American casualties in Iraq skyrocket

[Irvine511]

i'm still waiting for you to say anything that has something to do with the thesis of the original article, which is resoundingly true and getting worse.

so we're playing "my website is better than your website"?

so when we don't like what globalsecurity.org has to say, then we go to iscasualties.org? if i pull out Wikipedia, you respond with World Book Encyclopedia?

so, as you can see, from a detailed and extensive looking into Vietnam War Statiscis to sources more general in nautre, they list the fact that over 150,000 were wounded in Vietnam.

not terribly effective means of arguing, especially when you Kerry-bash in order to make a point, which belies the real agenda here.

your enormous leap in logic was summarized in these lines:

[q]The Vietnam figures that break down at roughly 150,000 plus for hospitalization and another 150,000 for non hospitalization are roughly the same as the return to duty in 72 hours and not return to duty in 72 hours for the Iraq figures. [/q]

this is a bad, inaccurate comparison, especially given the advancements in battlefield medicine that render the comparison inaccurate. you've yet to point out what percentage of the 9,000+ who have not returned to duty after 72 hours ever do return to duty.

and it's probably undercounted anyway. way back in 2004, we had this:

[q]How many injured and ill soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines - like Chris Schneider - are left off the Pentagon’s casualty count?

Would you believe 15,000? 60 Minutes asked the Department of Defense to grant us an interview. They declined. Instead, they sent a letter, which contains a figure not included in published casualty reports: "More than 15,000 troops with so-called 'non-battle' injuries and diseases have been evacuated from Iraq."

Many of those evacuated are brought to Landstuhl in Germany. Most cases are not life-threatening. In fact, some are not serious at all. But only 20 percent return to their units in Iraq. Among the 80 percent who don’t return are GIs who suffered crushing bone fractures; scores of spinal injuries; heart problems by the hundreds; and a slew of psychiatric cases. None of these are included in the casualty count, leaving the true human cost of the war something of a mystery.

"It's difficult to estimate what the total number is," says John Pike, director of a research group called GlobalSecurity.org.

As a military analyst, Pike has spoken out against both Republican and Democratic administrations. He’s weighed all the available casualty data and has made an informed estimate that goes well beyond what the Pentagon has released.

"You have to say that the total number of casualties due to wounds, injury, disease would have to be somewhere in the ballpark of over 20, maybe 30,000," says Pike.

His calculation, striking as it is, is based on the military's own definition of casualty – anyone "lost to the organization," in this case, for medical reasons. And Pike believes it’s no accident that the military reports a number far lower than his estimate.

"The Pentagon, I think, is afraid that they're going to lose public support for this war, the way they lost public support for Vietnam back in the 1960s," says Pike. "And minimizing the apparent cost of the war, I think, is one way that they're hoping to sustain public support here at home."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/19/60minutes/main656756.shtml

[/q]

so, there you have it. the 20,000+ is the most accurate number to compare to the 150,000+ from vietnam, as the 20,000+ does not count what the Pentagon terms as "non-battle" injuries, the total number of which we do not know, and that mysterious total number would be the best comparison to the 300,000+ Vietnam era soldiers who might have lost a leg or gotten a particularly nasty paper cut.

 

[STING2]

i'm still waiting for you to say anything that has something to do with the thesis of the original article, which is resoundingly true and getting worse.

so we're playing "my website is better than your website"?

so when we don't like what globalsecurity.org has to say, then we go to iscasualties.org? if i pull out Wikipedia, you respond with World Book Encyclopedia?

so, as you can see, from a detailed and extensive looking into Vietnam War Statiscis to sources more general in nautre, they list the fact that over 150,000 were wounded in Vietnam.

not terribly effective means of arguing, especially when you Kerry-bash in order to make a point, which belies the real agenda here.

your enormous leap in logic was summarized in these lines:

[q]The Vietnam figures that break down at roughly 150,000 plus for hospitalization and another 150,000 for non hospitalization are roughly the same as the return to duty in 72 hours and not return to duty in 72 hours for the Iraq figures. [/q]

this is a bad, inaccurate comparison, especially given the advancements in battlefield medicine that render the comparison inaccurate. you've yet to point out what percentage of the 9,000+ who have not returned to duty after 72 hours ever do return to duty.

and it's probably undercounted anyway. way back in 2004, we had this:

[q]How many injured and ill soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines - like Chris Schneider - are left off the Pentagon’s casualty count?

