I just heard an army officer for recruitment say casualties were over 8000

[Lochloosa]

in Iraq. On a story on CNN. He was explaining the reasons for low recruitment. Did anyone else hear it?

Edit: spelling

[Boo Boo]

1. "Casualties" doesn't mean "dead." /nt

[Flubadubya]

2. Casualty does not = fatality...

Since "casualty" means anyone injured (or killed) then this isn't even accurate. Casualties in Iraq mount into the hundreds of thousands. Just some more "propagandee" !

[jmowreader]

3. Yes, folks, he's talking US casualties, not Iraqi ones

After all the DU we've used in that forsaken place, and all of the high explosives, napalm, etc., etc., etc., we'd have to list Iraqi casualties as "the entire population."

Even counting only American casualties, I think the number is probably three times that. Just as the actual US body count is higher--if you get shot and die in the hospital you're WIA, not KIA--this casualty count almost certainly includes only guys who had to be evacuated from the battlefield. Guys who get injured, patched up in the field, complete the mission and come in later (if at all) for treatment are certainly not being counted.

[Lochloosa]

4. After reading my post, I understand the confusion

And from what I heard, he was talking US casualties. That's DEAD soldiers.

[converted_democrat]

6. Could be wrong here, but...........

I think that the 8,000 figure is close. The way that they report the numbers of casualties is intentionally misleading. The numbers that we hear about are normally the soldiers that actually die on the ground of Iraq. They don't mention those who die en route to hospital or the ones that die on the operating table, or the ones that die of infection or complication after the fact. They do this purposely to make the numbers look better just like they do in jobless claims and unemployment rates. I never believe any of the numbers that this administration spews. They are sooo deceptive on so many levels.

O/T ---- The bad numbers issue is going take down our country in short order. The FED alone has cooked the books to the tune of 60 million and some how we are operating with a missing 2.3 trillion. The U.S. economy is much worse of then anyone could currently dream. And those numbers are just the tip of the ice burg, this administration is very secretive about everything and it is hard to prove or disprove how much money is missing...The United States of America is going to go down like Enron. Only harder.

[pretzel4gore]

7. and not a single pow!

that beggars the imagination

[onenote]

9. you're wrong

This has been covered over and over. The number of US war dead is not being understated to any significant (or even insignficant) degree. When you spout this junk you undermine the credibility of the anti-war effort. You also bolster the credibility of the administration, which got us into this lousy war with a pack of lies. Check out
the following thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3688105&mesg_id=3688105&page=

onenote

[converted_democrat]

12. Really?

The debate is still going on http://cvcobb01.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/18/115832/501


If you count everyone that is "on our side" you get 1811 coalition troops, 2099 Iraqi Guard, and 237 contractors. That's what is reported.http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx So, that's 4,147. Reported. These are all very dead people that died because we stepped into Iraq. This of course doesn't count the Iraqi civilians, no one wants to count them for some reason.

Ya wanna know something else? I'm sorry if I gave bad information if indeed it does not turn out to be right, but I'm not convinced it's wrong. I like and trust DailyKos. I don't think that one mistake like this will impede the anti-war effort,like you think, but I think your attitude will. You know it's funny to me that you guys can't more people to play on "your side." Is it any wonder? Do you really wonder why Republicans call Democrats elitist?

I'm telling you whether you want to believe it or not that administration loves to fiddle with the "numbers", I watch treasury and Fed reports like a hawk. The "numbers" have been off since before January. They have changed the criteria for the jobless report 3 times. I would not think that they are above changing numbers on the death counts, when I watch them put out manufactured numbers on everything else.

[Vickers]

14. I presumed you were speaking of American deaths, as any other deaths

would most likely not have an effect on US recruitment. :eyes:

[jmowreader]

18. No one wants to count them because no one really can

It's easy enough to get an accurate count of US military fatalities. Every unit, per the Army Regulation, must send a Morning Report to higher headquarters every day. The Morning Report includes the number of soldiers you started the reporting period with, and the number you ended it with. The difference must be explained: so many got injured and placed on limited duty, so many got injured and sent to the hospital, so many got killed. Add up the number of "got killed"s and you've got the KIA figure.

Also, once a troop gets killed they tell his next of kin the bad news. The next of kin tells the paper...you get the idea. There's no good reason to cover up the KIA figure and many good reasons not to.

US civilian casualties: same deal. The government will tell you if one of your family members gets killed in the war.

