The Unreported Cost of War

axtrader · Post by **axtrader** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:23 am

The Unreported Cost of War: At Least 827 American Wounded
Julian Borger, Washington
Monday August 4, 2003
The Guardian

US military casualties from the occupation of Iraq have been more than twice the number most Americans have been led to believe because of an extraordinarily high number of accidents, suicides and other non-combat deaths in the ranks that have gone largely unreported in the media.

Since May 1, when President George Bush declared the end of major combat operations, 52 American soldiers have been killed by hostile fire, according to Pentagon figures quoted in almost all the war coverage. But the total number of US deaths from all causes is much higher: 112.

The other unreported cost of the war for the US is the number of American wounded, 827 since Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

Unofficial figures are in the thousands. About half have been injured since the president's triumphant appearance on board the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln at the beginning of May. Many of the wounded have lost limbs.

The figures are politically sensitive. The number of American combat deaths since the start of the war is 166 - 19 more than the death toll in the first Gulf war.

The passing of that benchmark last month erased the perception, popular at the time Baghdad fell, that the US had scored an easy victory.

According to a Gallup poll, 63% of Americans still think Iraq was worth going to war over, but a quarter want the troops out now, and another third want a withdrawal if the casualty figures continue to mount.

In fact, the total death toll this time is 248 - including accidents and suicides - and as the number of non-combat deaths and serious injuries becomes more widely known, the erosion of public confidence is likely to continue, posing a threat to Mr Bush's prospects of re-election, which at the beginning of May had seemed a foregone conclusion.

Military observers say it is unusual, even in a "low-intensity" guerrilla war such as the situation seen in Iraq, for non-combat deaths to outnumber combat casualties.

The Pentagon does not tabulate the cause of those deaths, but according to an American website that has been tracking official reports, Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, 23 American soldiers have died in car or helicopter accidents since May 1, while 12 have been killed in accidents with weapons or explosives.

Three deaths have been categorised as "possible suicides", three have died from illness, and three from drowning. The rest are unexplained.

Wounded American soldiers continue to be flown back to the US at a relentless rate, in twice-weekly transport flights to Andrews air force base near Washington.

Hospital staff are working 70- or 80-hour weeks, and the Walter Reed army hospital in Washington is so full that it has taken over beds normally reserved for cancer patients to handle the influx, according to a report on CBS television.

Meanwhile, at the nearby national naval medical centre in Bethesda, new marine injuries are delivered almost daily by a medical plane known as the Nightingale.

The Pentagon figure for "wounded in action" in Iraq is 827, but here again the total number of injuries appears to be much higher.

The estimate given by central command in Qatar is 926, but according to Lieutenant-Colonel Allen DeLane, who is in charge of the airlift of the wounded into Andrews air base, that too is understated.

"Since the war has started, I can't give you an exact number because that's classified information, but I can say to you over 4,000 have stayed here at Andrews, and that number doubles when you count the people that come here to Andrews and then we send them to other places like Walter Reed and Bethesda, which are in this area also," Col DeLane told National Public Radio.

He said 90% of injuries were directly war-related.

Some of that number may involve double-counting - if a soldier stays at the Andrews clinic on the way to Washington and then again on the way back to the war or back home, for example. But the actual number of wounded still appears to be much higher than the official figures.

"When the facility where I'm at started absorbing the people coming back from theatre [in April], those numbers went up significantly - I'd say over 1,200," Col DeLane said.

"That number even went up higher in the month of May, to about 1,500, and continues to increase."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

zooner · Post by **zooner** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 6:08 am

moment of silence, shall we?

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 6:09 am

Originally posted by zooner

moment of silence, shall we?

chilt · Post by **chilt** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:29 am

We should all thank god that Clinton or Gore are not in office , that number would be tripled!!

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:44 am

Originally posted by chilt
We should all thank god that Clinton or Gore are not in office , that number would be tripled!!

..and how exactly do you know that? You know what..never mind I withdraw that comment, because this is getting off-topic.

FunK · Post by **FunK** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:07 am

Yeah, I would have to agree with the last statement. There probably would have been the same amount. Bush doesn't make the battle plans. The only thing he does is tell his generals when it's go time. They are in charge of the rest. The only wartime decision that I remember was making the decision to bomb saddams bunker.

I would probably say that there would have been LESS deaths with Clinton in ofice cause we would have sat on our asses and done nothing about Iraq.

Just remember that good journalists can get the numbers that they want. There are ways of finding out a more accurate number. That being said, if they REALLY wanted to report the truth, they probably could. Just look at all the dirty they are / will find about these pres candidates.

