Do you trust the Pentagon War Death Count?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

Explain why you feel the way you do.

[WahooJunkie]

1. No! Mainly because

they don't count the soldiers that come back here and die as a result of their injuries or those that come back and kill themselves as being part of the "war death count"

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Incorrect.

That particular statement has been debunked many times on these boards by the people who run icasualties.org

Edit: Sorry, you're actually half-correct in that suicides aren't counted.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Bullshit

They count those who die of wounds sustained in Iraq, wherever they might die:

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Dow.aspx

As for those who commit suicide stateside after their service has ended, such folks have NEVER been counted as war casualties EVER, anymore than somebody who served and was subsequently hit by a car and killed in Cleveland would be counted. Now, you might dispute the reasoning behind this, and argue that psychic wounds were caused in the war and that these were the proximate cause of the suicide, but you'd be up against the entire tradition and standards of calculating casualties.

So, your first claim is patently and provably false, and your second claim is irrelevant.

[unhappycamper]

17. You are correct.

icasualities.org covers everything EXCEPT PTSD-related deaths after the service member returns home.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. And these have never been counted in any war ever

That might be a sad fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.

[WahooJunkie]

24. Thanks

For the research and the bullshit comment.

Both much appreciated

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Bullshit is bullshit

No matter how you cut it with perfume.

Isn't it?

[WahooJunkie]

46. What part of..

"Thanks" did you not understand?

"You're Welcome" suffices.

[Alamom]

2. No, we'll never know....

We'll never know the real count from Katrina either.

[cassiepriam]

3. We don't have a recent Iraqi death count either.

[SheilaT]

4. I voted yes, somewhat

because I'm not sure if you mean just our soldiers or are including the Iraqi death count also, which they're completely unreliable about.

And while there is a certain slippage, in not including those who die once evacuated out of Iraq, our soldiers are not dying in huge numbers out of the country. If they survive long enough to be gotten out, they're likely to survive a long time, however badly injured or mutilated they are. And THAT'S the real tragedy of this war, even more than the dead.

[LynnTheDem]

59. YES, they DO count those troops who die outside of Iraq.

One day -I swear!- this rumor that they don't count troops who die outside Iraq will be debunked for good!

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. The proper reply is not "They WOULDN'T lie about that"

but "they COULDN'T lie about that."

I don't trust the war count because I have some inherent trust of the Pentagon. I trust it because there are far too many eyes on this thing and it would be impossible for them to hide even a small number of US troop deaths, much less a large number, as some conspiracy buffs like to say.

[onenote]

12. agreed

And I have to roll my eyes at those who continue to assert that deaths occurring in hospitals away from the action aren't counted. Its demonstrably not true and has been debunked so many times as to suggest that those repeating this information simply refuse to investigate things that they hear. Unquestioning support for claims is as bad when it occurs on the left as on the right.

onenote

[ComerPerro]

65. That's a good way to frame it

Although, they are getting away with lie after lie after lie.

But I think they would be in some serious shit if they lied about the count.

[fasttense]

6. How can anyone believe anything that comes from this administration?

All their numbers have been rigged since the election of King George. They have been shown time and time again to have fixed the numbers from inflation, unemployment and global warming to vote counts, campaign contributions and expenditure of government funds. The cronies selected by the repukes are incompetent and unable to do a job. They have no alternative but to fix the numbers.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. So if Bush said "The sky is blue"

You'd insist that it must be green, because "How can anyone believe anything that comes from this administration?"

The simple fact is that there are too many eyes on the issue to manipulate the numbers. Can't be done, anymore than telling people the sky is green could be done. Too many people with no stake in covering up information know otherwise.

[fasttense]

47. If brush said the sky is blue, I would believe him

because I have the evidence of my own eyes that it is. At this point I have no evidence that brush is telling me the truth of the death toll. There is too much evidence to indicate the administration rigs numbers they don't like on a regular basis. I guess a nonpartisan, independent commission on the number of US soldiers killed might make me believe, but I will not believe this administration until they are proved correct.

[SidDithers]

52. Supply the name of a servicemember killed...

who doesn't appear at icasualties.org.

