Since Gulf War 1 - 73,846 US
Dead, 1,620,906 Disabled
12-11-7
Data from -http://dva.state.wi.us/WebForms/Data_Factsheets/GWVIS0507.pdf
73,846 US TROOPS DEAD (near top of page 6)
1,620,906 PERMANENTLY DISABLED (near top of page 7)
US DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ISSUES OFFICIAL REPORT CONFIRMING 73,000 U.S. TROOPS KILLED IN IRAQ SAME GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPORT CONFIRMS 1.6
MILLION "DISABLED" BY THE WAR
From Peter Marshall E. Boomhower
eboomhower@juno.com
George Walker Bush has presided over the worst defeat of the United States Military since Vietnam and has deliberately skewed reporting of the
deaths and injuries to conceal the facts.
Department of Veteran's Affairs, in conjunction with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has released the truth because they need the American People to
know our military is literally, destroyed.
They cannot release these horrific numbers via the chain of command because they are under orders to conceal the truth at all costs, so they let
slip a report which now cannot be "un-slipped."
Here are the facts and a link to the government source to prove these facts:
More Gulf War Veterans Have Died Than Vietnam Veterans.
The Department of Veterans Affairs, May 2007, Gulf War Veterans
Information System reports the following:
Total U.S. Military Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 3 Deaths: 73,846
* Deaths amongst Deployed: 17,847
* Deaths amongst Non-Deployed: 55,999
Total "Undiagnosed Illness" (UDX) claims: 14,874
Total number of disability claims filed: 1,620,906
* Disability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911
* Disability Claims amongst Non-Deployed: 1,212,995
Percentage of combat troops who filed Disability Claims 36%
Soldiers, by nature, typically don't complain. They don't want to be perceived (by idiots) as being weak, or complainers, or looking to get out
of work/danger. In other words, the real impact of those who are disabled from the US invasions in Iraq, Afghanistan and other Nations, is not
fully reflected in the official Veterans Affairs numbers.
Why are the government numbers of 3,777 as of 9-7-7 are so low? The answer is simple, the government does not want the 73,846 dead U.S. soldiers
killed in the Gulf to date to be compared to the 55,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Vietnam, lest we all conclude Iraq = Vietnam.
What the government is doing is only counting the soldiers that die in action before they can get them into a helicopter or ambulance. Any
soldier who is shot but they get into a helicopter before he dies is not counted.
73,846 dead U.S. soldiers for this scale operation using weapons of mass destruction is not high - we expect the great majority of U.S. soldiers
who took part in the invasion of Iraq to die of uranium poisoning, which can take decades to kill.
More than 1,820 tons (3-million, 640 thousand pounds) of radio-active nuclear waste uranium were exploded into Iraq alone in the form of armor
piercing rounds and bunker busters, representing the worlds worst man made ecological disaster ever. 64 kg of uranium were used in the Hiroshima
bomb. The U.S. Iraq Nuclear Holocaust represents far more than fourteen thousand Hiroshima atomic bombs.
That's 14,000.
The nuclear waste the U.S. has exploded into the Middle East will continue killing for BILLIONS of years and can wipe out more than a third of
life on earth. Gulf War Veterans who have ingested the uranium will continue to die off over a number of years.
From a victors perspective, above any major war in history, The Gulf War has taken the severest toll on soldiers.
So far, more than one million people have been slaughtered in the illegal invasion of Iraqi by the U.S.. This is genocide of the highest order.
Iraqi birth defects are up 600% - the same will apply to U.S. Veterans.
Statistics and evidence published by the government and mainstream media in no way reflect the extreme gravity of the situation.
Those working for the government and media must wake up and take responsibility for immediately reversing this U.S. Holocaust. Understanding who
is manipulating all of us is critical for all of us.
For those of you who doubt the veracity of this story, who naively believe it can't be true because if it were true, you would have heard it from
the government or from the main stream media, can see the proof yourselves directly from the United States Department of Veteran's Affairs web
site -Source:
Data from -http://dva.state.wi.us/WebForms/Data_Factsheets/GWVIS0507.pdf
PDF from DVA
This story is 100% accurate. 100% true. 100% verifiable.
From the bottom of page 9:
1. The total number of service members ever identified by DoD with possible low-level chemical warfare agent exposure serving in units in the
hazard areas at or near Khamisiyah, Iraq is 145,472 as of June 30, 2006.
In this report, VBA displayed compensation and pension statistics on 145,456 service members. VA and DoD have completed their fourth quarter 2006
review of service member records. However, there is a possibility of future changes, if needed, based on further review by DoD.
I wonder what the number looks like now?
By: Cubic_Numeric
In: Politics
Tags: americans, , iraq, afghanistan, opium, oil, politics, war, middle east.veterans.deaths
Location: United States (load item map)
Marked as: approved
Views: 6296 | Comments: 57 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
Advertisement below
|
|
| Liveleak on Facebook | |
|
LIKE Liveleak.com |
-
Afghanistan: Why Civilians Are Killed
-
CIA’s Bin Laden Hunter Ordered to Stand Down 10 Times
-
John Pilger "The Invisible Government" Part 1/4
-
PressTV: Ex-MI6 chief altered Iraqi intelligence
-
The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya EXPOSED
-
Bush Insider: '911 Was An Inside Job'
-
And... history repeats itself
-
'NATO kills 10 civilians for every troop targeted, destroys children's facilities'
-
AMERICA: The new nazis
-
War by Deception Director's Cut
-
ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11 (FULL documentary)




Those 73,000 deaths are deaths of all veterans who have served since 8/2/90 -2007, of all ages, who have died for all reasons. They are not deaths from the war in Iraq as you claimed. That same report shows there are just about 4.5 million living veterans in that same category. In 27 years, people in a group that large die.