Would you believe 15,000? 60 Minutes asked the Department of Defense to grant us an interview. They declined. Instead, they sent a letter, which contains a figure not included in published casualty reports: "More than 15,000 troops with so-called 'non-battle' injuries and diseases have been evacuated from Iraq."

Many of those evacuated are brought to Landstuhl in Germany. Most cases are not life-threatening. In fact, some are not serious at all. But only 20 percent return to their units in Iraq. Among the 80 percent who don’t return are GIs who suffered crushing bone fractures; scores of spinal injuries; heart problems by the hundreds; and a slew of psychiatric cases. None of these are included in the casualty count, leaving the true human cost of the war something of a mystery.

"It's difficult to estimate what the total number is," says John Pike, director of a research group called GlobalSecurity.org.

As a military analyst, Pike has spoken out against both Republican and Democratic administrations. He’s weighed all the available casualty data and has made an informed estimate that goes well beyond what the Pentagon has released.

"You have to say that the total number of casualties due to wounds, injury, disease would have to be somewhere in the ballpark of over 20, maybe 30,000," says Pike.

His calculation, striking as it is, is based on the military's own definition of casualty – anyone "lost to the organization," in this case, for medical reasons. And Pike believes it’s no accident that the military reports a number far lower than his estimate.

"The Pentagon, I think, is afraid that they're going to lose public support for this war, the way they lost public support for Vietnam back in the 1960s," says Pike. "And minimizing the apparent cost of the war, I think, is one way that they're hoping to sustain public support here at home."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/19/60minutes/main656756.shtml

[/q]

so, there you have it. the 20,000+ is the most accurate number to compare to the 150,000+ from vietnam, as the 20,000+ does not count what the Pentagon terms as "non-battle" injuries, the total number of which we do not know, and that mysterious total number would be the best comparison to the 300,000+ Vietnam era soldiers who might have lost a leg or gotten a particularly nasty paper cut.

My response to the article was because of the gross factually inaccurate statements made in the article.

The first was the fact that 55% of troops wounded in action had returned to duty within 72 hours and a certain percentage of the other 45% of wounded in action had returned to duty within the weeks, months and years after receiving their injuries. So, the total number of wounded who have returned to duty is far higher than the 50% reported in both articles unless of course your naive enough to believe that none of the 45% who did not return to duty within 72 hours have returned to duty at this time.

I challenge you to find a website that has more extensive statistics on the Vietnam War than this one:

http://25thaviation.org/id275.htm#v..._war_casualties

304,704 US troops were wounded in action during the war. It even breaks down several of the years showing how many were killed or wounded in action in the heaviest years of fighting!

Unless you believe that John Kerry was not wounded in action, then total number of wounded in Vietnam is 304,704. 153,000 of those were hospitalized and that is the figure that several websites use, but it is NOT the total number of wounded in action in Vietnam.

If you want to include NON wounded in action and those who got sick in Vietnam, the number would go well above half a million. The US military has non-hostile deaths, wounded and sickness all across the force through whether its troops stationed in Hawaii or Iraq. Nearly 10% of all Army and Marine Recruits do not make it through bootcamp because of injury or sickness.

In any event, the 304,704 wounded in Vietnam were ALL wounded in action. They were all battle injuries. There for, it would only be accurate to compare all wounded in action in Vietnam to all wounded in action in Iraq. Those figures are:


Vietnam: 304,704
Iraq: 21,086


Yes, there are non-battle injuries in sickness in both wars as well as in peacetime or in units not deployed to a war zone. But when comparing wounded in action, which is what the article you posted did, the correct comparison are the figures above. The ratio of wounded to dead in Vietnam is 5.2 to 1, not 3 to 1 as the article states. The ratio of wounded to dead in Iraq is 7.5 to one.

