Wounded in Iraq

[smashp]

We have a guy we work with here who is a Reservist in the army currently stationed in Iraq in a transportation division. They have been running supplies all over the country. We were getting letters from him rather regularly about once a week until a month ago. His last letter talked about how they had yet to fire at or be fired upon, but they had not had ANY live Weapon exercises in their 4 months in country. This worried him. Well we got a letter today, I guess 3 days before their training was to begin they took some scattered fire north of baghdad and he caught a Bullet in the thigh, about 3 inches from his package.

He has been in germany in a hospital getting treatment and is probely going to either head back to Iraq or get sent home, Still doesnt know.

The thing that he was shocked about was the number of wounded their are that we here in the states here very little about. He said the size of the hospital and number of wounded just Belittled him.


My Question is Why arent we even finding out what the wounded numbers are in this War and occupation.

 

[Crimson]

I've seen wounded numbers posted all over the place.. its around 1100 or so if I recall correctly.. What next? Complaining about how the Administration is covering up how many bottles of water the troops are drinking? Everything is made out to be a conspiracy because it fits the agenda of getting a democrat into office.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I've seen wounded numbers posted all over the place.. its around 1100 or so if I recall correctly.. What next? Complaining about how the Administration is covering up how many bottles of water the troops are drinking? Everything is made out to be a conspiracy because it fits the agenda of getting a democrat into office.

Out of those 1100 I wonder how many are permantly disabled?

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Crimson
I've seen wounded numbers posted all over the place.. its around 1100 or so if I recall correctly.. What next? Complaining about how the Administration is covering up how many bottles of water the troops are drinking? Everything is made out to be a conspiracy because it fits the agenda of getting a democrat into office.

Out of those 1100 I wonder how many are permantly disabled?

Including you, or not?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I've seen wounded numbers posted all over the place.. its around 1100 or so if I recall correctly.. What next? Complaining about how the Administration is covering up how many bottles of water the troops are drinking? Everything is made out to be a conspiracy because it fits the agenda of getting a democrat into office.

See i havent caught recent wounded numbers. I guess that because im too busy tring conspiring to get a Democrat in office by POSTING ON A MESSAGE BOARD FOR COMPUTER GEEKS.

Real good stategy on my part, huh. Try again.

I was asking a legit question without a Political agenda(**GASP**) to get better informed and to encourage debate on the matter.

Get another talking point.

 

[cumhail]

According to this CNN article, from July of this year, the number that the Pentagon gave for those wounded in the war was at around 1000 back then:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/09/sprj.irq.main/index.html

cumhail

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Crimson
I've seen wounded numbers posted all over the place.. its around 1100 or so if I recall correctly.. What next? Complaining about how the Administration is covering up how many bottles of water the troops are drinking? Everything is made out to be a conspiracy because it fits the agenda of getting a democrat into office.

Out of those 1100 I wonder how many are permantly disabled?

Including you, or not?

Are you bothered by that question? If so why?

 

[cumhail]

According to the US Department of Defense's web site, the numbers of soldiers killed and wounded in the war on Iraq through October 22, 2003 (so the ones you've most recently been reading about in the news are not yet included), through are as follows:

Hostile Deaths: 219
Non-Hostile Deaths: 123
Wounded: 1,519

cumhail

Originally posted by: cumhail
According to this CNN article, from July of this year, the number that the Pentagon gave for those wounded in the war was at around 1000 back then:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/09/sprj.irq.main/index.html

cumhail

 

[CaptnKirk]

Due to the type of weponry used against our troops, there is a rather high amount
ot the wounds that are a form of dismemberment or a tramatic amputation.
Link

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Due to the type of weponry used against our troops, there is a rather high amount
ot the wounds that are a form of dismemberment or a tramatic amputation.
Link

Funny how these kind of Sacrafices made my our soldiers aren't being reported. I guess the adminstration would prefer it that way.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Due to the type of weponry used against our troops, there is a rather high amount
ot the wounds that are a form of dismemberment or a tramatic amputation.
Link

But I also heard a special on NPR talking about there being a larger portion of wounded per killed to previous wars due to modern medicine and new bloodclotting technologies.