It's not Bush's numbers your mistrusting. icasualties.org is independant and non-partisan in the work they do. You can trust them.

Sid

[fasttense]

63. Ok, I visited icasualties.org

I found it laudable and well organized. It is probably the closest to accurate of all the sites that count the dead American soldiers. A snip from their methodology page:
"That is why this web site was developed … to provide information that has been scrupulously culled from government sources and cross-checked against other existing lists to ensure the most accurate and complete accounting of deaths that we can possibly assemble."

But it relies on news releases sent out by CENTCOM (the United States Central Command in Tampa, FL). I believe there are deaths that CENTCOM does not do releases on (a legit reason would be a covert operations death). I'm not saying that families are not notified, I'm just saying that CENTCOM ignores some of the deaths as does the CNN site. If a family does Not go on line and check one of these counting sites they have no way of knowing if their loved one was counted in the total or not.

Also, there are people in this world with very few loved ones who would go out of their way to make sure their death is counted. That is sad to say but then how else do you explain the tomb of the unknown soldiers? Some soldiers who die leave very small ripples in society.

Also CENTCOM could do a news release on the deaths and attribute the to other causes such as a training death in the states. This person would not be counted. But I'm hoping the folks at icasualties.org would notice something like this.

Overall I got to give it to icasualties.org, but I'm not sure they are getting all the data.

[LynnTheDem]

67. Yes we are getting all the data, and no we don't go by just the

Centcom releases; Pat was to have updated that methodology page long ago and hasn't had time. Apologies on that.

Sorry but you are VERY incorrect re loved ones; the majority of emails Michael gets are FROM loved ones of dead troops, as they send him photos, stories of their loved one's upbringing, local town articles etc.

Michael gets friends and family and fellow troops who email outraged because the dead loved one has the wrong middle initial, or wrong age or birthplace etc. OH YES the family members do indeed watch our site like hawks.

Go to the link provided in this thread, someone posted "LynnTheDem" link, and I explain exactly how we hunt troop deaths.

We VERIFY deaths with Centcom and DoD releases; we do NOT simply stenograph from those releases.

We get over a quarter MILLION hits a month, most the media in the world uses icasualties site for their news reports, most military are well aware of the site, yes we would have been told at least ONE MISSING NAME if there were any such.

:)

[fasttense]

70. Great, I will keep an eye out for the update on the methodology.

Nice to know you don't rely exclusively on CENTCOM and other DOD sources. I understand that most loved ones of the soldiers are very concerned. I just think there are some soldiers who die quietly, not noticed, hidden from society because their loved ones are gone. That is what accounts for the tomb of the unknown soldiers (that and faulty identification in past wars). But I agree it would be a very small number.

OK, I cry uncle. That site seems to be very thorough and run by a nonpartisan group. The site seems meticulous. I'll believe the numbers.

Now is there any way you can do the same thing for the dead and missing of hurricane Katrina?

[alcibiades_mystery]

72. You also have to consider all the unpredictable factors that a DoD

conspiracy couldn't control.

The "Tomb of the Unknown Soldier" isn't really relevant, since it refers to unknown REMAINS, not lack of knowledge about the number of dead. So, for example, when the British went over the top at the Somme in July 1916, approximately 20,000 were killed on the first day of the offensive. The British Army was well aware of how many had died, but you can imagine the difficulty identifying REMAINS in such carnage. That's the idea behind the Unknown Soldier memorials.

But back to uncontrollable factors. Just imagine all the people connected to any one soldier. Former teachers, family members, friends of parents, co-workers of parents, siblings, friends of siblings, friends, coworkers, colleagues of the soldier, friends of those fiends, families of those friends, their co-workers, etc., etc., until we're at a six degrees of separation phenomenon. The DoD couldn't possibly anticipate EVERYONE who is connected with that soldier, and everyone within that extended network who a) knows the soldier is in Iraq, and b) follows the soldiers status. There's simply no way to know. Moroeover, nobody in that network has any interest in seeing the soldier's sacrifice go officially unacknowledged - quite the opposite: everyone in that network has at least a marginal interest in seeing the soldier's death acknowledged officially. So, to assume that each such network has a) been informed of the death and b) failed to follow up on the many public lists is simply mathematically improbable. The numbers would be huge: you'd have to assume hundreds and perhaps even thousands of people for each soldier. Not to mention the other soldiers in his or her own unit, any hospital or graves registration personnel, officers up and down the chain of command who receive reports, etc. There could be a ZERO fail rate in all these human networks (i.e., not ONE would contact CNN, Nightline, icasualties, or all the other sites that list names)- REPEAT: A ZERO FAIL RATE, a virtual impossibility.

