kept by ANTI-war organizations.

They are not the military numbers. The military doesn't give out a total at all.

If you want to PROVE that the numbers are wrong, provide the name of a dead soldier who died of battle while in Iraq, or later in a hospital, and who is not on the list.

[ComerPerro]

14. Well, even if that is all included, ever wonder why no one mentions

the over 20,000 wounded?

Its an awfully big number.

A large percentage of that group has lost limbs, and many of them have had permenant damage that will forever imact and hinder their lives...

That's a tough pill to swallow

[genie_weenie]

17. Yes ComerPero

your post beat mine on the wounded issue. Also what is telling if you ever are confronted by a repuke, who blares out "it's only 2000 killed!", that doctors and medics in Iraq estimate an additional 1000-2000 of the wounded world likely have died if it wasn't for the advances in medicial ability since Nam.

[ComerPerro]

19. I'd be afraid of their reply

probably "Its not science, its God saving them."

Or, "those advances come from God, and faith in God and George W Bush"

[genie_weenie]

15. dogfacedboy

I really don't think name calling really does much to advance your question nor your reputation. IMHO, the more telling stat is the WIA, which is also included in the link provided for you. Just take a second and absorb that number, also the last I was aware at least %40 of those were wounded to sever ly to RTD.

[dogfacedboy]

21. You're right on the name calling, but

I was responding to nasty tone in the response. Must have been Shrill O'Reilly or Slanthead trolling. I'll try to mind my p's and q's.

[tyedyeto]

22. The only nasty 'tone' in either of those posts

was when someone said bullshit. You were directed to a site that counts casualties and all you could do was call that poster names. I'd say you were the nasty one in that exchange. If you don't agree with the casualty site, say so and back it up with facts or another website which you agree with. But to sink to the level of name calling made you the nasty one in my book.

[dogfacedboy]

24. I guess I'm used to tougher skin.

All I did was ask a question, and I got a less than civil response. I'm truly sorry if anyone got so easily offended.

Back to the subject, what was so "bullshit" about my question? It was a legitimate question. Why did it require that kind of response?

[TahitiNut]

25. "sorry if anyone got so easily offended"???

That's what I call an unapologetic apology - a nonapology. You claim you got "a less than civil response" and reacted by hurling sexist epithets. Just who's being "easily offended"??? Who's being uncivil? Who's being thin-skinned?

That kind of shit-throwing just doesn't permit discussion. It's disruptive and insulting.

[dogfacedboy]

26. Hey, I apologized- there's no such thing as a "non-apology".

And who hurled "sexist epithets"? I said nothing of a sexist nature. This has gone way off-topic.

[TahitiNut]

27. So, if I said "I'm sorry you're a jerk" you'd call that an apology?

You don't think "dickhead" is a sexist epithet? What if it were "cuntface"? You think there's a difference?

I'm sorry if these questions are too complex for you. :eyes: :eyes:

[dogfacedboy]

28. Did I say "I'm sorry you're a jerk"? Show me the quote.

Who's insulting who here? I can easily understand your "complex" questions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. I'm not thin-skinned

I'm just sick of people spreading bullshit rumors when the truth is easily accessible. I'm not offended, just tired of the outright ignorance. Apparently, you called me a dickhead. That doesn't bother me at all, since I am right, and your laughable, unsupported assertions (disguised as question or otherwise) are plain wrong and demonstrably so.

[Moderator]

30. Locking

The original post has been answered.