 

[GrGr]

Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

 

[StormRider]

To go off-topic for a bit -- but what is the definition of a "legal" war?

To define a war as "legal" or "illegal" doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by: GrGr
Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: StormRider
To go off-topic for a bit -- but what is the definition of a "legal" war?

To define a war as "legal" or "illegal" doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by: GrGr
Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

Yeah I wouldn't say this was illegal..just ill advised. It also seems that the Administration or more to the point Rumsfield really screwed the pooch as far as underestimating the amount of troops and equipment needed to wage the ill advised war and it is costing unnessecary lives and causulties among our troops. If you are going to fight a war you do it right, fsck trying to do it on a tight budget.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: StormRider
To go off-topic for a bit -- but what is the definition of a "legal" war?

To define a war as "legal" or "illegal" doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by: GrGr
Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

Yeah I wouldn't say this was illegal..just ill advised. It also seems that the Administration or more to the point Rumsfield really screwed the pooch as far as underestimating the amount of troops and equipment needed to wage the ill advised war and it is costing unnessecary lives and causulties among our troops. If you are going to fight a war you do it right, fsck trying to do it on a tight budget.

I agree with that general statement. They tried to Win the War as cheaply and quickly as possible to make future wars/agenda more pallatable to the public. IMO

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: StormRider
To go off-topic for a bit -- but what is the definition of a "legal" war?

To define a war as "legal" or "illegal" doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by: GrGr
Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

UN sanctioned or that the country was attacked first hand by another country

 

[Corn]

Funny how these kind of Sacrafices made my our soldiers aren't being reported. I guess the adminstration would prefer it that way.

Ummmm, didn't Kirk just link one?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corn

Funny how these kind of Sacrafices made my our soldiers aren't being reported. I guess the adminstration would prefer it that way.

Ummmm, didn't Kirk just link one?

Yep, Time has a great article about it. I wonder what those on the extreme right who are critical of the media will say when all the other Mainstream News Agencies start reporting about it on a weekly or daily basis. I remember back in the 60'sd the public opinion about Viet Nam didn't began to turn against it until the pictures of all the wounded and dead were being shown nightly on by the News on TV

 

[CaptnKirk]

In 'Nam we actually had the lowest Fatality to Casualty rate that we had seen in warfare up to that time.
Helicopters. If (Big IF) - you could medivac the wounded you could get them on an operating table
within the golden hour, so if they weren't killed outright in the immidiate action, and the bleeding
could be stopped, there was a very good chance of survival.

Strangely one of the biggest dangers to the wounded was that of re-hydration.
When wounded soldiers were moved, the first thing that they wanted was water.
Just a little water after ingestion would cause blood loss to resume.
But how do you refuse water to a critically wounded combatant ?

One of the technological advances taken to the front in this war is the "Shrimp Shell Bandage"
It received FDA Approval Quickly

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: StormRider
To go off-topic for a bit -- but what is the definition of a "legal" war?

To define a war as "legal" or "illegal" doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by: GrGr
Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

UN sanctioned or that the country was attacked first hand by another country

Yes and since only the UN can sanction a war and the UN Charter is part of the US constitution Bush broke both international law and US law when he attacked. So far Bush has killed some 13,000 Iraqi civilian non-combatants in his offensive war, each of those dead are victims of a crime against humanity exactly as those dead on 9/11 were victims of a crime against humanity. Bush, by ignoring international law, is doing exactly what Osama is doing. Using the logic that might makes right and that the end justifies the means.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: StormRider
To go off-topic for a bit -- but what is the definition of a "legal" war?

To define a war as "legal" or "illegal" doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by: GrGr
Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

UN sanctioned or that the country was attacked first hand by another country

Yes and since only the UN can sanction a war and the UN Charter is part of the US constitution Bush broke both international law and US law when he attacked. So far Bush has killed some 13,000 Iraqi civilian non-combatants in his offensive war, each of those dead are victims of a crime against humanity exactly as those dead on 9/11 were victims of a crime against humanity. Bush, by ignoring international law, is doing exactly what Osama is doing. Using the logic that might makes right and that the end justifies the means.

Since when was the UN charter a part of the US constitution. Damn...they don't teach anything in school these days.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: StormRider
To go off-topic for a bit -- but what is the definition of a "legal" war?

