1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Tylanner
Don't the ends justify the means??

Isn't that the Liberal motto?

The ends don't justify the means.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?

[snip the emotional propaganda]

The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.

I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:

Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.

Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?

My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|

For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.

It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:

But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:

Forgot your meds???

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?

[snip the emotional propaganda]

The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.

I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:

Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.

Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?

My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|

For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.

It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:

But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:

Forgot your meds???

Spin that (in this thread, preferably). I realize that,,,,errr,,, I mean,,,, given your propensity for exaggerating things to their extremes, the little problem you have on going off on tangents, your inability to stay focused on the topic, and along with your ability to alienate anybody that may disagree with your distorted views, that you may have trouble formulating a valid rebuttal to my post, but what the hell, why don't you give it a try anyway.
. :laugh:

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?

[snip the emotional propaganda]

The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.

I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:

Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.

Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?

My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|

For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.

It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:

But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:

Forgot your meds???

Spin that (in this thread, preferably). I realize that,,,,errr,,, I mean,,,, given your propensity for exaggerating things to their extremes, the little problem you have on going off on tangents, your inability to stay focused on the topic, and along with your ability to alienate anybody that may disagree with your distorted views, that you may have trouble formulating a valid rebuttal to my post, but what the hell, why don't you give it a try anyway.
. :laugh:

I don't respond to ridiculous questions on whether I plan to join an insurgency from drones like you who can't fathom the difference between patriotism and Bush worship.

Supporting Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq is the same as joining an insurgency to 100,000 dead Iraqis, so why don't you join?

The numbers of dead due to Bush's illegal, immoral, unprovoked invasion of Iraq keep climbing. What a sin for anyone to support this unnecessary massacre.

1,221 -- November 21, 2004 -- 613th day
All due to Bush's lies...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?

[snip the emotional propaganda]

The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.

I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:

Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.

Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?

My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|

For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.

It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:

But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:

Forgot your meds???

Spin that (in this thread, preferably). I realize that,,,,errr,,, I mean,,,, given your propensity for exaggerating things to their extremes, the little problem you have on going off on tangents, your inability to stay focused on the topic, and along with your ability to alienate anybody that may disagree with your distorted views, that you may have trouble formulating a valid rebuttal to my post, but what the hell, why don't you give it a try anyway.
. :laugh:

I don't respond to ridiculous questions on whether I plan to join an insurgency from drones like you who can't fathom the difference between patriotism and Bush worship.

Supporting Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq is the same as joining an insurgency to 100,000 dead Iraqis, so why don't you join?

The numbers of dead due to Bush's illegal, immoral, unprovoked invasion of Iraq keep climbing. What a sin for anyone to support this unnecessary massacre.

1,221 -- November 21, 2004 -- 613th day
All due to Bush's lies...

No valid rebuttal to my post=bbond's view marginalized. :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?

[snip the emotional propaganda]

The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.

I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:

Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.

Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?

My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|

For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.

It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:

But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:

Forgot your meds???

Spin that (in this thread, preferably). I realize that,,,,errr,,, I mean,,,, given your propensity for exaggerating things to their extremes, the little problem you have on going off on tangents, your inability to stay focused on the topic, and along with your ability to alienate anybody that may disagree with your distorted views, that you may have trouble formulating a valid rebuttal to my post, but what the hell, why don't you give it a try anyway.
. :laugh:

I don't respond to ridiculous questions on whether I plan to join an insurgency from drones like you who can't fathom the difference between patriotism and Bush worship.

Supporting Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq is the same as joining an insurgency to 100,000 dead Iraqis, so why don't you join?

The numbers of dead due to Bush's illegal, immoral, unprovoked invasion of Iraq keep climbing. What a sin for anyone to support this unnecessary massacre.

1,221 -- November 21, 2004 -- 613th day
All due to Bush's lies...

Let him wallow in his own muck.

 

[BBond]

1,227 -- November 23, 2004 -- 615th day
All due to Bush's lies...