I would say that the journalists are just speculating and there aren't many facts in the report above. It looks like they half assed their story to get a message out but didn't really back it up too well. So, why make it seem like the Bush administration isn't reporting all the casualties? You decide.
I bet that even if they had the real numbers, they would just blame it all on Bush anyway,

Lets not forget that this was was about taking land and keeping it. Something we didn't have to do in the Gulf War.. I would definitely expect us to have more casualties. I'm glad that the numbers aren't higher than the ones that even this story projects. It could have and probably SHOULD have been much higher...

I hate journalists... Allways a slant. No matter which side they support, there is always a slant. It's sad too that most readers gobble it up.

chilt · Post by **chilt** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:17 am

While it is true that there is no way to compare the amount of injured or killed in any war between who is in office to who would/could be in office we can only look at each parties recent records.

Vietnam was a war started by and elevated by a Liberal White House trying to play by some imaginary set of rules. With one arm tied behind the military's back Johnson led our boys to be slaughtered. Refused to cut off KEY supply lines and bomb strategic points he prolonged and lost the war and lost thousands of American lives. Not to mention the millions that came back that would be forever affected. Once Nixon came in the north was constantly bombed and soldiers were sent home in something OTHER then body-bags. Nixon actually REDUCED defense spending and soliders in country while winning war!!!

Same thing with WWII, Roosevelt and Truman won that war by have more bodies to throw at the ememy then they had to throw at us.

It is wrong on many levels to be a "Monday-morning Quarterback" especially when it is in regards to young men dying defending our rights to freedom. However the person that wrote this article obviously had an agenda to get out, that Bush was killing our boys by keeping them over there. Can you image what Iraq would turn into if we just said 'ok , looks good , we're out' ??

Then BUSH , ofcourse, would be responsible for the atrocities that would commence after we left. It's a no-win situation for him with the biased press.

zooner · Post by **zooner** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:38 pm

Originally posted by chilt
While it is true that there is no way to compare the amount of injured or killed in any war between who is in office to who would/could be in office we can only look at each parties recent records.

Vietnam was a war started by and elevated by a Liberal White House trying to play by some imaginary set of rules. With one arm tied behind the military's back Johnson led our boys to be slaughtered. Refused to cut off KEY supply lines and bomb strategic points he prolonged and lost the war and lost thousands of American lives. Not to mention the millions that came back that would be forever affected. Once Nixon came in the north was constantly bombed and soldiers were sent home in something OTHER then body-bags. Nixon actually REDUCED defense spending and soliders in country while winning war!!!

Same thing with WWII, Roosevelt and Truman won that war by have more bodies to throw at the ememy then they had to throw at us.

It is wrong on many levels to be a "Monday-morning Quarterback" especially when it is in regards to young men dying defending our rights to freedom. However the person that wrote this article obviously had an agenda to get out, that Bush was killing our boys by keeping them over there. Can you image what Iraq would turn into if we just said 'ok , looks good , we're out' ??

Then BUSH , ofcourse, would be responsible for the atrocities that would commence after we left. It's a no-win situation for him with the biased press.

wow.

you're stupid.

at least I was mature enough to keep my opinions about this illegal war out of a thread like this. You're just a plain a**shole.

chilt · Post by **chilt** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:40 pm

Thank you , I especially like the way you backed up your statements.

You would be a great field reporter for the Washington Post!!!

zooner · Post by **zooner** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:43 pm

Originally posted by chilt
Thank you , I especially like the way you backed up your statements.

You would be a great field reporter for the Washington Post!!!

that's not the F**KING point a**shole.

This was a thread concerning a horrible loss of life. If you want to rant and rave, start a new thread.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:44 pm

Even if this is true this still an extremely low number compared to previous wars, like Korean, Vietnam, WW2

I think media is just looking for anything

I bet they wish they had clinton in office, only becuase they cannot find anything to really embarass the president with.

On another note, god bless the souls that died for our freedoms! Thank you!

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:45 pm

Originally posted by zooner
that's not the F**KING point a**shole.

This was a thread concerning a horrible loss of life. If you want to rant and rave, start a new thread.

No it is not per se, the article was slanted extremely to the left

but yes any loss of life is sad

chilt · Post by **chilt** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:47 pm

Ok , lets take it down a notch zooner.

You see the article your way and I saw the article as this person taking cheap shots at Bush. I dont think that article would ever have been written if a Democrat was in the Whitehouse.