The report does not say those 1.6 million vets are "permanently disabled by the war". That number comes from a table of "Compensation and Pension" More..
Posted Jun-1-2011 Bymarinemom (5358.78) 
marinemom View Channel Send Message
(8)
@marinemom Or is it marinedad, how are you, had your sack checked for testicular cancer lately?
I dont know what document your reading, but the one I read says exactly whats discribed.
Most strange they would remove the document from the original source:
http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWVIS_May2007.pdf
Why would they do that?
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-2)
@am0 Oh I read it, its crystal clear.
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-1)
@am0 Document says exactly what is discribed.
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-2)
Pathetic propaganda.
Posted Jun-1-2011 Bysgtloverlips (220.94) 
sgtloverlips View Channel Send Message
(3)
@sgtloverlips How is it pathetic and it is strange propaganda coming from the US government, shouldnt they be trying to hide this information?
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-1)
Maybe since you misunderstood the data in that report you ought to just delete the whole post. Just a thought.
Posted Jun-1-2011 Bymarinemom (5358.78) 
marinemom View Channel Send Message
(3)
@marinemom Why would you try to discredit your own governments official document, it says in the document exactly as discribed.
What do you stand to gain from lying?
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-2)
@JToKKo Yeah real cool. We didn't even need to fight ww1.
Posted Jun-1-2011 Byabsu69 (2102.84) absu69 View Channel Send Message
(0)
@JToKKo What has anything you have just ranted got to do with very recent wars?
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-1)
LMFAO!! I think you failed at math but its cool you arent scared to show the world the ignorance! HHA!
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByJingo Rex (174.10) Jingo Rex Send Message
(3)
@Jingo Rex I didnt write the discription, and the PDF comes from an official US government website.
Where is the math failure?
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-1)
Koooo-Kooooo!
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByRad69Cam (144.54) 
Rad69Cam View Channel Send Message
(2)
@Rad69Cam I disagree with you solely on the basis that you own or like camaros. The 396 was a good engine though.
Posted Jun-1-2011 Byabsu69 (2102.84) absu69 View Channel Send Message
(-1)
78 THOUSAND? Um no, I think we'd notice.
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByDick Fabulous (681.00) 
Dick Fabulous Send Message
(2)
@Dick Fabulous Maybe you will notice now that it is written in an official government paper?
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-1)
Jesus wept. Poor poster!
Posted Jun-1-2011 Byhussaruk (141.98) hussaruk View Channel Send Message
(2)
@hussaruk Jesus posts here?
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-1)
I took the time to read this document carefully and have come to a conclusion: you read this document wrong.
1. "73,846 US TROOPS DEAD (near top of page 6)"
Between the dates given 6.7 million men and women served in the US military. Of those, 73,846 died during the same time period (while still serving or after separating). That's all. It's a simple statistic. Those aren't just combat deaths. Those account for every death, for any reason.
2. "1,620,906 PERMANENTLY DISABLED (n More..
Posted Jun-2-2011 Bycontrail_25 (205.00) contrail_25 View Channel Send Message
(2)
@contrail_25 Thats your interpretation of it.
Its more ralistic to believe they are the real casualty numbers.
All nicely bundled up in a jargon speak package.
Posted Jun-2-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-3)
@contrail_25 that makes a lot of sense and thats very observant of you to pick that out and as soon as i saw the title i had a feeling something was up because we kicked ass in the first gulf war and in the second one we didnt have anywhere near those numbers when it came to deaths
Posted Aug-14-2012 Bybuckster3257 (46.90) 
buckster3257 View Channel Send Message
(0)
Dead is very different from sick...
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByT_Bone69 (474.76) 
T_Bone69 View Channel Send Message
(2)
The Iraq War hasn't been, isn't and never will be legitimate or successful...however the facts speak for themselves.
There's no need for this sort of lame propaganda attempt to prove the point.
In the US you need a public enquiry to establish who lied to you all, used and manipulated your best, and why...
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByElegantDecline (2130.98) 
ElegantDecline View Channel Send Message
(2)
@ElegantDecline Where is this lame propaganda you speak of?
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-1)
@Cubic_Numeric This article twists and bends figures to score a political point
The standard figures are bad enough
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByElegantDecline (2130.98) 
ElegantDecline View Channel Send Message
(1)
@ElegantDecline So the government are bending figures to score political points against themselves?
The standard figures are doctored so it dosent look anywhere near as bad as it is.
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-1)
The POINT is, Cubic_Numeric? Come on... what's the point you're trying to get across???????????
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByThe_Dogs_Bollox (1227.50) The_Dogs_Bollox View Channel Send Message
(1)
@The_Dogs_Bollox The truth..
Posted Jun-1-2011 ByCubic_Numeric (227.44) 
Cubic_Numeric View Channel Send Message
(-2)
Shall we say... one million muahahahahaha muhahahahahaha bahahahahahah
Posted Jun-1-2011 Bytruespeak (624.02) 
truespeak View Channel Send Message
(1)
Do you think your zionist masters appreciate your sacrifice?
Posted Jun-1-2011 Bynarc_uk (23.20) 
narc_uk Send Message
(1)