Jello wrote:
] ] There have been 1,380 coalition deaths, 1,234 Americans,
] ] 74 Britons, seven Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two
] ] Estonians, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, 13
] ] Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two
] ] Thai and nine Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of
] ] November 26, 2004. (Graphical breakdown of casualties).
] ] The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines,
] ] airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose families have
] ] been notified of their deaths by each country's
] ] government. At least 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded
] ] in action, according to the Pentagon. The Pentagon does
] ] not report the number of non-hostile wounded. This list
] ] is updated regularly. For a historical look at U.S. war
] ] casualties, click here, and to view a list of casualties
] ] in the war in Afghanistan, click here.
]
] 10,706 total U.S. casualties. Why don't we hear THIS number
] more?

...because you made it up?

1380 (coalition deaths) + 9236 (wounded US troups) = 10706 [unit error]

In the same vein as your comment, however, I have noticed a major increase in the number of human interest-related war stories in the news (e.g. this soldier died the same day his son was born, etc.).

-janelane

janelane wrote:
] Jello wrote:
] ] ] There have been 1,380 coalition deaths, 1,234 Americans,
] ] ] 74 Britons, seven Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two
] ] ] Estonians, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, 13
] ] ] Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two
] ] ] Thai and nine Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of
] ] ] November 26, 2004. (Graphical breakdown of casualties).
] ] ] The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines,
] ] ] airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose families have
] ] ] been notified of their deaths by each country's
] ] ] government. At least 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded
] ] ] in action, according to the Pentagon. The Pentagon does
] ] ] not report the number of non-hostile wounded. This list
] ] ] is updated regularly. For a historical look at U.S. war
] ] ] casualties, click here, and to view a list of casualties
] ] ] in the war in Afghanistan, click here.
] ]
] ] 10,706 total U.S. casualties. Why don't we hear THIS
] number
] ] more?
]
] ...because you made it up?
]
] 1380 (coalition deaths) + 9236 (wounded US troups) = 10706
] [unit error]
]
] In the same vein as your comment, however, I have noticed a
] major increase in the number of human interest-related war
] stories in the news (e.g. this soldier died the same day his
] son was born, etc.).
]
] -janelane

Okay, okay. Woops. But I didn't "make it up." A casualty includes a serious injury that takes a soldier out of combat. Dead + Injured = Casualties. It should have read 1,234 + 9236 = 10,470 total U.S. casualties. That number is huge. Seems like it would be quoted.

If a guy loses a leg, or takes schrapenel in the ass, or is blinded... isn't that as significant as a death? 10K lives seriously and horrendously altered is pretty damned significant. But its like only the dead count.

I think its fucked up. Its like noone cares about the injured. They're just forgotten and left to the VA.

Jello wrote:
] janelane wrote:
] ] Jello wrote:
] ] ] 10,706 total U.S. casualties. Why don't we hear THIS
] ] ] number more?
] ]
] ] ...because you made it up?
] ]
] ] 1380 (coalition deaths) + 9236 (wounded US troups) = 10706
] ] [unit error]
] ]
] ] In the same vein as your comment, however, I have noticed a
] ] major increase in the number of human interest-related war
] ] stories in the news (e.g. this soldier died the same day his
]
] ] son was born, etc.).
] ]
] ] -janelane
]
] Okay, okay. Woops. But I didn't "make it up." A casualty
] includes a serious injury that takes a soldier out of combat.
] Dead + Injured = Casualties. It should have read 1,234 + 9236
] = 10,470 total U.S. casualties. That number is huge.
] Seems like it would be quoted.
]
] If a guy loses a leg, or takes schrapenel in the ass, or is
] blinded... isn't that as significant as a death? 10K lives
] seriously and horrendously altered is pretty damned
] significant. But its like only the dead count.

Again, you're a little off-target with your argument. Blindness (or any handicap) doesn't equate to DEATH. My great uncle was blind from birth and lived one of the most interesting lives of anyone I've ever known. He worked in a broom factory when he was a kid (in the 20's), he learned almost every popular dance from the 20's through the 60's, and he lived to be a blissful 86. Acidus can attest to the fact that I'm no buddy of blue-hairs, but you gotta give the guy some credit.