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq for Nov. Tops 100

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Three Marines who were wounded in action during the Fallujah offensive later died at American hospitals in Germany and the United States, the Pentagon said Monday, raising the U.S. military death toll in Iraq for November to at least 101.

Since the initial U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the only other month in which U.S. deaths exceeded 100 was last April, when insurgent violence flared and Marines fought fierce battles in Fallujah and Ramadi.

The Pentagon said two Marines died Saturday at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. Cpl. Joseph J. Heredia, 22, of Santa Maria, Calif., was wounded in action Nov. 10 in Fallujah, and Lance Cpl. Joseph T. Welke, 20, of Rapid City, S.D., was wounded there Nov. 19, officials said.

Landstuhl is a hub for seriously wounded U.S. soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan, and officials last week said the flow of injured to the hospital jumped to about twice the normal rate after the battle for Fallujah began.

Lance Cpl. Michael A. Downey, 21, of Phoenix, Ariz., died Friday at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. He had been wounded Nov. 11 in Fallujah.

The official U.S. death toll for the Fallujah offensive, which began Nov. 7, has not been updated since Lt. Gen. John Sattler, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said Nov. 18 that it stood at 51. But Monday's announced deaths mean the toll has risen to at least 54.

The Marines have suffered most of the Fallujah battle casualties. An exact number is not available because the Marines usually do not specify the city in which a casualty happened. Since Nov. 1, the Marines have had at least 69 deaths throughout Iraq - mostly in Fallujah. That is by far the deadliest month of the war for the Marines; their previous high was 52 last April.

Of the approximately 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 35,000 are Marines.

 

[BBond]

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Ties Record

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - Fueled by fierce fighting in Fallujah and insurgents' counterattacks elsewhere in Iraq, the U.S. military death toll for November equalled the highest for any month of the war, according to casualty reports available Tuesday.

At least 135 U.S. troops died in November. That is the same number as last April, when the insurgence flared in Fallujah and elsewhere in the so-called Sunni Triangle where U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies lost a large measure of control.

On Nov. 8, U.S. forces launched an offensive to retake Fallujah, and they have engaged in tough fighting in other cities since then. More than 50 U.S. troops have been killed in Fallujah since then, although the Pentagon has not provided a casualty count for Fallujah for more than a week.

From the viewpoint of the United States and Iraqis who are striving to restore stability, the casualty trend since the interim Iraqi government was put in power June 28 has been troubling. Each month's death toll has been higher than the last, with the single exception of October, when it was 63.

The monthly totals grew from 42 in June to 54 in July to 65 in August and to 80 in September.

The Pentagon's official death toll for Iraq, dating to the start of the war, stood at 1,254 on Tuesday. That total did not include a Marine killed Monday in Anbar province and a 1st Infantry Division soldier who died of wounds sustained in a roadside bomb attack late Monday night near the town of Alazu.

On Nov. 1 the official death toll stood at 1,121.

Combat injuries increased in November due to the fierce fighting in Fallujah. Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington reported Monday that it received 32 additional battle casualties from Iraq over the past two weeks. One was in critical condition. All 32 had been treated earlier at the Army's largest hospital in Europe, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.

Some of the most severe injuries ? and many of the deaths ? among U.S. troops in Iraq are inflicted by the insurgents' homemade bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

U.S. forces have put extraordinary effort into countering the IED threat, yet it persists. U.S. troops in Fallujah reported finding nearly as many homemade explosives over the past three weeks as had been uncovered throughout Iraq in the previous four months combined.

In recent action in Fallujah, troops found at least 650 homemade bombs, Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said Monday. That compares with 722 found throughout the country between July 1 and October 31.

The IEDs are rigged to detonate by remote control and often are hidden along roadways used by U.S. forces, to deadly effect.

Since U.S. forces invaded Fallujah on Nov. 8 to regain control, they have found about a dozen IED "factories," a number of vehicles being modified to serve as car bombs, and at least 10 surface-to-air missiles capable of downing aircraft, Whitman said.

