Military Deaths in Iraq - 582 U.S. service members have died

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_deaths&cid=540&ncid=1480

As of Tuesday, March 23, 582 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq (news - web sites) a year ago, according to the Department of Defense (news - web sites). Of those, 394 died as a result of hostile action and 188 died of non-hostile causes, the department said. snip

Since May 1, when President Bush (news - web sites) declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 444 U.S. soldiers have died — 279 as a result of hostile action and 165 of non-hostile causes, according to the military.

more

[pansypoo53219]

1. i think it went up to 586

was 583 yesterday.
2 electacuted last week.

[alcuno]

2. It's 587 according to lunaville.

A couple of "accidental" deaths due to gunshot wounds.

[Qanisqineq]

3. damn, it was "just" 586 a little while ago

usually this time of the day is quiet (night there).

[alcuno]

4. You're right Tolania and I'm wrong. It's 586.

The latest was a non-hostile gunshot fatality.

[saigon68]

5. non-hostile gunshot fatality

Not your fault. That is an asshole term invented by an asshole

My term is dead is dead.

The mother is not a blue star mother, but a GOLD star mother

Disgusting

[Qanisqineq]

6. so it isn't included in the tally?

he/she died in Iraq. Enough for me.

[alcuno]

9. No. I had the number wrong. It is 586.

[kainah]

47. sometimes they include suicides

sometimes they don't. They have a lot of tricks for playing with these numbers.

[DemoTex]

7. Extrapolating the trend ...

The reported military deaths in Iraq should hit 1000 by about Pearl Harbor Day (12/7/2004).

[Eye and Monkey]

8. "reported" is not military deaths, but battlefield deaths

if I understand correctly from several & varied sources around the web, we're not seeing any numbers on soldiers who die as a result of their wounds (as in later in the field- or base hospitals).

p.s. just intended to amplify your comment.

[DemoTex]

10. Yep, and thanks E&M.

I try to use the term that is in the headline of the article, just for an apples against apples comparison. We had a little "discussion" about this terminology the other night. We all know that it is a hoax. The numbers, once the WIAs die in MASH units (or later), are much higher. So, my extrapolated number (1000) for 12/7/2004, would indeed be higher by whatever percentage the current under-reportage is. Also, my gut feeling is that there will be a Beirut-barracks type of attack and/or a mini-Tet68 type of attack that might skew the extrapolation numbers up-wards. Can't see them going down. But, otherwise, good point well made.

[Eye and Monkey]

12. your gut and my gut agree...

"my gut feeling is that there will be a Beirut-barracks type of attack and/or a mini-Tet68 type of attack"

Rumsfeld says "Dead-enders". Hmm.

[alcuno]

11. I've taken on this issue.

I believe that the current number being reported is correct. If you look at either http://lunaville.org or http://pigstye.net/iraq you will find the names of military personnel who died later in Germany, Kuwait, England and the US. It is a credit to medical personnel that so many who have been badly injured have ultimately survived.

[DemoTex]

13. Modern battlefield survival

It is not only a credit to medical personnel, but to evacuation systems, too. The beta unit was probably the Bell OH-13 in Korea, with medical litters on the open-air skids of the helicopter. Vietnam fine-tuned medical evac with the ubiquitous Bell UH-1 "Huey" Dustoff helicopter. I'm sure "Dustoff" in Iraq is quantum leaps from my time in Vietnam. However, all this talk is moot. Bottom line? We should never have attacked Iraq in the first place.

[Eye and Monkey]

16. one of your links shows a blank page, the other shows 870 media articles

The "pigstye" link does have media reports from local papers about local soldiers who have died. It does include some casualties that died of their wounds in-hospital, it also includes some of the suicides.

Of the 870 media reports, some mention multiple deaths. Some of the media reports don't mention any deaths.

I don't see how "pigstye" confirms that the DoD numbers are accurate.

[alcuno]

19. Try this.

http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/wd.php

I've been trying to watch this since early last summer; to see if news reports and local reports fit the DoD numbers. Granted, you never see reports on the news of people who died outside of Iraq, except maybe on PBS. However, both lunaville and pigstye have the reports. I can even tell you why the pigstye number is always higher by six deaths; it's because they are counting 6 people who died in an around Kuwait in the run up to the war.

[Eye and Monkey]

26. as I wrote, it's lunaville that returns a blank page.

Pigstye is 870 media reports.

I still don't see how anything on pigstye CONFIRMS DoD numbers - it just repeats DoD numbers. And I see nothing that indicates that pigstye is somehow independent.

[alcuno]

29. Use your keyboard and type it in.

And please provide me with ONE name of someone who has not been reported and does not appear on either list.