In other words, the risk of hiding even one death is incalculable, but very high, and the benefit of hiding one is negligible. The benefit of hiding many is obvious, but the risk (given those human networks) increases exponentially with each additional hidden death. It simply doesn't make any sense as a strategic operation, and is - in any case - impossible as a practical matter.

[afdip]

10. of course, these figures do not include "non-combat deaths"

in iraq. as if they would have died anyway, but just happened to be in iraq, so we won't count them. makes perfect repuke sense.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Yes they do include non-combat deaths

Here's the September 2005 list:

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=9-2005

Notice 6 "Non-hostile" deaths, included in the count. The icasualties count is accurate and based off Pentagon announcements. Non-combat deaths are included in the total that circulates widely (now at 1,986).

Do you just make stuff up, or do you have some screwy source for such delusions?

[afdip]

16. mea culpa . . . . that's a nice link, thanks

[hootinholler]

11. Yes Somewhat,

Because they aren't counting deaths of mercenaries ('security' contractors) and support contractors.

-Hoot

[pecwae]

14. No, absolutely not

I used to 'lie for a living' with the Army in a PAO. Over 20 troops were killed during the Grenada invasion, but it was a fact we sat on and never released. Also, it is SOP that many SO deaths are not reported and even families don't get the real story, ala Pat Tillman.

edit for spelling

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Pat Tillman's family was informed that he died, though

The official death count from Grenada is 19 US troops, which closely matches your supposedly "never released" figure.

That said, it would be even harder to hide casualties today, when each soldier is commemorated in Nightline reports and widely diseeminated Internet lists. What stake would a family have in helping keep their loved ones death a secret?

[pecwae]

25. Did I say a family

helps cover up a death? I couldn't care less if you believe my "supposedly never released" figure or not. I was there. Why do you so staunchly defend DoD reporting?

[tx_dem41]

29. Pssstt....read what he is posting. He is not defending DoD reporting.

That's quite clear.

And, he made a very good point about your remark on the Grenada reporting.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. You say "over 20" dead

Which I suppose means "not over 30" (or you would have presumably said "over 30"). The official count is 19 killed in the Grenada invasion. So, with respect to Grenada, you're claiming that the DoD is covering up a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 10 deaths (21-29 total). That simply doesn't make much sense to me. As for being there, I honor your service, but I don't take it as absolute evidence. Memories are fuzzy, yeah? Now, if you had 26 names, and only 19 names appear on an official list, and I could confirm with one of the 7 families of the dead not on the list, then I'd be convinced. Until then, the 19 looks pretty close to your suggestion of "over 20," and is probably acurate.

And I'm not "defending the DoD." I'm arguing that it would be extremely dificult for the DoD to hide deaths in the Iraq war, given the attention paid to it by families, the capacity of families to publicize their own findings, and the widely disseminated information about casulies on the Internet and TV. In fact, I'd be more willing to buy that this sort of hing could happen during Grenada than it could now. I think it would be damn near impossible for the DoD to hide even a small number of casualties, much less some large number. But then ou'd have to wonder what the benefit is in hiding even a small number, given the high risk of discovery - a risk that goes up exponentially with each new hidden casualty!

Of course, there is a grain of truth in each conspiracy theory of this sort. The truth here, I believe, is that these casualties are being minimized ideologically as a public relations operation: the actual number is not reduced, but the wounded and dead are being downplayed. The other truth is that Iraqi dead are damn near invisible in all this. If the false and unfounded stories that the DoD is hiding combat deaths helps people wrap their head around these two points, then I have little problem with them. But the stories are, strictly speaking, false - or at least completely devoid of evidence and therefore unreasonable.