] I think its fucked up. Its like noone cares about the
] injured. They're just forgotten and left to the VA.

It is fucked up. It's fucked up that "Our Leader" uses those wounded individuals for photo-ops. It takes awhile for the way we conduct ourselves _during_ a war to catch up to the way we conduct ourselves _after_ a war. How many benefits were passed just to encourage the enlistment numbers? How many do you think will arise if Bush starts another 2 wars? I hope that, in the next administration, the horrors of war will be better dealt even while they are simultaneously being further obscured.

-janelane

If there really had been a Mercutio, and if there really were a Paradise, Mercutio might be hanging out with teenage Vietnam draftee casualties now, talking about what it felt like to die for other people's vanity and foolishness.
--Kurt Vonnegut's Hocus Pocus p151

janelane wrote:
] Jello wrote:
] ] janelane wrote:
] ] ] Jello wrote:
] ] ] ] 10,706 total U.S. casualties. Why don't we hear
] THIS
] ] ] ] number more?
] ] ]
] ] ] ...because you made it up?
] ] ]
] ] ] 1380 (coalition deaths) + 9236 (wounded US troups) = 10706
]
] ] ] [unit error]
] ] ]
] ] ] In the same vein as your comment, however, I have noticed
] a
] ] ] major increase in the number of human interest-related war
]
] ] ] stories in the news (e.g. this soldier died the same day
] his
] ]
] ] ] son was born, etc.).
] ] ]
] ] ] -janelane
] ]
] ] Okay, okay. Woops. But I didn't "make it up." A casualty
] ] includes a serious injury that takes a soldier out of
] combat.
] ] Dead + Injured = Casualties. It should have read 1,234 +
] 9236
] ] = 10,470 total U.S. casualties. That number is huge.
]
] ] Seems like it would be quoted.
] ]
] ] If a guy loses a leg, or takes schrapenel in the ass, or
] is
] ] blinded... isn't that as significant as a death? 10K
] lives
] ] seriously and horrendously altered is pretty damned
] ] significant. But its like only the dead count.
]
] Again, you're a little off-target with your argument.
] Blindness (or any handicap) doesn't equate to DEATH. My great
] uncle was blind from birth and lived one of the most
] interesting lives of anyone I've ever known. He worked in a
] broom factory when he was a kid (in the 20's), he learned
] almost every popular dance from the 20's through the 60's, and
] he lived to be a blissful 86. Acidus can attest to the fact
] that I'm no buddy of blue-hairs, but you gotta give the guy
] some credit.
]
] ] I think its fucked up. Its like noone cares about the
] ] injured. They're just forgotten and left to the VA.
]
] It is fucked up. It's fucked up that "Our Leader" uses those
] wounded individuals for photo-ops. It takes awhile for the
] way we conduct ourselves _during_ a war to catch up to the way
] we conduct ourselves _after_ a war. How many benefits were
] passed just to encourage the enlistment numbers? How many do
] you think will arise if Bush starts another 2 wars? I hope
] that, in the next administration, the horrors of war will be
] better dealt even while they are simultaneously being further
] obscured.
]
] -janelane
]
] If there really had been a Mercutio, and if there really were
] a Paradise, Mercutio might be hanging out with teenage Vietnam
] draftee casualties now, talking about what it felt like to die
] for other people's vanity and foolishness.
] --Kurt Vonnegut's Hocus Pocus p151

I don't mean that blindness is death. It certainly isn't. But it is certainly a very traumatizing casualty. Its another soldier thats had parts of him mutilated in combat by flying bits of metal. And we've had 10 times as many casualties as we have deaths. Which is pretty important, especially since our troops are pretty well armored be it in a Kevlar vest (assuming they have them by now) or in vehicles. The number of casualties tells us more about the beating our troops are taking than does the number of deaths.

I think that were we still employing Vietnam era technology, if soldiers and marines had on Flak jackets instead of Kevlar, or drove Jeeps instead of armored Hum-Vs, then there would be many more deaths. Focusing on the number of deaths instead of the number of casualties understates the thickness of the "shit" in Iraq.