Both you articles you posted are factually wrong when it comes to the number wounded who have returned to duty as accurately noted on www.icasualties.org which reports the DOD figures, as well as the number of wounded in action in Vietnam.

 

[Irvine511]

Both you articles you posted are factually wrong when it comes to the number wounded who have returned to duty as accurately noted on www.icasualties.org which reports the DOD figures, as well as the number of wounded in action in Vietnam.

and it would seem that globalsecurity.org disagrees with you. why not acknolwedge that the definition of "casualty" seems to have changed from Vietnam to Iraq?

further, the article i posted below suggests that it's a very low percentage that return to battle after being in the hospital for 72 hours, somewhere around 20%. this is hardly the rosey, magical thinking numbers you allude to but never cite.

the facts remain: over 20,000 soldiers have required hospitalization in Iraq; over 150,000 soldiers required hospitalization in Vietnam.

keep trying!

(and that website is a wonderful example of revisionist, pro-military history, thanks for providing it -- it speaks volumes, especially with all the time it spends attacking Jane Fonda)

 

[STING2]

and it would seem that globalsecurity.org disagrees with you. why not acknolwedge that the definition of "casualty" seems to have changed from Vietnam to Iraq?

further, the article i posted below suggests that it's a very low percentage that return to battle after being in the hospital for 72 hours, somewhere around 20%. this is hardly the rosey, magical thinking numbers you allude to but never cite.

the facts remain: over 20,000 soldiers have required hospitalization in Iraq; over 150,000 soldiers required hospitalization in Vietnam.

keep trying!

(and that website is a wonderful example of revisionist, pro-military history, thanks for providing it -- it speaks volumes, especially with all the time it spends attacking Jane Fonda)

Several websites site the number of wounded in Vietnam who required hospitalization. They do NOT list everyone who was wounded in action in Vietnam.

The article you posted does not say anything about wounded in action or those who returned to duty after 72 hours. It only talks about non-hostile injuries and sickness which happen all the time where ever the military is deployed from Hawaii to Iraq, regardless if there is a war going on or not.


The article you posted to start this thread talks about WOUNDED IN ACTION. Only a fraction of the 21,086 who have been wounded in action have required hospitalization. In Vietnam, 153,000 or roughly 50% of the 304,000 that were wounded required hospitalization.

In any event, what were really looking at is the total number of wounded in action in both wars which is what the article makes comparisons about.

Total number of wounded in action in both wars is as follows:

Vietnam: 304,704
Iraq: 21,086


If you want to include non-battle injuries and sickness to those numbers, then they would both go up of course, but the ratio would either remain the same, or in fact go higher for Vietnam than it already is given the much larger troop commitment to Vietnam and that naturally in any such environment, your always going to have a certain number of people who get sick, or become injured for non-hostile reasons. Again, consider that 1 in 10 recruits will get injured or sick during bootcamp in the United States.


The Vietnam website http://25thaviation.org/id275.htm#vietnam_war_casualties is well researched and sites all of its sources, something a couple of the articles you have posted do not. Its also largely the work of someone who actually fought in Vietnam. But according to you, I suppose all that must make inaccurate.

I challenge you to find another website on the internet that has more statistics on the Vietnam than this website. I doubt you will, just as you have not been able to show that there are more "wounded in action" than the 21,086 listed at www.icasaulties.org.

The Washington Post article you sited has two major factual errors in it, and the CNN article has one. The cbsnews article discuss non-battle casualties, NOT wounded in action!

 

[Irvine511]

Several websites site the number of wounded in Vietnam who required hospitalization. They do NOT list everyone who was wounded in action in Vietnam.

The article you posted does not say anything about wounded in action or those who returned to duty after 72 hours. It only talks about non-hostile injuries and sickness which happen all the time where ever the military is deployed from Hawaii to Iraq, regardless if there is a war going on or not.


The article you posted to start this thread talks about WOUNDED IN ACTION. Only a fraction of the 21,086 who have been wounded in action have required hospitalization. In Vietnam, 153,000 or roughly 50% of the 304,000 that were wounded required hospitalization.

