killed instantly not the ones that die later on after there inital injury does anybody have any proof of this according to the governments total we have lost more Americans in Iraq than we lost on 9-11 I think this number is much higher
2007-01-12 03:52:26 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Your friend is right. And this isn't new, it's been done since the 1st world war. It's to keep the public, who really have limited knowledge from becoming panicked and losing faith in the efforts of the military. Not really a bad thing in and of itself in my opinion.
2007-01-12 03:56:40 · answer #1 · answered by Rich B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So far there are just over 3000 killed, and 22K "casualties". Meaning they were wounded in battle.
So the report doesn't count the casualty as a death, even though some die later of their wounds.
Your friend is right.
*Iwo Jima*
"Japan suffered a heavy loss; about 22,000 Japanese troops were entrenched on the island, and only 1,083 survived. The fighting was intense and the Marines captured the highest point, Mount Suribachi, in the first week of fighting. The United States lost a total of 6,825 men killed in the battle for the island."
This in a battle that lasted just over 30 days.
2007-01-12 12:10:43 · answer #2 · answered by chicago_paratrooper 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your friend is wrong, any death attributed to combat action is reported. If an accident occurs that is not combat related, the person is shipped out of theater and later dies that would not be reported.
The bad thing occuring however is the number of serious injuries that do not result in death is extremely high when compared to previous actions....medical technology is keeping people alive but with horrible imjuries...but I personally would rather be alive and missing limbs then dead.
2007-01-12 13:08:24 · answer #3 · answered by Gotta Question 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The current figures include all deaths, combat related or not. It includes all deaths that occur prior to being released from a hospital (unless sent to a hospice for terminal care.) Any post-release deaths are not counted, as has been the practice since post Civil War. Training accidents and general non-combat fatalities are included in the total toll.
2007-01-12 12:11:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The know that liberal obsess on the body count with little regard for anything else that happens. Could you imagine the liberal press at Iwo Jima or Normandy where casualties were higher in just a few hours than in all of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
2007-01-12 12:02:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think that may be true but the number probably wouldn't be much higher. Medical advances are so well in the military that almost anyone that can get out of a battlezone alive, will still be that way
2007-01-12 11:59:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Pentagon is notorious for juggling numbers to suit its political purposes. They did it in Viet Nam, so it would not surprise me that they are doing it in Iraq.
2007-01-12 11:57:28 · answer #7 · answered by Preacher 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dont know about that I do know if you Die from injories say after you are taken out of theater you are not considered KIA, which I think is kinda dumb and a stupid technicality.
2007-01-12 11:57:25 · answer #8 · answered by striderknight2000 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exactly correct Cher & Pale Rider
2007-01-12 12:09:22 · answer #9 · answered by me 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That wouldn't surprise me. They are doing their best to keep the number of casualties from the people.
2007-01-12 11:57:38 · answer #10 · answered by notyou311 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