4,000 US dead in Iraq is a complete lie (try 70,000)

Yes, most of those deaths are attributed to the first Gulf War. I am not doubting this. We haven't seen the fallout from the current war/occupation yet, and we likely won't for another several years. One thing that is certain is that far more than 4,000 have died in Iraq. What are the exact numbers? We don't know because they lie to us. What we do know is that if we take the sum total from the first Gulf War, and the sum total from the current war (Iraq & Afghanistan), the number of dead is in the 70,000 range.

Most of the people serving in Iraq right now... they're goners. Whether it's a year from now or 10 years from now, many of them are going to come down with cancer due to their exposure to depleted uranium. And they are using many times the amount of DU now than they were during the first gulf war.

 

What does it mean that 70,000+ Gulf War Veterans have died.

Have they died in combat or just... died... ?

Sorry, I can't stop giggling to myself tonight. I'm drunk and happy that school is almost finished.

 

You've heard of Gulf War Illness, right? Many of the Gulf War veterans are sick, and it's believed to be because of a combination of things: chemical agents, tainted vaccines, depleted uranium, etc. Many of them have since died. The combat fatalities in the first Gulf War were quite low. The non-combat fatalities are far higher, but they are not counted among the official toll. 70,000 young to middle age men just don't die for no special reason.

In this current war, as I previously mentioned, the official death number only includes those who were killed in Iraq in combat. Many of those who are wounded are shipped out of the country for treatment, to places like Ramstein in Germany. Those who die there, whether it's days or just hours following their injuries, are not included in the death toll. So to think that only 4,000 troops have died in Iraq is just ludicrous. We don't know the official numbers from this war alone, but it is figured by some that it's in the 15,000-20,000 range. It could be more or less, but the point is that it's a lot higher than just the 4,000 the media is telling us.

 

Yeah definitely, I can only imagine how many cases of cancer, birth defects, and poisoning will result from the ridiculous amounts of DU being disintegrated over there. Unfortunately a close friend of mine is an LAV gunner in the marine corps and the primary type of ammunition he will be firing is DU. I can't understand how the government gets away with saying that the health risks of DU are "unsubstantiated." DU is 60% as radioactive as natural uranium. It's fucking radiation, we know what that does, especially when you breathe those particles into your lungs and they get to sit there inside you! It's fucking common sense that DU is an extremely dangerous and INDISCRIMINATE weapon. Not really much better than an atom bomb. Especially when the amounts being used over there far exceed the amounts used in an atom bomb. People just don't realise it because the American military is doing it one shell at a time, rather than exploding it all at once. And you're definitely right about the government lying at every turn about how many people have REALLY died as a result of their war. I can't believe what this country has come to.

 

Oh my god... you just told someone that they have no idea what DU is and then you claim that DU rounds explode. DU rounds have no explosives, they are like giant bullets.

Also, this article on 70,000 casualties is complete junk (more bizarrely, you claim this story isn't being reported yet you are able to cite a) media coverage and b) government data on the subject. So governments cover things up by publishing reports on them?).

First of all, it is a rambling editorial that managed to include rants again global capitalism and 911 conspiracies. It is full of junk science and doesn't even try to interpret the data it provides.

The point is you have just pulled a number out of the air and provided absolutely nothing to back it up. You are actually claiming that at least 11,000 people died from wounds in iraq and yet somehow this has gone unnoticed? globalsecurity.org tried to find examples of soldiers who died in hospitals outside of Iraq and could only come up with 10.

You need to raise your standards. Rat's headline was totally dishonest and the article was complete junk.

Uranium is a naturally ocurring element and is present in the soil and water everywhere. If DU was that dangerous that natural uranium would have killed us all already.

 

Your last statement proves what an idiot you are. 'Nuff said.

 

So you are going to prove that natural uranium isn't more radioactive than DU and isn't... er... naturally occurring in the soil?

I'm not sure who you think you're fooling with such an evasive answer.

 

You need to come up with something other than quick retorts.

The headline - "4,000 deaths (Gulf War 2) is a lie" - is backed up by a link to ALL mortality for Gulf War 1 AND 2 veterans over 17 years This is a complete joke, but you applauded it.

The editorial cites "73,846 U.S. soldiers who have perished as an apparent result of Depleted Uranium based bio-chemical warfare exposure", links to an article that says nothing remotely like that, then goes off rambling about 911 conspiracies. This is a complete farce, you are only adding to it.

Quit whining and crying and complaining and bitching, show me how that article is anything but junk research.

 

I umm... thought we already proved that the article was hogwashing facts when we determined that we can't actually see the number of soldiers who actually died in combat, compared to those who died say, of a car collision in the windy mountain roads of Utah.

Is there a Veterans Affairs Minister or whatever that has the exact numbers of Veterans dead in Iraq during the 9-11 til today conflict? Perhaps there is some kind of number of Gulf War deaths on the Veterans' webpage?

*grudgingly googles*

 

I found a few things:

http://www1.va.gov/VHI/page.cfm?pg=13

http://www1.va.gov/gulfwar/

 

edited

 

Or those who died years later due to cancer from DU exposure and/or other complications resulting from their illness.

Common sense should tell you that 70,000+ young to middle age men don't simply die for no apparent reason. Even if half that number died from natural causes, or causes not relating to their service, it would still be a staggering number.

 

70,000 is a 1% mortality rate over a 17 year period. You find this "staggering"?

 

If you haven't figured it out yet, 1% is death from all causes, natural and unnatural. I don't see how 1% over 17 years is "staggering", and I suspect that if you could prove it was you would have already done so.

 

While the loss of any life is tragic, it is easy to skew the numbers of fatalities in Iraq in favor of, or against the war.

 

How... is it easy, when we have numbers of whom we deployed and who have not returned? It's pretty easy to do a head count.

 

Umm... what real numbers? All I see is brainwashing articles here and a misleading title to a thread that claims that 70,000 people died in Iraq.

I'm sorry, but my eyes and mind are open and I see no evidence of how many or how soldiers have died in Iraq. There is a clear picture somewhere. I'd love to see it and do some research on it, but I've got an exam to study for today. Meh.

 

Pardon?

 

Bullshit deleted by Fed Up American

 

That was my point when I said that the numbers can be skewed. We don't know how many people have died because the government is doing the "head count" and if you look at reports from 3 different agencies you will get 3 different figures. None of which are 100% reliable.

It is easy to use scare tactics like "70,000 dead" because enough people will believe it, without question. People are sheep, the follow someone else blindly regardless of how faulty or absurd the information is. The reason that sites like Snopes does so well is because people are guillable, believing whatever other people tell them.