[Eye and Monkey]

37. I have tried it several ways, still blank.

And again, I am not making any claims, I am expressing skepticism at DoD numbers and sources that use DoD numbers as a reference.

Why does that so deeply offend you?

[Zookeeper]

14. Are injured soldiers who later die of their injuries...

counted toward the total fatalities? I keep hearing that only immediate deaths are counted.

[alcuno]

15. Please see my post # 11

[Eye and Monkey]

17. I don't believe your post #11 documents anything related to the question

No offense, it's mostly a presentation of small-town media reports. I do not see how that confirms that the DoD numbers are accurate.

[alcuno]

18. If you check the DoD website...

you will see that they are listing the names of the war dead. They match what independent sites are doing. I think that families would notice if their loved one was not recognized by the DoD and we would hear about it.

People contend that military personnel who are injured in Iraq and later die out of the country are not being counted. If you look at the names on both lunaville and pigstye, they give date of death, rank, cause of death, hometown, and WHERE THEY DIED. There are a couple of recent deaths that occured at Landstuhl in Germany.

I've seen no evidence that suggests that the names and numbers are not accurate and lots of evidence that they are. Before DoD releases the information, both lunaville and pigstye will often have a local article because a family member is talking. That's either coming from the papers themselves, the familes, or others who are looking for information.

[Columbia]

20. Nice try alcuno

Why do you introduce facts and logic when we just KNOW there is a conspiracy? I mean we heard it from a friend of a friend that this happens, so it must be true! Facts are just not going to sway our preconceived worldview. Sorry, not gonna work pal.

/sarcasm

[Eye and Monkey]

23. the DoD is an agency known to present facts? really? about Iraq?

about the war there? really? under this administration? really?

Your sarcasm and stereotyping don't really add any clarity, do they?

[alcuno]

27. Huh?

Why do you think people are keeping track of them? It's not because of their reliability.

[Eye and Monkey]

33. we agree that DoD numbers inspire skepticism?

[alcuno]

40. No, but the DoD does.

The numbers are correct.

[Eye and Monkey]

45. I think we're into "belief" rather than "facts".

You admit that the source is not necessarily reliable, and that there is no truly independent confirmation.

And yet you believe that the numbers are correct.

I remain skeptical.

[Columbia]

32. And you are the one with facts?

Where? Oh, up there? Nope, can't see any at all. Guess I should just blindly believe you just because eh?

No thanks.

[Eye and Monkey]

34. Why do you put words in my mouth?

I've not claimed to be in possession of ANY relevant facts. I am skeptical of DoD numbers and those that use DoD numbers as the reference for military deaths associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I've not requested that anyone believe anything - have I?

[Columbia]

36. I'm not, these are your words alone:

"reported" is not military deaths, but battlefield deaths

if I understand correctly from several & varied sources around the web, we're not seeing any numbers on soldiers who die as a result of their wounds (as in later in the field- or base hospitals).

p.s. just intended to amplify your comment.

You obviously do not understand correctly.

If you bothered to check http://lunaville.org/ as alcuno linked, you would see that there are several deaths that occur outside of the combat zone, such as Landstuhl, Germany and Walter Reed in DC.

[Eye and Monkey]

38. I understand that DoD uses numbers, others dispute those numbers.

And I remain skeptical.

I have tried to visit this lunaville site numerous times, and it still displays a blank page.

I did visit the other site referenced - and explored it enough to see that it contains 870 media articles, many from local newspapers. As I said quite some time ago, I do not see how that confirms DoD numbers.

[Columbia]

39. Update your browser

Or contact [e-mail] if you have problems accessing the site.

[Eye and Monkey]

42. From Lunaville - "our primary source is the U.S. government"

I finally went to Bartcop, and the link there works. Go figure.

From the Lunaville site:

"There is no magic to coming up with the number of coalition dead from our war on Iraq. Our sources are not secret. In fact, our primary source is the U.S. government. Any private individual or news organization who wishes to keep track of war dead gets their information from this same source."

http://lunaville.org/WC/Methodology.htm


I remain skeptical.

[Columbia]

46. Why should you?

Don't you think it would be rather difficult to keep deaths unreported? Don't you think a family member of a slain soldier would raise a fit if their death was covered up?

[Eye and Monkey]

48. Reversing your question - do you think it's not possible to cover-up?

on edit: again from the lunaville site:

"The trouble with this system of notification, however, is that the government provides no tally of those releases. Occasionally, the Department of Defense will release a total number of deaths to date. But it certainly doesn’t go out of its way to divulge those numbers. If you want to know the number of deaths at any given point, you have two choices: count up the news releases yourself … or find a non-governmental entity that is tracking the numbers and posting them somewhere.

This has not always been the case. We are told that during the Korean and Vietnam wars, the names and numbers of dead AND injured were readily available from the government. No longer."