No need to resort to immature name calling or profanity.

mountainman · Post by **mountainman** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:36 pm

Wow. Those are excellent numbers !

How many troops were killed and injured in the Vietnam War ?

58,135 veterans died in Vietnam, 300,000 (153,303 from combat) veterans were wounded and 2,267 are POW/MIA
from: http://www.missjanet.com/woh/stats.htm#Vietnam%20stats

I think they did an excellent job. Of course, numbers of 0 and 0 would be ideal... it is WAR. It won't happen.

Also... they said this:

"According to a Gallup poll, 63% of Americans still think Iraq was worth going to war over, but a quarter want the troops out now, and another third want a withdrawal if the casualty figures continue to mount. "

Now... I get a figure of 121.3333333333333% of Americans represented. WTF ? Or is this another manipulation of the numbers ? Rounding can only do so much.

De Plano · Post by **De Plano** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 3:25 pm

three seperate questions, well probably more, in the poll.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 3:49 pm

Originally posted by zooner
wow.

you're stupid.

at least I was mature enough to keep my opinions about this illegal war out of a thread like this. You're just a plain a**shole.

Zooner, his comments may have been out of line in your opinion, but you are sinking to a low level yourself with your insults. Can you not think of more intelligent words then swearing at someone?

De Plano · Post by **De Plano** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 4:02 pm

Originally posted by Roody
Zooner, his comments may have been out of line in your opinion, but you are sinking to a low level yourself with your insults. Can you not think of more intelligent words then swearing at someone?

I agree.

Not trying to dis you Zooner, I just think it could have been handled better. Just cause someone pisses you off, does not mean you need to try and piss them off.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 4:35 pm

Time for some civil tones here, folk.

Funk...maybe there is a possiblilty you were not aware that Clinton bombed Bagdad? He would have liked to have done more, but with the press hounding him over zipper stories, and Star...and all the better than thou's.....he took it as far as he thought he could get away with. Even that that....Rumsfield was sending him letters then, urging him to keep it up....

The results......the far right accuse him of trying to get the press off his back about Lewinsky and Paula Jones..

chilt....you accuse Zooner of not backing his statements up. Where are yours?

Zooner....I'm supprised at you. That's not usually your forte'....

It's too subjective as to what ANY other President would have done with Iraq after 9-11.....but IMHO...not keeping the pressure up on the Al Quadia problem is sick and wrong......there is the enemy....and the Saudi's......which is just now starting to come out...

Biased press? Right............now there's a thread.......let's see it!

Ax....I've been reading the same type of stories in my local paper. But it's usually in a few pages deep.

All this is going to come out. There was a story on 60 minutes or one of them news shows about a mother who's son was wounded......an eye opener to be sure. The Generals and the news handlers in the White House do not want this to get out of hand.....(Rove is a master and probably the most dangerous man in America....)

Some of you may not like the story that Ax posted, but believe me....if you hate it now...your really going to hate by this time next year......

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:14 pm

Originally posted by downhill

All this is going to come out. There was a story on 60 minutes or one of them news shows about a mother who's son was wounded......an eye opener to be sure.

what is so eye opening about that?

people get injured and die in a war unfortunately, do I want that? No of course not. but sometimes things have to get done in order to prevent evil from continuing

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:18 pm

Ghosthunter, you can't have it both ways.

First you make the claim the article is slanted...then you make the claim that there is nothing suprising in the article..or, if your refering to the show....She wasn't allowed to see him. An amputee...and her own song. She went anyway...What she seen in that hospital, (can't remember which one.) Was a huge eye opener...

Walter Reed is FULL of wounded. For a reason. Can you "guess" why?

zooner · Post by **zooner** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 3:19 pm

perhaps i merely misunderstood the tone of the original post.

I believed this was a post concerning the loss of life. To see people turn it into a poduim to broadcast thier hatred for liberals, makes me sick. That's why I was so upset. I dont care if you're conservative or otherwise, this was a thread about AMERICANS dying.

I wonder sometimes who these people really hate more, the 'terrorists' or the liberals? If I listen to a more liberal station, they might discuss what bush is doing. If you listen to a conservative station, all you hear about is how HORRIBLE liberals are.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 3:37 pm

Originally posted by zooner
perhaps i merely misunderstood the tone of the original post.

I believed this was a post concerning the loss of life. To see people turn it into a poduim to broadcast thier hatred for liberals, makes me sick. That's why I was so upset. I dont care if you're conservative or otherwise, this was a thread about AMERICANS dying.