More than half of the approximately 100 mosques in Fallujah were used as fighting positions or weapon storage sites, Whitman said, citing a U.S. military report that has not been released publicly.

U.S. officials knew insurgents had used Fallujah as a haven from which to plan and organize resources for attacks in Baghdad and other cities in the Sunni Triangle north and west of the capital, but the amount of weapons found exceeded expectations.

Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference last Tuesday that the kinds and amount of weapons found in Fallujah indicated the insurgents pose a serious and continuing threat.

"No doubt attacks will continue in the weeks and months ahead, and perhaps intensify as the Iraqi election approaches," Rumsfeld said, referring to national elections scheduled for Jan. 30.

Whitman said other discoveries in Fallujah include:

_Plastic explosives and TNT.

_A hand-held Global Positioning System receiver for use in navigation.

_Makeshift shoulder-fired rocket launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, 122mm rockets and thousands of mortar rounds.

_An anti-aircraft artillery gun.

_More than 200 major weapons storage areas.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I would be glad to address your reasoning if you actually PRESENTED some.Your primary tenet seems to be that removing Saddam from power is immoral because a lot of people disagree with it. Sorry, but just because a lot of people feel a certain way does NOT mean they are right. Platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding, yes, 100 million people CAN be WRONG. And they very often ARE.

Jason

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
My primary tenet is that when the USA engages in pre-emptive warfare, and kills thousands of civilians, it is wholly insufficient to fall back on a claim that 'we are a highly moral nation, therefore our actions are just'. The fact remains that 'freeing the Iraqi people' was not the primary motivation for going to war in Iraq; officially, WMDs were the reason, speculatively, access to oil may have been a major consideration. I think a utilitarian approach would suggest that civilians in Iraq were not being killed by the thousands at the time of the invasion, and that civilian deaths and probably insurgency were relatively predictable outcomes of the invasion.

A much better time to act would have been at the point of succession from Saddam to his chosen successor, since at that time a power vaccuum (however brief) and civil disorder would likely have occurred. In this way you could have minimized civilian casualties now and had probably many years, instead of a few months, to plan a course of action to be put into play in the future, with at least the potential for a better result.

I'm particularly offended by cwj's original claim that the USA by virtue of it's moral status has a moral imperative to attack many nations, but should only do so if it is in their own interests; this, it seems to me, runs precisely counter to the idea of behaving morally; it claims some sort of external moral superiority, as justification for acting selfishly!

Not that I hadn't presented any reasoning previously.

 

[theblackbox]

only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.

and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.

and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.

You're well ahead of the pace for Vietnam.

The best you can do is devalue the loss of soldiers in a meaningless venture?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.

and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.

The total is over 1,254 in 622 days now, not including the latest casualties.

None of them volunteered to die for Bush's lies.

But "thats not too bad, like 2 a day," right?

Tell that to the 1,254.

All to promote Bush's political agenda, not mine.

 

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.

and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.

The total is over 1,254 in 622 days now, not including the latest casualties.

None of them volunteered to die for Bush's lies.

But "thats not too bad, like 2 a day," right?

Tell that to the 1,254.

All to promote Bush's political agenda, not mine.

well, then thats less then 2 a day.
they volunteered to take a job where you are trained to shoot other people, get shot at, and do a job. They were not conscripted, or forced into service (i'm talking active duty soldiers). Regardless of who put them where, they are there to do the job they were trained for, whether you like it or not.

it has to do with convictions, and doing what you are trained to do. these soldiers are not being given orders outside of what is acceptable, so they should do their job. If it offends you that these VOLUNTEER soldiers put their life at risk, please understand they know this, but they took the job because they believe in something a lot of people take for granted, it's called freedom.

 

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.

and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.

You're well ahead of the pace for Vietnam.

The best you can do is devalue the loss of soldiers in a meaningless venture?