I remain skeptical.

[Columbia]

49. The burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim

And I have seen absolutely zero evidence of any sort of coverup.

[Eye and Monkey]

50. you and alcuno are making the claim that the DoD numbers are correct.

I am expressing skepticism.

It would seem that you are making the positive claim.

[Columbia]

51. And that claim is substantiated

Do you understand the logic involved in this discussion? One cannot DISprove a coverup. One can ONLY prove a coverup with evidence. And until that evidence surfaces, the numbers stand as stated.

There is plenty enough to gripe about within the facts without resorting to baseless conspiracy theories.

[Eye and Monkey]

52. You keep bringing up conspiracy theories. Jjust admit it -

There's no independent confirmation of DoD numbers. For some thinking people, this means "skepticism", rather than "the numbers stand as stated".

As I said above, we are into an area of "belief", not an area of "fact". You believe the DoD. I remain skeptical.

And you cannot "prove" that DoD numbers are correct, except by citing references that use DoD numbers.

Perhaps one cannot fully "DISprove" a cover-up, but one can certainly dispel much skepticism by providing an independent confirmation. The DoD has not done this, and as a result, you are hampered in your efforts to support them in the face of skepticism.

Please don't blame me - it's not me that is keeping independent confirmation from happening. It's the DoD.

[Columbia]

53. Think man think!

DOD does not have numbers. They release information about casualties. These can be confirmed from press on the ground in Iraq or from hospitals stateside or families of the slain. The press releases are only a starting point from where to begin.

In order for there to be a probably coverup, that implies that there are deaths that are going unreported. You began this downward spiral by saying that deaths that occur outside of Iraq such as in hospitals or MASH units are not reported. As you can plainly see for yourself on lunaville, this is not true.

Since your claim there has been already negated with evidence, can you submit evidence that there is one single death that that has gone unreported?

[Eye and Monkey]

54. You keep putting words in my mouth. I say "skeptical", you say "coverup".

I've made no claim - and I cannot see how anything that you have written "proves" anything. What you have proven to me is that you believe the DoD. I remain skeptical.

Again - your claim of press on the ground in Iraq offering "confirmation" is cyclical - DoD numbers being used to "confirm" DoD numbers. Again - the DoD press releases are essentially the starting point AND the end point of any "confirmation".

Again you refer me to lunaville - which admits that it uses DoD numbers; admits that there is no independent confirmation; admits that no one has any recourse to any numbers other than those produced by DoD; and lunaville alludes to a certain skepticism. Do you understand the terms "methodology" and "independent confirmation"?

Cover-up? You are the one who keeps referring to a cover-up. Are you clear on the definition of "skeptical"?

Why do you try to bully with expressions such as "think, man, think"? Can you not admit that you believe what DoD claims?

[Columbia]

55. Aw forget it

[Eye and Monkey]

56. I think it's best to not forget that people are being killed.

And there is only one source that is providing information about the details.

You are certainly entitled to your belief in DoD.

I'll hang onto my skepticism for now.

[alcuno]

25. I am a teacher....

and I crack tough nuts for a living.

[Eye and Monkey]

28. Nice way to approach teaching. Perhaps you can provide substance?

We've all had teachers who repeat themselves.

[alcuno]

31. And there are still people walking about the planet who believe that

it's flat. Time for your nap.

[Eye and Monkey]

35. Another success at "cracking a hard nut"?

I don't understand why you have to be flippant. Could we just discuss the issue without the ad hominems?

[alcuno]

41. What's to discuss?

Where's the one name I asked for?

[Eye and Monkey]

43. "our primary source is the U.S. government" says Lunaville

Why do you insist on changing the subject?

[Eye and Monkey]

22. Yes, you're repeating yourself. No offense, but that doesn't confirm...

that DoD numbers are accurate. And independent sites? Perhaps you can link us to another - because lunaville returned a blank page, and pigstye info is distilled from DoD and media.

[alcuno]

24. Are you sure?

http://lunaville.org works for me. Try typing it in. Go to the link to the names of the fatalities.

Where do you think information is going to come from if not from the DoD or the media. All local media will report on a local death. If it's news in Chicago it's got to be news in a small town. Where are you getting your information from?

[Eye and Monkey]

30. I'm not making the claim - you are.

And I have pointed out that your claim of confirmation is cyclical.

I am skeptical of DoD numbers. I remain skeptical when your "confirmation" references DoD numbers.

[leesa]

21. I mentioned to a woman I worked with that I had attended the anti-war

demonstration in LA and she said, "Oh, is the war still going on?" This is someone young and "intelligent" who claims to care about human beings, yada, yada, yada...

[Mari333]

44. US Public doesnt give a shit

they just dont care.