TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 14,000 casualties in Iraq since Nov 30th
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

14,000 casualties in Iraq since Nov 30th

whoa! didnt know it was that many

WoW Thats alot!!. Whats Iraq's total population?

That article is complete garbage. He doesn't identify any of his sources, except one Lt. Colonel that says 473 people died in battle. I can pull statistics out of my ass too and say that they came from "a Pentagon source."

Just more liberal leftist conspiracy theorizing...

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX WoW Thats alot!!. Whats Iraq's total population?

not sure, but thats US casualties.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut That article is complete garbage. He doesn't identify any of his sources, except one Lt. Colonel that says 473 people died in battle. I can pull statistics out of my ass too and say that they came from "a Pentagon source." Just more liberal leftist conspiracy theorizing...

LOL good one. ZOMG! ONE OF THE MOST DECORATED VIETNAM VETERAN's IS A LYING COMMIE AND HAS A BS PENTAGON SOURCE! yet you are right, no real no source, kinda like saddam was a threat and had wmds, right?

quote:

Originally posted by rizen kinda like saddam was a threat and had wmds, right?

You people never cease to amaze me

quote:

Originally posted by rizen LOL good one. ZOMG! ONE OF THE MOST DECORATED VIETNAM VETERAN's IS A LYING COMMIE AND HAS A BS PENTAGON SOURCE! yet you are right, no real no source, kinda like saddam was a threat and had wmds, right?

That sounds to me like a straw-man argument. Not only is that not what I said, but him being a Vietnam veteran does not make him an expert on what happened in Iraq.

He has no testable evidence or verifiable sources to support his claim of 14,000 deaths. Whether or not "I think a Vietnam Veteran would lie" is pretty much irrelevant.

Try again.

why go into argument fallice details when the facts aren't straight?

the article itself states:

quote:

Lt. Col. Scott D. Ross of the U.S. military's Transportation Command told me that as of Dec. 23, his outfit had evacuated 3,255 battle-injured casualties and 18,717 non-battle injuries. Of the battle casualties, 473 died and 3,255 were wounded by hostile fire. Following are the major categories of the non-battle evacuations: Orthopedic surgery � 3,907 --- 4000 people broke bones, maybe playing football during all the breaks? General surgery � 1,995 --- 2000 had surgery of different sorts, doesn't tell us minor or not. Internal medicine � 1,291 --- I have no clue wtf this is Psychiatric � 1,167 --- 1000 people went crazy Neurology � 1,002 --- 1000 people's brain fried in the hot destert sand Gynecological � 491 ---- 500 people were 'gettin some' in Iraq Sources say that most of the gynecological evacuations are pregnancy-related, although the exact figure can�t be confirmed � Pentagon pregnancy counts are kept closer to the vest than the number of nuke warheads in the U.S. arsenal. Ross cautioned that his total of 21,972 evacuees could be higher than other reports because �in some cases, the same service member may be counted more than once.�

Therefore since at highest only "473 died and 3,255 were wounded by hostile fire", you can count no more than 4000 casualties. Thats more than a power of three less than Mr. Hackworth's figure.


Oh and the source's bias is clearly anti-war both pre and post invasion. His hippiness is clear with his statement "Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and retired Gen. Tommy Franks should be required to report to a congressional committee convened to investigate both the invasion and the planning � or lack of planning � for the occupation of Iraq."

quote:

Originally posted by SpykeChyld You people never cease to amaze me

you have something to share? did you find the wmds? oh please do tell

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Try again.

more like, please read it again, here ill even quote myself and make it bold for you

quote:

Originally posted by rizo not sure, but thats US casualties. LOL good one. ZOMG! ONE OF THE MOST DECORATED VIETNAM VETERAN's IS A LYING COMMIE AND HAS A BS PENTAGON SOURCE! yet you are right, no real no source, kinda like saddam was a threat and had wmds, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus why go into argument fallice details when the facts aren't straight? the article itself states: Therefore since at highest only "473 died and 3,255 were wounded by hostile fire", you can count no more than 4000 casualties. Thats more than a power of three less than Mr. Hackworth's figure.

yep that is from Lt. Col. Scott D. Ross' unit. we dont know about the other evacuation units, if any.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Oh and the source's bias is clearly anti-war both pre and post invasion. His hippiness is clear with his statement "Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and retired Gen. Tommy Franks should be required to report to a congressional committee convened to investigate both the invasion and the planning ? or lack of planning ? for the occupation of Iraq."

how is being against the war a hippie? i know of some consertavies and libertarians that were not in support of this war since the start. also damn that hippie Pat Buchanan for being anti-war

quote:

Originally posted by rizen more like, please read it again, here ill even quote myself and make it bold for you

quote:

LOL good one. ZOMG! ONE OF THE MOST DECORATED VIETNAM VETERAN's IS A LYING COMMIE AND HAS A BS PENTAGON SOURCE! yet you are right, no real no source, kinda like saddam was a threat and had wmds, right?

I don't see what you're attempting to prove by mentioning the WMDs or lack thereof in the same paragraph as the casualty count - the two issues are completely unrelated. Same with the words like "commie" and "BS pentagon source". The fact is, he has no verifiable source, so we can't trust his information.

By the way - quoting yourself? Yeck.

quote:

yep that is from Lt. Col. Scott D. Ross' unit. we dont know about the other evacuation units, if any.

Exactly why we can't make any assumptions about the other evacuation units, if any.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I don't see what you're attempting to prove by mentioning the WMDs or lack thereof in the same paragraph as the casualty count - the two issues are completely unrelated. Same with the words like "commie" and "BS pentagon source". The fact is, he has no verifiable source, so we can't trust his information.

sarcasm dude, drop some e or something

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut By the way - quoting yourself? Yeck. Exactly why we can't make any assumptions about the other evacuation units, if any.

yep

quote:

Originally posted by rizen sarcasm dude, drop some e or something

Seems as though you've dropped too many e's yourself...

quote:

Originally posted by dj_ilan_yosef Seems as though you've dropped too many e's yourself...