I wonder sometimes who these people really hate more, the 'terrorists' or the liberals? If I listen to a more liberal station, they might discuss what bush is doing. If you listen to a conservative station, all you hear about is how HORRIBLE liberals are.

why does anyone just assume just becuase you disagree with a liberal it means you have hatred for them? or vice versa?

Hate is a powerful word, I dont even hate the terrorists. Hate is full of negativity.

We are mature adults who can have a debate about an article.

If there was no political motivation behind it, then the article only needed to be a few sentences about how many died and that was it.

If we could not even discuss this then why bother even fighting for our freedoms to begin with?

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 3:57 pm

Originally posted by downhill
Ghosthunter, you can't have it both ways.

First you make the claim the article is slanted...then you make the claim that there is nothing suprising in the article..or, if your refering to the show....

What I meant by nothing suprising me, meaning people do die in a war, whether accident related or from the war directly

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 4:00 pm

Originally posted by zooner
perhaps i merely misunderstood the tone of the original post.

I believed this was a post concerning the loss of life. To see people turn it into a poduim to broadcast thier hatred for liberals, makes me sick. That's why I was so upset. I dont care if you're conservative or otherwise, this was a thread about AMERICANS dying.

I wonder sometimes who these people really hate more, the 'terrorists' or the liberals? If I listen to a more liberal station, they might discuss what bush is doing. If you listen to a conservative station, all you hear about is how HORRIBLE liberals are.

You act as if those to the left never become involved in such things zooner. All sides have their hands dirty.

zooner · Post by **zooner** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:32 pm

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
Even if this is true this still an extremely low number compared to previous wars, like Korean, Vietnam, WW2

I think media is just looking for anything

I bet they wish they had clinton in office, only becuase they cannot find anything to really embarass the president with.

On another note, god bless the souls that died for our freedoms! Thank you!

learn the truth.

One in four of U.S. service personnel who participated in the nine-month Operation Desert Storm is now officially classified as "disabled," according to Department of Veterans Affairs figures

How any tons of nuclear 'dirty' weapons were used in the first gulf war? Last time I looked it up, the number far exceeded over 250 tons!!

axtrader · Post by **axtrader** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:50 pm

Not for nuthin, but it seems to me comparing the current "war" to Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, etc is an apples to oranges exercise. Those other conflicts lasted years, while this one has just begun (sort of).

Just my $.02.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:19 pm

Originally posted by axtrader
Not for nuthin, but it seems to me comparing the current "war" to Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, etc is an apples to oranges exercise. Those other conflicts lasted years, while this one has just begun (sort of).

Just my $.02.

Agreed...

I've heard estimates that to do it right, we'll be there for 30 years.......who knows...but I'm sure we're going to be there for a while..

If there's an uprising in Saudi Arabi.....looks like we'll have our foot in the door to protect "Saudi" oil interests...

lonewolfz28 · Post by **lonewolfz28** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:49 am

Originally posted by zooner
learn the truth.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One in four of U.S. service personnel who participated in the nine-month Operation Desert Storm is now officially classified as "disabled," according to Department of Veterans Affairs figures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How any tons of nuclear 'dirty' weapons were used in the first gulf war? Last time I looked it up, the number far exceeded over 250 tons!!

O.K. time for you to realize some truth behind these numbers. Mind you this is coming from a crewchief on F-15's that was over there as a young pup right after Desert Storm and is closing in fast on retirement.

At least a quarter of the military that make it to retirement are able to draw at least some "disability". Some career fields such as crewchiefs and security police have a higher percentage of their retirees on disablity than others like admin and backshops. That's just looking at it from a USAF point-of-view. The USA, USN and USMC with their more dangerous and higher percentage of physical career fields should have an even higher incidence of "disabled" retirees.

Since the end of hostilities in 1991, nearly an entire generation of military have retired and thus draw disability, making them "disabled" in the eyes of Veteran Affairs. A definition of "disabled" is hard to pin down for the military. I've seen crewchiefs draw disability for hearing loss resulting from exposure to the loud aircraft engines which would've resulted irregardless of war. I've seen weapons loaders draw disability for chronic back pain which would've resulted irregardless of war. I've seen poeple draw diabilty due to reactions to the chemicals that we use on the aircraft which would've resulted irregardless of war. Heck, I've even seen people draw disability for aches and pains resulting from car accidents which in a few cases would not have resulted if they'd been deployed to a "dry" country like Saudi.