To define a war as "legal" or "illegal" doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by: GrGr
Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

UN sanctioned or that the country was attacked first hand by another country

Yes and since only the UN can sanction a war and the UN Charter is part of the US constitution Bush broke both international law and US law when he attacked. So far Bush has killed some 13,000 Iraqi civilian non-combatants in his offensive war, each of those dead are victims of a crime against humanity exactly as those dead on 9/11 were victims of a crime against humanity. Bush, by ignoring international law, is doing exactly what Osama is doing. Using the logic that might makes right and that the end justifies the means.

Since when was the UN charter a part of the US constitution. Damn...they don't teach anything in school these days.

Bah, It was very clumsy of me to say that it is part of the constitution itself, I should have said part of the "supreme Law of the Land":

"President Bush maintains that Iraq?s "decade of defiance" of United Nations resolutions justifies a war against Iraq. But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America?s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law.


Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that ? except in response to an armed attack ? nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations."


Law Professors' Statement

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

In an illegal war, I might be upset.. In THIS war, I would be proud that I defended my country.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: StormRider
To go off-topic for a bit -- but what is the definition of a "legal" war?

To define a war as "legal" or "illegal" doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by: GrGr
Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

Yeah I wouldn't say this was illegal..just ill advised. It also seems that the Administration or more to the point Rumsfield really screwed the pooch as far as underestimating the amount of troops and equipment needed to wage the ill advised war and it is costing unnessecary lives and causulties among our troops. If you are going to fight a war you do it right, fsck trying to do it on a tight budget.

And this is exactly why Bush can't win with you folks.. If they would have sent in twice as many troops, you would have complained about the waste of manpower and money.. not enough, you complain they should have sent in more.

In every thread about the cost of this war, you will complain its too high.. then turn around and say we are not spending enough. There is NOTHING Bush could have done to please you guys. If he WOULDN'T have gone into Iraq you would be complaining he wasn't doing enough on terrorism..

If he would have raised taxes to pay for the war, you would blast him for raising taxes in a recession. If he cuts them you blast him for lowering taxes..

There is no way to win.. EVERYTHING he does is wrong because you don't like him.. period.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: StormRider
To go off-topic for a bit -- but what is the definition of a "legal" war?

To define a war as "legal" or "illegal" doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by: GrGr
Crimson, what would you say if you lost three limbs, say both arms and a leg, in an illegal war.

UN sanctioned or that the country was attacked first hand by another country

Yes and since only the UN can sanction a war and the UN Charter is part of the US constitution Bush broke both international law and US law when he attacked. So far Bush has killed some 13,000 Iraqi civilian non-combatants in his offensive war, each of those dead are victims of a crime against humanity exactly as those dead on 9/11 were victims of a crime against humanity. Bush, by ignoring international law, is doing exactly what Osama is doing. Using the logic that might makes right and that the end justifies the means.

Since when was the UN charter a part of the US constitution. Damn...they don't teach anything in school these days.

Bah, It was very clumsy of me to say that it is part of the constitution itself, I should have said part of the "supreme Law of the Land":

"President Bush maintains that Iraq?s "decade of defiance" of United Nations resolutions justifies a war against Iraq. But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America?s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law.


Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that ? except in response to an armed attack ? nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations."


Law Professors' Statement

Woah there buddy. I refuse to accept ANY organization which consists of people not elected by U.S. citizens as part of the "Supreme Law of the Land". The UN consists of countries which agendas.. those agendas dictate how they vote in UN resolutions.. In a perfect world the UN might work, in this world it does not.

Besides, did Iraq get UN authorization to invade Kuwait? And were they not under UN resolutions to provide unrestricted access to weapons inspectors? Funny how its OK for Iraq to ignore these resolutions, but not for us.

Besides, Bush swore to uphold the CONSTITUTION, and he is perfectly within his rights to tell the UN to go f--k themselves. The UN's "laws" do not supercede the Constitution.. if you believe it does, then you have just gone against the very fabric of what our country is built upon.

I won't even comment on your statement saying Bush is a terrorist. (Saying he is no different than Osama).. that just proves you lack any rational thought.