We heard that the US lost 1000 troops to the war up to now, mostly due to the insurgency. I always thought that the attacks should also include figures on the wounded because although some wounds may be minor, people do get seriously injured. While different estimates point to 30000 and some up to 100 000 Iraqi casualties, I think its worth noting that the US has 9000 wounded troops to think about up to now and that this number, along with casualties, will keep rising and that its not because they don’t die that it doesn’t matter.
One of those wounded is a friend of mine from high school. He lost his eyesight and a few of his fingers. =(
It really brought it close to home for me. The other thing I was seeing lately is… no time since the Vietnam war do you have so many groups of people losiing someone. By that I mean… the NFL lost Pat Tillman, they were honoring a Cornell graduate during a football game I saw on TV, I was watching some lacrosse game last year and they were honoring somebody, etc etc etc.
It really shows how far this is reaching when everywhere you turn somebody is remembering a friend or colleague who lost their lives in Iraq. =/
Actually Sin, a “casualty” is any injury, sickness, death, or whatever, but not soley one or the other. Most people think of a casualty as a death, but this is wrong and I think it comes from most injuries being fatal in early wars. You have to be careful with the word since it encompasses many things and can vary from scratching yourself up to being killed (notice how news sources never say casualty and say either “so and so many dead” and/or “so and so many wounded”). I say this since you used the word wrong and it could mislead a bit.
The article Sinistral posted specifically refers to “injured” and “killed” as separate entities. Nowhere is the term casualty referred to. The article also gives statistics separately for killed and injured. So unless The Guardian got their terms mixed up, which I suppose is possible, what Sinistral said was correct.
I think Infonick is referring to Sinistral’s statement that “I think its worth noting that the US has 9000 wounded troops to think about up to now and that this number, <i>along with casualties</i>, will keep rising and that its not because they don’t die that it doesn’t matter.”
I did use casualties a couple times in my post. But small wording issues aside, the point of injured personel remains. While some may be minor, we can’t expect 9000 people to have minor scratches.
Yeah, I was referring to Sin’s post, which is why I also said that news sources use “injured/wounded” or “killed/deaths” to distinguish. Saying injuries and casualties is double counting. Yeah, it is still sort of bad though.