I hope you see my point here. A better measurement would be if you looked at the percentage of retirees classified as "disabled" on a year-by-year basis before and after hostilities. Even then, you'd see a rise because the military as a whole has been more willing to classify people as "disabled" as the effects of our normal duties on our bodies becomes more and more known then they were in the past. It used to be they told you to suck it up because there wasn't any more wrong with you that the next person. Now they're much more likely to actually look into what caused your problem, attribute it to your normal duties and classify you as partially "disabled".

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 2:44 pm

Originally posted by chilt
Once Nixon came in the north was constantly bombed and soldiers were sent home in something OTHER then body-bags. Nixon actually REDUCED defense spending and soliders in country while winning war!!!

We won the war in Vietnam?

shant,
david

Respice · Post by **Respice** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 3:14 pm

Originally posted by zooner
One in four of U.S. service personnel who participated in the nine-month Operation Desert Storm is now officially classified as "disabled," according to Department of Veterans Affairs figures

Disabled in military terms means nothing what it does in civillian. I have two "diabilities".

I have slight hearing loss in my left ear from not wearing hearing protection around jets and 70 sets. I also had a knee sprain in Kuwait from playing basketball.

My college buddy collects diability payments for breaking his wrist lifting weights.

My other friend collects benefits for getting pulled off a wall at Paris Island as a recon instructor and is classified "diabled". Since he was in the Gulf war he is considered a disabled gulf veteran, even though his injury occurred nearly 5 years later.

Talk about learning the truth.

chilt · Post by **chilt** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:03 pm

Originally posted by nepenthe
We won the war in Vietnam?

shant,
david

We would have if Nixon was left alone long enough to clean up the mess that Kennedy and Johnson left him.

When we left Vietnam the South was safe , which was the whole point in participating in the first place, with the understanding that if the North ever invaded we would step in. When the North did invade , about 2 seconds after we left, Congress blocked Nixon from doing anything about it, basically selling out the South and renegging on our agreement. The South never had a chance without us

I'm sure you've seen the pictures of Americans fleeing the US embassy(I believe) in Saigon on the Hueys.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:10 pm

Originally posted by chilt
We would have if Nixon was left alone long enough to clean up the mess that Kennedy and Johnson left him.

When we left Vietnam the South was safe , which was the whole point in participating in the first place, with the understanding that if the North ever invaded we would step in. When the North did invade , about 2 seconds after we left, Congress blocked Nixon from doing anything about it, basically selling out the South and renegging on our agreement. The South never had a chance without us

I agree it was a mess when Nixon stepped in to office, but what makes you think the south was "safe"?

chilt · Post by **chilt** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:38 pm

Originally posted by Humboldt

I agree it was a mess when Nixon stepped in to office, but what makes you think the south was "safe"?

Maybe "safe" was the wrong word. However when the U.S. pulled out, we, as a nation, gave our word to defend South Veitnam if the North was to ever invade it again. Attempting to prevent more senseless murders which always accompany a communist regime's "take-over" of another nation.

I wasn't trying to prove a point that we won the war, only trying show the difference between Kennedy and Johnson's campaign in Veitnam to that of Nixon's.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:42 pm

Originally posted by chilt
Maybe "safe" was the wrong word. However when the U.S. pulled out, we, as a nation, gave our word to defend South Veitnam if the North was to ever invade it again. Attempting to prevent more senseless murders which always accompany a communist regime's "take-over" of another nation.

I wasn't trying to prove a point that we won the war, only trying show the difference between Kennedy and Johnson's campaign in Veitnam to that of Nixon's.

Ok, but we'd been trying to "defend" South Vietnam for years with very limited success.

Nixon was definitely handed a bad plate, no question about that.

chilt · Post by **chilt** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:54 pm

Originally posted by Humboldt
Ok, but we'd been trying to "defend" South Vietnam for years with very limited success.

Nixon was definitely handed a bad plate, no question about that.

In my personal opinion, I think Nixon wanted to end an unpoplular war that should never have been started. As I mentioned before when he entered office he did the right thing, he bombed the SH@#$ out of the North and cut-off supply lines. All the while sending more troops home to safety and lowering defense spending (things that Johnson had NO concept of). Eventually coming to an agreement that he assumed the United States of America would honor.

Nixon saved American lives by ending that war, plain and simple, whether it was considered a Win, Tie or Loss.

zooner · Post by **zooner** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:48 am

Originally posted by chilt
In my personal opinion, I think Nixon wanted to end an unpoplular war that should never have been started. As I mentioned before when he entered office he did the right thing, he bombed the SH@#$ out of the North and cut-off supply lines. All the while sending more troops home to safety and lowering defense spending (things that Johnson had NO concept of). Eventually coming to an agreement that he assumed the United States of America would honor.