[SidDithers]

53. Supply the name of a servicemember killed...

whose name doesn't appear at icasualties.org.

Surely you must still have connections, people in the military, who can provide you with such a name. That's all the evidence that would be needed for us to believe what you're posting.

Sid

[Skidmore]

15. I don't trust any information that comes out of this administration.

They lie about everything.

[tx_dem41]

21. Luckily, you have non-Admininstration people keeping track of it...

for you then. And, they agree with the DoD numbers.

[tx_dem41]

19. Not this cr*p again! A_M....glad to see you on the frontlines of this..

one.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

33. at least its not coming

from the news wing of 'The Barnes Review' anymore.

[tx_dem41]

34. Nope....

now its just coming from the news wing of someone's ass. :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Considering the Pentagon's record for veracity..no way.

They're a helluva lot more worried about PR than they are about GIs.

[Solly Mack]

23. I know military families would demand to know

so I know the count is correct

It's pretty hard to slide by the fact that little Johnny stopped writing or calling home. And even if little Johnny was an orphan, the other soldiers weren't - so they told their spouse who told 2 spouses, who told 2 spouses , and so on and so forth... Little Johnny's death would not have gone unnoticed.

And fuck anyone who thinks the families would just remain silent over their loved ones "mysterious disappearance" - you have absolutely no clue about military families if you think they would..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. I'm A Cynic But Not In The Direction You Are...

Yeah, many administrations would try to reduce the number of casualties they report but they can't get away with it so they don't....


Unless the armed forces is made up of atomized individuals folks are bound to miss their loved one when they don't hear from them ....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. .

[Up2Late]

31. Yes! Because It's NOT the "Pentagon War Death Count"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Pentigon NEVER Did a "War Death Count!"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got it!?!

Any "Counts" out there, were done by regular people out here in the real world, who were outraged that the Pentagon was NOT doing a "Death Count."

And BTW, thanks for such a vague question! WHAT WAR? Are you talking about Solders or Civilians? This is needed info to answer such a question.

This "death count" of "Coalition" casualties in Iraq is accurate. One of the people who stated it is even a DU member: <http://icasualties.org/oif/>

Same for this one in Afghanistan: <http://icasualties.org/oef/>

This one, "Iraq Body Count," is way low, because it has a different way of counting. "Iraq Body Count" has a very strict policy of only counting Iraqi Civilians who's deaths are reported in 2 respectable news sources. And since the News media has been mostly shut out of this war, their is little hope that this count is accurate, but it is an accurate count of the few who's deaths have been reported:

<http://www.iraqbodycount.net/>

[madokie]

32. I'm still sore from the bruising I took on this subject when I first

started to post. I won't question the numbers of lost soldiers anymore but I question every thing else that comes from this mis-administration. Never to believe anything that this moran west texas shrub* has to say or even think.

[SidDithers]

35. Bookmark this thread from LynnTheDem...

she explains in great detai how icasualties.org works.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3688105

Sid

[Qanisqineq]

68. YES, READ THIS THREAD

I post a link to that thread every time I see one of these threads declaring the count is wrong. I don't know how many it actually convinces, but it is worth a try.

[natrat]

36. dont they employ techniques to lower the number

ie ship em off to ramstein before they die and not count them as iraq dead---and use suicide as a cod and count in the tally-i think the pentagon is a big piece of crap

[tx_dem41]

39. Nope....troops that die out of country are counted.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Dow.aspx

As for the suicide angle, those people that are still in the VA system are counted. Those that aren't are not counted...the same as it has been in every war.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. No...wrong on all counts

As demonstrated even in this very thread.

You heard a false rumor and believed it without evidence.

[Neil Lisst]

37. No, I don't trust them! They LIE!

If a soldier is on an aircraft on the runway at Baghdad, and an injured soldier dies, he is not counted as dying IN Iraq.

damn liars

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT FALSE

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Dow.aspx

[tx_dem41]

45. Ummm....apparently you're the one that is...

lying. Or repeating a lie.

