|
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."
___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!
Click here to support the free mustard alliance.
Last edited by Yoepus on Jan-04-2004 at 02:08
|