Nixon saved American lives by ending that war, plain and simple, whether it was considered a Win, Tie or Loss.

we agree on something!

Talk about learning the truth.

I am fully aware of that. My father is 30% for a lost pinky and my brother is current DAV, although he's considered 0% at the moment.

Regardless, the number is still one in four. Why hasnt DU been mentioned in the media?? Even if the estimates of 1000-2000 TONS of DU used in this gulf war are way off, we're still using dirty weapons that are going to have a LASTING impact. How can we say we've liberated anyone?

axtrader · Post by **axtrader** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 4:12 am

Originally posted by chilt
In my personal opinion, I think Nixon wanted to end an unpoplular war that should never have been started. As I mentioned before when he entered office he did the right thing, he bombed the SH@#$ out of the North and cut-off supply lines. All the while sending more troops home to safety and lowering defense spending (things that Johnson had NO concept of). Eventually coming to an agreement that he assumed the United States of America would honor.

Nixon saved American lives by ending that war, plain and simple, whether it was considered a Win, Tie or Loss.

According to historical records, the Johnson Administration also "bombed the SH@#$ out of the North and cut-off supply lines", though not to the extent the Nixon Administration did.

Also please note that Kennedy too was "handed a bad plate" when he enterred office. According to historical records America's covert (CIA & Pentagon) involvement in Vietnam began in 1954.

lonewolfz28 · Post by **lonewolfz28** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 5:22 am

Originally posted by zooner

we agree on something!

I am fully aware of that. My father is 30% for a lost pinky and my brother is current DAV, although he's considered 0% at the moment.

Regardless, the number is still one in four. Why hasnt DU been mentioned in the media?? Even if the estimates of 1000-2000 TONS of DU used in this gulf war are way off, we're still using dirty weapons that are going to have a LASTING impact. How can we say we've liberated anyone?

The point was that that "one in four" is just a trigger number used by certain parties that doesn't tell the full story. By steadfastly standing by this "number" you lose creditability in my eyes as someone who really knows what they are talking about on this subject.

Depleted Uranium has been brought up in the media in the first Gulf War. Iguess you missed it that time around. It was also mentioned a couple times between wars by people trying to stir up public sentiment.

Basically the conclusions reached were that unless you were right there to breathe in any vapor or dust resulting from the impact, your dosage of radiation would be negligable. Of course, if you were close enough to be exposed to any dust, you were more than likely already dead from the impact explosion or shouldn't be playing around licking the insides of burned out Iraqi tanks. You get more radiation from natural sources every day than you would holding a DU round.

I teach aircraft fundmentals with a couple A-10A Warthog crewchiefs and a military training leader friend is a weapons specialist on the A-10, F-15E and F-16. We had this conversation when the news stories ran in the early '90's. We had them again when it resurfaced last winter/early spring. I'll take his word on the dangers of this round over that of some media source that's looking to make money or stir up trouble by slinging dirt.

More scare tactics from those that bring you Roswell, the Anthrax vaccine scare and the bermuda triangle.

Oh, forgot the IMHO part.

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 6:36 am

Originally posted by chilt
We would have if Nixon was left alone long enough to clean up the mess that Kennedy and Johnson left him.

When we left Vietnam the South was safe , which was the whole point in participating in the first place, with the understanding that if the North ever invaded we would step in. When the North did invade , about 2 seconds after we left, Congress blocked Nixon from doing anything about it, basically selling out the South and renegging on our agreement. The South never had a chance without us

I'm sure you've seen the pictures of Americans fleeing the US embassy(I believe) in Saigon on the Hueys.

Are you aware that the Vietnam conflict did not start during the Kennedy administration (see axtrader post)?

One of Nixon's most ardent 1968 campaign promises was to extricate "our boys" from Vietnam. Instead, he expanded the conflict into neighboring countries. I am sure you remember that the war at the time, was not very popular here in the US.

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Thu Aug 07, 2003 6:41 am

Originally posted by lonewolfz28

Depleted Uranium has been brought up in the media in the first Gulf War. Iguess you missed it that time around. It was also mentioned a couple times between wars by people trying to stir up public sentiment.

From what I remember, DU was not brought up at the time of the Gulf War or Kosovo. The topic reared its head years later when cancer rates began to rise in areas where it was utilized.