In any event, what were really looking at is the total number of wounded in action in both wars which is what the article makes comparisons about.

Total number of wounded in action in both wars is as follows:

Vietnam: 304,704
Iraq: 21,086


If you want to include non-battle injuries and sickness to those numbers, then they would both go up of course, but the ratio would either remain the same, or in fact go higher for Vietnam than it already is given the much larger troop commitment to Vietnam and that naturally in any such environment, your always going to have a certain number of people who get sick, or become injured for non-hostile reasons. Again, consider that 1 in 10 recruits will get injured or sick during bootcamp in the United States.


The Vietnam website http://25thaviation.org/id275.htm#vietnam_war_casualties is well researched and sites all of its sources, something a couple of the articles you have posted do not. Its also largely the work of someone who actually fought in Vietnam. But according to you, I suppose all that must make inaccurate.

I challenge you to find another website on the internet that has more statistics on the Vietnam than this website. I doubt you will, just as you have not been able to show that there are more "wounded in action" than the 21,086 listed at www.icasaulties.org.

The Washington Post article you sited has two major factual errors in it, and the CNN article has one. The cbsnews article discuss non-battle casualties, NOT wounded in action!

so more statistics equals better reporting?

what makes something biased is the amount of time it spends, say, justifying the US involvement in Vietnam, or bashing Jane Fonda, or the overall whiff of a bunch of dudes who have a bone to pick with the realities of American failures in Vietnam. it has more than a hint of Stockholm Syndrome.

contend with what you see as "errors" all you want -- it's the comparison of hospitalization via combat in Vietnam and Iraq that the article is comparing, and the 2nd article alludes to the deliberate underreporting of casualty figures by the Pentagon (all part of the PR war they've been waging, which you've bought into again -- you've ignored what the CBS article is actually about, which is the obfuscation of what it actually means to be a casualty in order to make the Iraq situation look less dire than it actually is).

anyway, you're incorrect that only a fraction of the 21,000+ wounded required hospitalization. they all did, some more than 72 hours, some less.

and what's funny, looking back over the original article, your hysterics at 55% vs 50% looks even funnier. the article clearly states "about half" -- which 55% clearly is.

so, there goes another objection.

 

[STING2]

so more statistics equals better reporting?

what makes something biased is the amount of time it spends, say, justifying the US involvement in Vietnam, or bashing Jane Fonda, or the overall whiff of a bunch of dudes who have a bone to pick with the realities of American failures in Vietnam. it has more than a hint of Stockholm Syndrome.

contend with what you see as "errors" all you want -- it's the comparison of hospitalization via combat in Vietnam and Iraq that the article is comparing, and the 2nd article alludes to the deliberate underreporting of casualty figures by the Pentagon (all part of the PR war they've been waging, which you've bought into again -- you've ignored what the CBS article is actually about, which is the obfuscation of what it actually means to be a casualty in order to make the Iraq situation look less dire than it actually is).

anyway, you're incorrect that only a fraction of the 21,000+ wounded required hospitalization. they all did, some more than 72 hours, some less.

and what's funny, looking back over the original article, your hysterics at 55% vs 50% looks even funnier. the article clearly states "about half" -- which 55% clearly is.

so, there goes another objection.

No, what the Washington Post states is that only about 50% of the wounded in Iraq have returned to duty TO DATE! That is dramatically different from the fact that 55% returned to duty WITHIN 72 HOURS OF BEING WOUNDED! In addition, they don't a account for the fact that some of the other 45% of the wounded in action have also returned to duty leading to a figure that is well beyond 50% in terms of who has returned to duty to date.

I challenge to produce ANY evidence that everyone who was "wounded in action" in Iraq required hospitalization. Go to www.icasaulties.org which has all the DOD statistics on this and show me where it says that ALL 21,086 troops that were wounded required hospitalization. If that were indeed the case, there would be a second statistic listing all the wounded in action who did not require hospitalization and one that would combine the total of both. It would be a larger figure than the 21,086 if it were so, and would no doubt be immediately devoured and used by anti-war crowd.