EVERYDAY*















*once in the summer 2002

quote:

Originally posted by rizen yep that is from Lt. Col. Scott D. Ross' unit. we dont know about the other evacuation units, if any.

I've was udner the impression Lt. Col Scott Ross was able to obtain these statistics of all evacuation units as he works in the U.S. military's Transportation Command.

quote:

how is being against the war a hippie?

Its a Vietnamn thing, ever since being against the war makes you a hippie, no matter of your Pat or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I've was udner the impression Lt. Col Scott Ross was able to obtain these statistics of all evacuation units as he works in the U.S. military's Transportation Command.

yep

"Ross cautioned that his total of 21,972 evacuees could be higher than other reports because �in some cases, the same service member may be counted more than once.� ... Ross cautioned that his total of 21,972 evacuees could be higher than other reports because �in some cases, the same service member may be counted more than once.�

remember hackworth is not just counting the battle evacuations in iraq, but nonbattle ones too, ie: psychiatric. damn the act of war, causing terrorism in our minds

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Its a Vietnamn thing, ever since being against the war makes you a hippie, no matter of your Pat or not.

yeah wtf is up with that. fucking chicken hawks are the real problem

new site i just found http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/

I counted approximately 40 or so people who were wounded from that website. Does this mean that there were only 40 people wounded in Iraq since the war started? Does the fact that there each story was contrived and listed for a specific purpose account for anything? I could just as easily reference the many many accounts of the good things that are going on in Iraq outside of the Sunni triangle by pro-Bush news reports but it's meaningless ... it's the same propognada from either side with a motive in mind. I'm sorry, but blogs are almost worthless. If you want to get a liberal viewpoint use the guardian or something with some kind of journalistic credibliity that has some respect for providing comprehensive, well- rounded coverage. That in itself doesn't cut the zionist mustard by my standards but it's definetely a step in the right direction.

ahh occrider you make me all teary inside.

thanks for always putting them straight

give it to me here, high five!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I counted approximately 40 or so people who were wounded from that website. Does this mean that there were only 40 people wounded in Iraq since the war started?

I wish it was 40, but its not. that site does however not count the total wounded.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Does the fact that there each story was contrived and listed for a specific purpose account for anything? I could just as easily reference the many many accounts of the good things that are going on in Iraq outside of the Sunni triangle by pro-Bush news reports but it's meaningless ... it's the same propognada from either side with a motive in mind.

Im sure there is some good stuff, but the bottomline is that this was an unneeded and expensive war.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm sorry, but blogs are almost worthless. If you want to get a liberal viewpoint use the guardian or something with some kind of journalistic credibliity that has some respect for providing comprehensive, well- rounded coverage.

That sir, wasnt even a blog. It was a column from Soldiers for the Truth by Hackworth. Let me just add, that I didnt even know or cared if Hackworth was/has a liberal viewpoint.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus ahh occrider you make me all teary inside. thanks for always putting them straight give it to me here, high five!

get back to the farm, the jew named jesus needs more kosher mustard for his last supper

quote:

Originally posted by rizen I wish it was 40, but its not. that site does however not count the total wounded.

Exactly so what's its point? It's propoganda pure and simple. It's pulling 40 or so odd comments from random people in order to propogate a specific viewpoint. It's far from balanced and therefore should be avoided as a means to paint an accurate picture of events ... which is presumably the intent of the site.

quote:

Im sure there is some good stuff, but the bottomline is that this was an unneeded and expensive war. That sir, wasnt even a blog. It was a column from Soldiers for the Truth by Hackworth. Let me just add, that I didnt even know or cared if Hackworth was/has a liberal viewpoint.

I was referencing your second source

quote:

Originally posted by rizen ZOMG! ONE OF THE MOST DECORATED VIETNAM VETERANS

I'm late to the table, but would you care to clarify how you justified this statement?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm late to the table, but would you care to clarify how you justified this statement?

been in the military sicne the age of 14, youngest colonel during vietnam, and tons of awards. heh even foxnews and bill orielly have said it when he has been a guest.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Exactly so what's its point? It's propoganda pure and simple. It's pulling 40 or so odd comments from random people in order to propogate a specific viewpoint. It's far from balanced and therefore should be avoided as a means to paint an accurate picture of events ... which is presumably the intent of the site.

wow linking to injured soldiers experiences is now propoganda

quote:

Originally posted by rizen been in the military sicne the age of 14, youngest colonel during vietnam, and tons of awards. heh even foxnews and bill orielly have said it when he has been a guest.

That's all well and good, and certainly makes him a distinguised officer by many accounts, but that doesn't necessarily put him in a position of greater credibility and I'm certain that there are more soldiers than you realize who are FAR more decorated than he(not to take anything away from him).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That's all well and good, and certainly makes him a distinguised officer by many accounts, but that doesn't necessarily put him in a position of greater credibility and I'm certain that there are more soldiers than you realize who are FAR more decorated than he(not to take anything away from him).

well i find him creditable even when he was on fox and i didnt agree with some of this statements. the more and more i think about it, his casualties count is probably right on the money if you include all the minor non-physical injuries and how all the right wing media hardly gives a full report or tries to give a total estimate, but rather simply says "one more dead, dont worry its not as bad, and we are still owning turban ass", well one is too many. im sure there are more decorated ppl than him, i never said he was the only one, but "one of".

quote:

Originally posted by rizen wow linking to injured soldiers experiences is now propoganda

Everything is propoganda ...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.