U.S. Casualities Continue in Iraq
Elections in Iraq may have brought life to a possible democracy, but they have not curbed the daily deaths of U.S. soldiers. Since January 31, 2005 (day after the election) there have been 47 U.S. soldiers killed. That is just over two troops per day. These facts were taken from the website Iraq Coalition Casualities Count. I would encourage all to go there to get a real understanding of the numbers.
Since the eleciton in Iraq, I haven't seen much mention in any U.S. press about the continuing loss of U.S. soldiers. I'm not trying to take a shot at the administration. I just believe it is important for those on all sides of this issue to know that while we debate people Americans are being killed.
On the financial cost, this spreadsheet put out by the White House Budget office which details their projections for spending on the war.
By Kyle - 2/22/2005
14 Comments:
BREAKING NEWS
Matt Smith has chosen the Jewish Faith.
More to come on this revealing expose on Smith and his new chosen faith.
If the media element is gone, so is any major hope for the insurgents. Iraq and the US can now clean up what remains of the resistance- without all the liberal whining and crying. Soldiers will continue to die, money will continue to be spent, but the war in Iraq has been won.
Nugent, please are you seeing the amount insurgents that are still blowing themselves up. Iraq is a heaven for terrorists. The media and the insurgents blowing themselves up have nothing to do with each other. They dont want the attention, they want us and the innocent iraq citizens dead. Time for some new glasses so you can see what is really going on over there. Just because we had some election does not mean the war has been won, buy any means.
Nugent,
you can tell me the war is won when there is a definite timetable for troop withdrawal.
Christopher, you should have learned a lesson from the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Don't put the cart infront of the horse.
If asking questions about the death toll and financial burden makes me a whining liberal than I am guilty as charged. Wah Wah Wah.
Tim brings up a good point on exit strategy. When is the Bush administration going to honor its commitment to our troops and let those who are overextended in their tours come home? Support our troops Nugent!
Whether they think so or not, the insurgents have everything to do with the media. A suicide attack is a very limited military strategy based almost solely on the factor of shock. If the media isn’t there to promote the shock then your left with a completely military situation. And in this situation, the US forces are superiorly equipped, superiorly trained, and superiorly numbered. Given enough time... “Mission Accomplished”
I realize that more desperate suicide targets or a nuclear weapon could put us back to square one with full liberal push back. But here is the thing.... We have to assume that the insurgent leadership is intelligent, and we know they want to win. So why allow the elections to go smoothly, the media to loose interest, or Bush to make friends with Europe if it weren’t for a lack of resources? It makes no sense. If they have a trick up their sleeve it would have been used. You don’t need Justin’s super Iraq glasses to see this.
I support our soldiers in this way. I respect and honor the dangers they face in protecting our freedom. I realize the sacrifices involved for themselves and their families. I support their actions and take pride in there effectiveness. I do not baby them, I don’t feel sorry for them, and I don’t rush to bring them home.... I let them do their fucking job, and cheer when they succeed.
First off,
Congrats to Matt Smith.
Secondly,
Nugent you say..."If the media element is gone, so is any major hope for the insurgents." I understand your point, but come on. I mean you are making journalists out to be part of the problem. These people risk their lives to bring us all closer to the reality on the ground so that we can vote or protest or cheer accordingly.
By the way, we have a right to know what's going on...we are paying for this war. Would you support a ban on international journalists in Iraq? To insure that us pansy liberals wouldn't spoil the 'March of Freedom?'
Another thing, you always say this..."in this situation, the US forces are superiorly equipped, superiorly trained, and superiorly numbered. Given enough time...Mission Accomplished.”
And then one of us libs always says, "What about Vietnam?!"
And then you say something like (if I remember correctly), "Good point."
So until you can tell me the difference between Vietnam and Iraq, please refrain from repeating this point. [PS. I will not let you simply blame the anti-war protesters of the 60s for U.S. military failure...Why?...The U.S. (prez Johnson) publicly commited to sending troops in Feb 65. At the time the war had an 80% approval rating. It wasn't until November of 69 that the pansy liberals held the 'mobilization' peace demonstration in Washington (largest anti-war protest in U.S. history).
This means that the superior U.S. military had MORE THAN FOUR YEARS to squash an inferior enemy, before the pressure at home mounted. Despite superior weapons, numbers and training, there never was a 'Mission Accomplished' banner. In August of 72, after 7 years of official involvement, 58,000 casualties (average age 23) and 300,000 more wounded the unthinkable happened...we lost.]
Does this not shoot a hole in your inevitable-victory theory?
Bob,
Great post!
Bob,
Your attempt to compare Vietnam to Iraq is an invalid comparison.
If Iraq was Vietnam, America would have obliterated the NVA, killed Ho Chi Min, and taken Hanoi.
If Iraq was Vietnam, the insurgents would have the support of a regular army and unlimited supply of weapons from a super power. Syria is not a superpower.
If Iraq was Vietnam, where's the draft? I mean, not the one dreamed up by Rangel to scare kids before the vote.
If Iraq was Vietnam, there would be someone to claim the title as the true Iraqi leader and define Iraqi nationalism, like Ho Chi Min was in Vietnam. Al-Zaqarwi, the Jordanian, is not a representitive of Iraqi nationalism, just a rep of sick fucking Muslims.
If Iraq was Vietnam, I don't think if America left it would result in Iraq invading Iran and slaughtering its population like Vietnam did to Cambodia.
If Iraq was Vietnam, the Sunni Triangle would be most of Iraq.
If Iraq was Vietnam, the hippies should be pretty ashamed of the protestors of this generation.
Also, it is good to see a lack of posting by Chuck. One-sided ideologues make for poor reading.
Jordan
Jordan,
Have no fear our fearless leader will be back soon.
Maybe you should oust him, I heard he has WMD.
What a joke, yours not mine!
Jordan,
I agree 100%. Iraq is not Vietnam, for all the valid reasons you pointed out and many more. You seemed to have missed my point, though...
POINT: Chris always says that in situations when the US forces are superiorly equipped, superiorly trained, and superiorly numbered, success is inevitable given time. In Vietnam, the US forces were superiorly equipped, superiorly trained, and superiorly numbered. And they lost.
CONCLUSION: This theory is naive.
my one-sided ideology: actually, i just make points and statements. those that feel no ability to respond to my comments must know that they cannot combat the points i make (such as how this white house has losers like jeff gannon to convey their message. if that is one-sided, just give me the other side. tell me why i am wrong)
either way, its funny that people like myself have to defend our views against people that are known for being so excessively racist that they cannot limit their use of the n-bomb in public settings. all of your profound points are wasted, when a person is so racist they cannot control their hatred for others they don't know.
BREAKING NEWS
YOU ALL ARE SO MATURE. THIS SITE IS EMBARASSING.
MORE TO COME ON THIS REVEALING EXPOSE ON HOW PEOPLE HAVE NO LIVES.
test
Post a Comment
<< Home