230 British troops injured in Iraq action ("no cover-up")

[Barrett808]

LONDON, Jan 20 (KUNA) -- Around 230 British troops have been injured in enemy action in Iraq, Britains Defence Secretary John Reid revealed Friday.

Those hurt while engaged in hostile action make up the bulk of the 40 people who suffered life-threatening injuries since the conflict began, Reid said.

The Defence Secretary gave the figures after the wife of a badly wounded captain called on the Government to be more open.

Peter Norton, 43, lost an arm and a leg in a bomb blast.

His wife, Sue, had said ministers should reveal how many more had been injured like him.

Speaking on a visit to a military rehabilitation centre, Reid insisted there had been "no cover-up''.

(more)

http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=806782

[Greeby]

1. It also says 4000 have been airlifted out

Given that he is a proxy of the Blair Government, how much credence do you want to give him? :shrug:

[legin]

2. My formulae

for a years rotation in Iraq:

1 in 200 chance killed
1 in 100 seriously wounded
1 in 20 wounded

taking 8,000 (?) troops for about 3 years gives:

120 killed (actual 98)
240 seriously wounded
1200 wounded

Whilst I'm not totally impressed with my accuracy on more than a number of occasions I believe me more than this crud. This figure of 230 would work as the 'seriously wounded' figure however and you will notice the minus arm and leg bit.

[onager]

3. Notice the euphemisms--they're taking lessons from Rummy

In the first paragraph--"injured." In the second para, "hurt." As though they had suffered sprained ankles and hangnails.

The proper term for military personnel who come to harm in a war...since Time Immemorial...is "wounded." Has anyone else noticed how SELDOM we see that word applied to US/British casualties in Iraq?