I've asked this before, if you believe that the 21,086 listed as wounded in action in Iraq are only those that required hospitalization, where is the list of the OTHER wounded in action who did not require hospitalization?

There is not such a list, because anyone that was "wounded in action" in Iraq for any reason, regardless of the severity of wounds or whether they were hospitalized, is listed in the figures. The only division that is made is between those that returned to duty within 72 hours and those that did not.

As far as non-hostile injury and sickness goes, this happens EVERYWHERE troops are stationed whether its peacetime or wartime. The military likes to site statistics that are RELEVANT to the situation on the ground, not things that happen to individuals regardless of where they were stationed on the planet. Non-hostile wounded and sickness have not been widely reported, if at all, in any other prior war, but the stats are available for this one as anyone can see at www.icasualities.org.

But, go ahead and continue to buy the horse crap of the Washington Post and CNN. The two figures they reported are obviously inaccurate as anyone who can read DOD figures would see. Its far from being the first time that a civilian news source has failed to accurately report on the military and its certainly not going to be the last.

As biased as you accused those who constructed the Vietnam website as being, at least they have sources for their statistics, and their certainly not as biased as those who continue to insist on something being correct when they have been effectively shown that it is not.

 

[Irvine511]

No, what the Washington Post states is that only about 50% of the wounded in Iraq have returned to duty TO DATE! That is dramatically different from the fact that 55% returned to duty WITHIN 72 HOURS OF BEING WOUNDED! In addition, they don't a account for the fact that some of the other 45% of the wounded in action have also returned to duty leading to a figure that is well beyond 50% in terms of who has returned to duty to date.

go back and read! they say "approximately half"! 55% falls into that! it is perfectly factual! and you've got to drop your mysterious "some percentage" of the other 45% unless you can come up with some number! 55% is "well beyond" 50%? now that is a gross inaccuracy!

oh, the semantical lengths you have to travel in order to defend your non-point!

once again, i just wrote something out, but it's so freaking useless -- we're not even talking about the real issue, and i'm simply letting you obfuscate what's really going on in Iraq over your petty disagreements over a silly ratio, which i've already amply defended.

what remains is this: Iraq is a mess. Americans are dying and suffering grevious bodily harm that will debilitate the rest of their lives despite radical medical improvements since Vietnam and for reasons that have been thoroughly debunked as little more than magical thinking and ideological smoke and mirrors. the military you love so much is being abused for political purposes by a party that is corrupt and rotten to the core.


[q]But, go ahead and continue to buy the horse crap of the Washington Post and CNN. The two figures they reported are obviously inaccurate as anyone who can read DOD figures would see. Its far from being the first time that a civilian news source has failed to accurately report on the military and its certainly not going to be the last.[/q]

the only horsecrap we're getting is the increasingly desperate PR spin out of the Pentagon. your 2 feebleobjections to the facts in their articles continue to have NOTHING to do with the premise of the article. still, i suppose you need someone non-military to blame for the various military and political failures of the past 3 years. so, continue.

and let it be known that i am also well acquainted with many in the military, i even buried an uncle in Arlington Cemetary last August, and your opinions and blind veneration of the military is not in any way shared by all service members.

so, let's drop your tangents, and get back to the heart of the matter: October was the worst month of the year for American troops, and the past 3 months have seen a bone-crushing 3,000+ Iraqis killed per month.

that's what matters.

now what do we do about it?

you got us into this mess; you get us out.

 

[trevster2k]

So it appears to me that Bush is going to present the image of an Iraqi government which is prepared to handle the situation in Iraq. After handing over control, he will claim that the Iraqis are responsible for Iraq and when it all goes to hell, the Iraqis and not Bush will be blamed for it. Brilliant sneaky method of diverting blame while at the same time bringing the troops home.

 

[anitram]

Give him 20 years and he'll be in the history book as the worst president ever. I have no doubt of that.

 

[Irvine511]

i'm also very done with this thread, btw.

ugh.