By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to National Archives records.

vietnam

while deaths in vietnam started off slower, it sure did pick up it's pace. how about normandy? that was ww2...How many us deaths were there and how many innocent french civilians lost their lives in the first two days?


i don't devalue their deaths, i see them for the reality it is without political ambition. They chose the career, knowing what could be expected. it's fun to see a bunch of guys sit behind their computer preaching things they most likely know nothing about.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: theblackbox

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.

and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.

You're well ahead of the pace for Vietnam.

The best you can do is devalue the loss of soldiers in a meaningless venture?

By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to National Archives records.

vietnam

while deaths in vietnam started off slower, it sure did pick up it's pace. how about normandy? that was ww2...How many us deaths were there and how many innocent french civilians lost their lives in the first two days?


i don't devalue their deaths, i see them for the reality it is without political ambition. They chose the career, knowing what could be expected. it's fun to see a bunch of guys sit behind their computer preaching things they most likely know nothing about.

I don't know what mathematical system you use, but 1,254/622=2.0160771704180064308681672025723.

That is over 2 per day in my world. But that's not the point.

I find it unbelievably offensive of you to minimize their deaths as only 2 per day.

Forty percent of the troops in Iraq right now are there due to Bush's back door draft. They are Guard, Reserve, and IRR. They are there because Bush told a pack of lies to invade a nation which posed no threat to the U.S. An unprovoked invasion that has made the world less safe because it is used as a recruitment tool by the same people Bush told America he would hunt down and kill. Instead, Bush invaded a nation unprovoked, squandered resources, and failed to bring the people who are a threat to justice.

You criticize "a bunch of guys" sitting behind their computers preaching but you're doing the very same thing. If you support the lies and the illegal invasion get out from behind your computer and get over to Iraq. See if you don't change your mind.

History will record Bush's attack on Iraq as naked aggression. The unprovoked invasion or Iraq may very well be the greatest mistake made by any president in our history. In case you haven't noticed, the numbers from Iraq are getting worse by the month, no better. And now the same madmen who sold you this atrocity are planning their next act of aggression against Iran. What will you say when the entire Middle East is engulfed in a war that forces the hand of Russia, China, Israel???

It'll be far more than 2 per day. But I'm sure, from behind YOUR computer, you'll find a way to minimize that as well.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: theblackbox

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.

and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.

You're well ahead of the pace for Vietnam.

The best you can do is devalue the loss of soldiers in a meaningless venture?

By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to National Archives records.

vietnam

while deaths in vietnam started off slower, it sure did pick up it's pace. how about normandy? that was ww2...How many us deaths were there and how many innocent french civilians lost their lives in the first two days?


i don't devalue their deaths, i see them for the reality it is without political ambition. They chose the career, knowing what could be expected. it's fun to see a bunch of guys sit behind their computer preaching things they most likely know nothing about.

comparing normandy to iraq is lunacy.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: theblackbox

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.

and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.

You're well ahead of the pace for Vietnam.

The best you can do is devalue the loss of soldiers in a meaningless venture?

By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to National Archives records.

vietnam

while deaths in vietnam started off slower, it sure did pick up it's pace. how about normandy? that was ww2...How many us deaths were there and how many innocent french civilians lost their lives in the first two days?


i don't devalue their deaths, i see them for the reality it is without political ambition. They chose the career, knowing what could be expected. it's fun to see a bunch of guys sit behind their computer preaching things they most likely know nothing about.

comparing normandy to iraq is lunacy.

Read theblackbox's other posts. They're all lunacy.

 

[BBond]

Since I started this thread on November 16, 2004 -- 31 days ago -- 104 more U.S. troops have died in Iraq.

1,304 -- December 16, 2004 -- 639th day
All due to Bush's lies...

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: BBond
Since I started this thread on November 16, 2004 -- 31 days ago -- 104 more U.S. troops have died in Iraq.

1,304 -- December 16, 2004 -- 639th day
All due to Bush's lies...

I remember during the debates Bush said...

"How can you ask the last person to die for a mistake?" or something like that.

My response,

"What did you tell the family of the first person to die for your lie?"