[zen jihad]

This isn't unusual, since the true figures of war casulties was masked back then too. The same thing is happening today in Afghanistan and Iraq. I know personally that the toll of American casulties in Afghanistan is higher than what we hear in the media, but obviously it doesn't fit too well with the publuc if it became known.



http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000630846

[lil'babykitten]

A more fitting title would be 'US public unaware'. Period.


Yeah yeah, I'm generalising. So sue me.

[Spoogepieces]

Let's pull out! Damnit, we've been lied to!

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Let's pull out! Damnit, we've been lied to!

Hmmm�off by�17?
Sorry, there aren't 17,000 dead soldiers no matter how much you want that to be true.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Hmmm�off by�17?
Sorry, there aren't 17,000 dead soldiers no matter how much you want that to be true.

Actually, it they seem to be saying that the number of dead soldiers is correct; it's the number of "wounded" (including sent home due to illness) soldiers that is short.

Frankly, I'm with you. I don't doubt that the Pentagon's numbers are a bit low, but 17,000 short? Even the Pentagon isn't stupid enough to hide that many.

Does this count as part of the "we didn't rebuild Iraq within a month so it's a quagmire" total, by the way? Given that by this article's admission, these soldiers aren't being hurt by any kind of resistance, but rather by accidents (and apparently not friendly fire) or disease, ought they really be counted?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, it they seem to be saying that the number of dead soldiers is correct; it's the number of "wounded" (including sent home due to illness) soldiers that is short.

Frankly, I'm with you. I don't doubt that the Pentagon's numbers are a bit low, but 17,000 short? Even the Pentagon isn't stupid enough to hide that many.

Does this count as part of the "we didn't rebuild Iraq within a month so it's a quagmire" total, by the way? Given that by this article's admission, these soldiers aren't being hurt by any kind of resistance, but rather by accidents (and apparently not friendly fire) or disease, ought they really be counted?

You saying Iraq isn't a quagmire???? How many bombs went off this week in Iraq? How many civilians died? How many soldiers died? How many people were kidnapped? Iraq has collapsed into complete anarchy and civil war. And the US government knows it. Look at the news of that report they've just done that says the best case scenario is now that a government they leave behind might have a modicum of control over a small part of Iraq. BEST case.

[Spliffdaddy]

25 million people and perhaps 3 or 4 bombs per day - on the worst days.

I wouldn't call that a quagmire.

I'd say that's normal considering we're discussing a Middle East country.

[OreoCookie]

I have read a figure of 7-8000 wounded, so 17000 dead seems quite high.

But there was one interesting point: the number of casualties would have been much higher 30 years ago due to huge improvements in the treatments of the wounded soldiers (psychologically and medically).

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
25 million people and perhaps 3 or 4 bombs per day - on the worst days.

I wouldn't call that a quagmire.

I'd say that's normal considering we're discussing a Middle East country.

Spliff, it ain't no picnic either. That's why more force is necessary. I'd be a little easier if we weren't so PC in conflict.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
25 million people and perhaps 3 or 4 bombs per day - on the worst days.

I wouldn't call that a quagmire.

I'd say that's normal considering we're discussing a Middle East country.

And what would "normal" be if we weren't discussing a Middle Eastern country?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by KarlG:
And what would "normal" be if we weren't discussing a Middle Eastern country?

zero

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
zero

So, if we invaded North Korea, there would be no bombs or resistance during the occupation?

[Spliffdaddy]

Not if it was done effectively.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Not if it was done effectively.

But it's done PC because their�uh�Muslim.

Man is it ever slow these past days.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Not if it was done effectively.

There will always be resistance, do all the elaborate planning you want, you can't prevent opposition.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's hard to resist a tactical nuke.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Millennium:


Does this count as part of the "we didn't rebuild Iraq within a month so it's a quagmire" total, by the way? Given that by this article's admission, these soldiers aren't being hurt by any kind of resistance, but rather by accidents (and apparently not friendly fire) or disease, ought they really be counted?

Typical denial.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It's hard to resist a tactical nuke.

I'm glad then, that it's not up to you. This way we could also solve this eternal Israel-Palestine problem, but there are two problems: for one, it would be genocide, for another, at least the milk in the land of milk and honey would contain radioactive isotopes, not good if you want to live there.