[SidDithers]

50. Responding 'cause I like your toons...

Here's the list at icasualties.org


Date Name Cause Country of Death
10/12/05 Hunt Jr., Kenneth E. Hostile - hostile fire - mine (anti-tank) USA
10/10/05 James II, Leon G. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
10/03/05 Pankey Jr., Larry Wayne Non-hostile - illness USA
09/20/05 Raymond, Pierre A. Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack Germany
08/28/05 Kolath, Obediah J. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
08/10/05 Benson, Michael A. Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb USA
08/05/05 Ball Jr., Terry W. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
08/04/05 Simon, Chad J. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
07/14/05 Hines Jr., Timothy J. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
06/21/05 Milev, Marin Milev Non-hostile - vehicle accident (drowning) Germany
06/13/05 Mattek Jr., John J. Hostile - hostile fire - explosion USA
06/03/05 Mendoza, Antonio Hostile - hostile fire - explosion USA
05/24/05 Collins, Randy D. Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack USA
05/22/05 Seesan, Aaron N. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
05/11/05 Schmidt III, John T. Hostile - hostile fire - explosion USA
05/10/05 Bordelon, Michael J. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
05/02/05 Little, Tommy S. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
04/12/05 Dickens, Tyler J. Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack (?) USA
04/09/05 LaWare, Casey M. Non-hostile - building fire Germany
03/04/05 Garceau, Seth K. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
03/03/05 Jones, Michael D. Non-hostile - illness USA
01/04/05 Washington, Bennie J. Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack USA
12/29/04 Nelson, Craig L. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
12/09/04 Renehan, Kyle J. Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack Germany
12/01/04 Pena, Javier Obleas-Prado Hostile - hostile fire Germany
11/27/04 Smith, Michael A. Hostile - hostile fire - sniper USA
11/24/04 Nolte, Nicholas S. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
11/23/04 Edinger, Benjamin C. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
11/20/04 Heredia, Joseph J. Hostile - hostile fire Germany
11/20/04 Welke, Joseph T. Hostile - hostile fire Germany
11/19/04 Downey, Michael A. Hostile - hostile fire - sniper USA
11/07/04 McVey, Otie Joseph Non-hostile - illness USA
10/22/04 Gadsden, Jonathan E. Hostile - hostile fire USA
10/13/04 Baker, Ronald W. Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb Germany
10/03/04 Pettaway Jr., James L. Non-hostile - vehicle accident USA
09/30/04 Nolan, Allen Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
09/28/04 Prewitt, Tyler D. Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack Germany
09/19/04 Adams, Brandon E. Hostile - hostile fire - grenade USA
08/09/04 Houghton, Andrew R. Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack USA
08/05/04 McCune, Donald R. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
07/21/04 Engel, Mark E. Hostile - hostile fire USA
07/15/04 Mardis Jr., Paul C. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
07/02/04 Martin, Stephen G. Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb USA
06/03/04 Bolding, Todd J. Hostile - hostile fire Germany
05/18/04 Chaney, William D. Non-hostile - illness Germany
05/08/04 Holmes, James J. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
04/22/04 Dunham, Jason L. Hostile - hostile fire USA
04/20/04 Fox, Bradley C. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Germany
03/20/04 Vega, Michael W. Hostile - vehicle accident USA
03/19/04 Matthews, Clint Richard "Bones" Non-hostile - vehicle accident Germany
03/18/04 Sutphin, Ernest Harold Non-hostile - vehicle accident Germany
01/05/04 Frist, Luke P. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
12/02/03 Young, Ryan C. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack USA
11/20/03 Tyrrell, Scott Matthew Non-hostile - ordnance accident USA
11/08/03 Jimenez, Linda C. Non-hostile - accidental fall USA
11/06/03 Fisher, Paul F. Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack) Germany
10/01/03 Ramos, Tamarra J. Non-hostile - unspecified injury USA
09/16/03 Pinkston, Foster Non-hostile - illness USA
09/07/03 Thompson, Jarrett B. Non-hostile - vehicle accident USA
08/17/03 Ivory, Craig S. Non-hostile - illness - heat related Germany
08/14/03 Kirchhoff, David M. Non-hostile - illness - heatstroke Germany
08/06/03 Colunga, Zeferino E. Non-hostile - illness - acute leukemia Germany
07/12/03 Neusche, Joshua M. Non-hostile - illness - pneumonia? Germany
07/08/03 McKinley, Robert L. Non-hostile - illness - heatstroke Germany
07/04/03 Coons, James Curtis Non-hostile - suicide USA
06/18/03 Latham, William T. Hostile - hostile fire USA
06/01/03 Lambert, Jonathan W. Non-hostile - vehicle accident Germany
04/24/03 Jenkins, Troy David Hostile - hostile fire - bomb Germany