I would suspect the administration is cooking the books on WIAs who die, but whether they are or not is immaterial for the purpose of this post.

Now! Iraqi civilian casualties. Let's say the United States destroys a village in order to save it. We have really good bombs these days that turn bodies into goo; converted bodies are difficult to count...so let's try for a body count. Do we go by population? Uhh...those three families down the street went to Tikrit to see Uncle Mohammed. Do we go by an "average family" and use overhead to figure out how many homes were in the area? That won't work either; this guy here had 11 children and the guys who lived in this house, this house and that house all got their balls blown off in Gulf War I. Is there an "average population" of an Iraqi village? Doesn't matter if EVERYONE in town went to see their Uncle Mohammed. (Lotsa Uncle Mohammeds in Iraq; it's not the same man.) Forty years ago during Vietnam, we killed people with guns and still couldn't get an accurate body count. You can be sure when you're dropping CBUs on unarmed civilians that you'll never get one.

I don't even think you can get an accurate BC of the Iraqi Army troops who died because Bush's oil is under Saddam's dirt.

[annabanana]

17. the number we usually use is the KIA number (1600)

This is one of the biggest deceptions perpetrated on the American people. If the pictures of the returning coffins were allowed, the 1600 number would quickly be put to the lie.

[Vickers]

10. When a military person says casualties, they mean dead & wounded

And by wounded, seriously wounded (requiring medical attention or evacuation).

I think they are underreporting the deaths there, but probably by less than 250 or so, but those will eventually be added to the official roster once the adults are in charge again.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Wrong

Casualties does not = dead in militaryu parlance. It equals dead and wounded.

So much for that wild theory and panic, then.

[Imagevision]

19. Casualties=12350 -- DEAD = 1630

[onenote]

8. self-delete

[BloodForOil]

16. 8 000 seems a bit high

for actual fatalities.

I know it's near impossible and callous to equate human lives to just figures... even 1600 people I just cant imagine the impact that this has had on the people involved.

I think the total American dead is more like 2000-2500 - if it were really 8000 that would mean about 500 percent more than that stated instead of 50 percent and SOMEBODY would have picked it up.

If anyone gets figures please post them!

Thanks

[radfringe]

5. recruiting "ethics"

nightly "spews" ran a short piece about recruiters being sent for "ethics" training.

it mentioned that recruitment quotas for army/marines have fallen short... It did not mention what types of "ethical lapses" have occured...

a co-worker of my partner has a 22 year old son, who just signed up for the Marines. The co-worker does not understand how the Marines can accept him. He has a "screwed-up" knee, and is on medication for a sever bi-polar condition - sometimes he takes his meds, sometimes he doesn't. but the son said that the recruiter told him that this is nooooo-problem

[gratuitous]

13. And the worst thing for this 22-year-old?

Let's say he gets into the Marines. They're pretty desperate for bodies right now, so one guy looks the other way, another kind of takes the young man under his wing. The guy is consistent about taking his meds, doesn't have any episodes, and his knee holds up.

He serves out his hitch, performs his duties adequately, avoids getting killed or wounded, and comes out with pretty much a whole skin. Okay, we're talking winning-the-lottery odds by this point, but let's just say it happens.

He gets to his final exit interview, the one where he's about to get his honorable discharge, the money for college, the whole nine yards. And some beady-eyed pencil-pusher notices that his initial application from back in 2005 has some statements at variance with reality.

His entire record of service notwithstanding, he's denied an honorable discharge at the end of it all because he made knowingly false statements on his application. General discharge (if he's lucky), no veteran's preference points for civil service (or reduced points), and the money for college is gone. See ya, son. Have a nice life.

[radfringe]

15. you got that right

there was a case a few years ago involving don't ask don't tell.

the guy was a day or two away from official retirement/discharge. He was an officer and lived on base. he went out for the evening, upon returning - he found his home had just had a fire.

the fire crew investigated the cause of the fire, and in shuffling through the debris discovered some gay porn.

the guy was denied his retirement benefits and summerily kicked out of the service.

he did fight it - but I don't know what happened...

meanwhile...back to the bi-polar and bum-knee guy. I've never met him, but I've heard some of the "dozies" he's pulled when he's gone off his meds -- lots of drinking, yelling, punching and disappearing for days at a time -- and he's not all that consistent in taking his meds to begin with -- I'd be surprised if he makes it as far as the base for training...