Table of casualties in Iraq(Corrected for wounded soldiers who died later)

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L14676551.htm

LONDON, Aug 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. military on Thursday increased the overall U.S. death toll in Iraq, saying the adjustment was to take account of soldiers wounded in action who later died of their wounds.

Following is a table of U.S., British and Iraqi casualties in the Iraq war and its aftermath as announced by U.S., British and Iraqi authorities or independently confirmed by Reuters correspondents.

more

[MaineDem]

1. Thanks for posting this (n/t)

.

[FreeperSlayer]

2. Merci

When I first log in for the day, I head to CNN to see what's happened overnight. As the page loads, I've found myself asking "Please no more, please no more", and then having to let out an "Aw f**k" when I see we've lost another boy.
Bush, and your overseers, you do not, have not, and NEVER WILL represent the people of our country. You make me sick.

[Athame]

3. So the US military is now using accounts by peace activists??

* = Figure compiled on Web site www.iraqbodycount.net, run by academics and peace activists, based on incidents reported by at least two media sources.
:wtf: The government does not have access to actual figures from their own sources?

and note:
1. still no wounded
2. total must still be added up combat vs non-combat; before May 1 and after. Total US dead = 415

[pmbryant]

5. No

Only the figure for Iraqi civilians killed is from www.iraqbodycount.net.

And the total US deaths based on this table are 191 combat + 93 non-combat = 284 total.

The number in parentheses are the part of this total that happened after May 1. That is 60 combat + 71 non-combat = 131 US deaths after May 1.

So... 153 deaths before May 1 and 131 after.

--Peter

EDIT: Got the combat + non-combat deaths switched around. Fixed now.

[papau]

4. Does not include badly wounded of 1500 - but 328 dead US/BRIT

is a number the US media seems to have a hard time finding, as well as the fact 142 of the US/Brit dead are post May 1 - it is more fun to separate the bodies into combat and "non-combat - meaning drove over a mine or friendly-fire".

And God forbid US Media ever mention the 2320 Iraq military dead, or the 7798 Iraq cilivan dead, or they might have to talk about the:

10,446 DEAD

and perhaps 20,000 wounded but not dead, and

start saying 30,000 CASUALTIES FROM BUSH LIES.

Instead we get "a hundred casualties" as the cost of the war.

The US Media does not lie to protect Bush because they are right wing GOP controlled, it just seems that way.

Meanwhile we can not find 200 million to avoid cutting the Americore volunteer size by 30,000 (by half), and we do not discuss the $5 billion ($4 billion Iraq, $1 billion Afghanistan) a month we pay out because Bush does not want other countries to influence his decisions - God forbid the UN have a voice and the American people then only pay half the bill.

[catmandu57]

6. So now I start at 131

I knew the number was higher than what we were being told.

[kainah]

7. keeping track of names

The numbers seem to change quite regularly. I've been keeping a list of the names and, for the last month or so, I've routinely had to same number of names as they claim for the full casualty count. Of course that can't be true because it always takes a few days for the names to be released. They are definitely fudging on them.

If anyone wants a printable flier with the names of the dead, go here: http://www.speakingformyself.net/wyomingdissent/american_soldiers_dead.PDF