Bookmark this post and spread it far and wide:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3688105

Sid

[butterfly77]

38. wounded soldiers

Are not counted when they die on the way to hospital or later, plus they are a bunch of big ass liars!

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. FALSE NOT TRUE INCORRECT

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Dow.aspx

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

49. It's like swatting flies in here some days, isn't it?

[NNN0LHI]

44. Pentagon War Death Count? Of Americans or Iraqis? n/t

[RepublicanElephant]

48. trust them as much as i trust dubya...

...which is not at all.

[mmonk]

51. I don't firmly trust anything these days

I'm more cynical now and the sad part is I was already pretty cynical.

[Silverhair]

54. Conspiracy Theorists. Here is your chance to prove a conspiracy!

Simply supply names of a military members who died in Iraq or later as a direct result of wounds recieved in Iraq who is NOT on the list and NOT counted and you will have PROVEN a conspiracy.

[Balbus]

55. *crickets*

[Silverhair]

57. Sound of one hand clapping.

[Sapphire Blue]

56. Trust the Pentagon? On anything? You must be joking.

[LynnTheDem]

58. Not again.

As a worker-bee for the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, yes I believe the Pentagon figures because we spend hours every week making sure it is accurate.

EOM

[walldude]

60. I voted no because the OP didn't specify

if we were talking Americans, Iraqi's or what. If you people thing the Pentagon is being straight with the Iraqi war dead count you are seriously mistaken. I work with a repuke who insists the Iraqi civillian death count is in the "low thousands" :eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

62. The Pentagon doesn't do Iraqi body counts.

Not war, not civilian.

DOD and Centcom do US soldier body counts.

[NNN0LHI]

69. They used to. I can remember when they stopped doing it

It was during the months following the initial invasion that they decided that they were not going to do Iraqi body counts any more.

Some reporter began totaling up the number of dead "enemy" that the DoD had released and the reporter brought it to everyones attention that the number came to more that the total number of the entire Iraqi population.

That is when they stopped giving Iraqi body counts. It was quite embarrassing. I don't have a link but I remember posting the article here when it happened.

Don

[Fescue4u]

61. Yes, They COULDNT lie about it

People have a tendency to notice when a loved one is dead.

[DemonFighterLives]

64. No

But I know better than to get into it. The same people come out to defend this administration and it's count.
Just the other day on LBN, the respected posters there were discussiong the fact that no POW's or MIA's are um happening. It is not normal for a war to not have them and with the bodies burning in Afganistan, I have a feeling that somethings have to be going on behind the scenes. Also, the stories about us going over into Syria and fighting; the story goes that these deaths are being hidden and the actions themselves.
And NO I don't have a name to give you apologists.

We may never know what is really going on in our names and that is the nature of the military. You become a number, 1 each, OD green.
OK, here is my hat. :tinfoilhat:

[ComerPerro]

66. Sadly, the death count is completely irrelevant

The people who do care are powerless to do anything about it.

Meanwhile, most of America doesn't even give a shit.

At all.

Hardly anyone actually cares.

Its never even discussed anymore outside of liberal websites.

And conservtives do their best to hide it.

[nolabels]

71. It's easier to be apathetic

The general population is trained to be that way on just about everything.
They would rather turn on the tube to watch fictional (predictable)murder mysteries.
To understand that their government is doing the real thing with murder in wholesale lots is just too much work for them.
After all most work is mental in the beginning so why start :shrug: