U.S military deaths in Iraq

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The deaths of six more American soldiers in Iraq pushed the U.S. death toll to at least 2,978 -- five more than the number killed in the September 11 attacks -- as bombs killed more than 20 people in Baghdad on Tuesday.

 

At least 89 U.S. soldiers have died so far this month, making it the deadliest this year after October's toll of 106, and adding pressure on President George W. Bush to find a strategy to extricate 135,000 U.S. troops from the messy war.

 

Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since the invasion in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, which Bush said was an integral part of the "war on terror" following the Sept 11, 2001, attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

 

 

U.S. officials say 2,973 people were killed in those attacks, excluding the 19 hijackers.

 

The U.S. military reported the six deaths on Tuesday.

 

Three soldiers taking part in a patrol looking for roadside bombs were killed northwest of Baghdad on Tuesday, while two soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb attack southwest of Baghdad on Monday. A sixth was killed in another attack in the same area on Monday, the U.S. military reported.

 

Stung by Republicans' defeats in congressional elections in which voter discontent over Iraq was a major issue, Bush has said he will announce a new strategy in January after listening to his military commanders and U.S. State Department officials.

[Peens 0]

I'm absolutely shocked!! I really thought we would be able to go into Iraq and not lose any soldiers. I really thought soldiers only died in the movies.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'll bet you've had a hard-on for weeks just waiting to be able to start this thread. Loser.

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

I'll bet you've had a hard-on for weeks just waiting to be able to start this thread. Loser.

 

2,978 lives lost thanks to GWB and I'm a loser

[Strike 4,003]

So we lost in 5 years in Iraq the same number as were killed in 5 minutes on 9/11?

[Uh-huh 0]

2,978 lives lost thanks to GWB and I'm a loser

Come on now. Take a deep breath and consider the epithet's source.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

2,978 lives lost thanks to GWB and I'm a loser

 

Yes, yes you are.

 

HTH

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

So we lost in 5 years in Iraq the same number as were killed in 5 minutes on 9/11?

 

Yes, you are right. So what is your point?

[gocolts 300]

We lost 291,557 people in WWII. If we gave up, like the liberals want us to do now, along with a whole slue of other misinformed people, we would all be speaking German, or more likely, we would have ended up a bar of soap or a lamp shade.

 

Why are the liberals in such a hurry to make all the deaths in Iraq be for nothing???

 

Cause that is eggzactley what they want to do, with there "Let's just get out" message.

 

This is a prime example of why liberalism is a mental disorder. focking wackos

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

We lost 291,557 people in WWII. If we gave up, like the liberals want us to do now, along with a whole slue of other misinformed people, we would all be speaking German, or more likely, we would have ended up a bar of soap or a lamp shade.

 

Why are the liberals in such a hurry to make all the deaths in Iraq be for nothing???

 

Cause that is eggzactley what they want to do, with there "Let's just get out" message.

 

This is a prime example of why liberalism is a mental disorder. focking wackos

 

A better question would be...Why do you right wing nuts want to see even more deaths in this GWB debacle.

Your numbers are down to 12% in favor of this failed fiasco.

[MDC 5,912]

A better question would be...Why do you right wing nuts want to see even more deaths in this GWB debacle.

Your numbers are down to 12% in favor of this failed fiasco.

 

Because they'd rather see soldiers keep dying for nothing than admit they made a mistake - HTH!

[jets24 6]

This is totally getting old. Constantly bringing up the deaths of our brave soldiers is disrespectful in so many ways. Say your prayers. Hope for peace. Move on.

[itsbigmoni 1]

I'm usualy on the liberal side of things and thankfully i can still align myself with a liberal on this issue. I agree with Obama. The war was a stupid war to start but now that we're in it we must execute it right. I totaly disagree with just leaving right now. We need better leadership no doubt and hopefuly the new defense secretary can provide it. I don't like the current plan or "staying the course" because obviously what we're doing right is not working at all. Even republicans have to admit that we need to readjust strategy out there.

[Flashover 0]

Because they'd rather see soldiers keep dying for nothing than admit they made a mistake - HTH!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Ruffin and his ilk on this bored only bring up the deaths of our soldiers when it hits some magical number these assdarts can use in a lame attempt to slam Bush. Case in point: this thread. I mean, WTF does the number of deaths on 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

 

They don't really care about the soldier's deaths unless they can hop on here and try to make a political point.

 

TIA

[MDC 5,912]

WTF does the number of deaths on 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

 

Well, the war in Iraq was supposedly a response to the events of 9/11, but the fact that the NIE says the war has increased terrorism and we've lost more soldiers to the war than in 9/11 makes it seem like it didn't, y'know, work.

 

HTH!

[surferskin 30]

i love how the dems scream at the top of their lungs that there's no link between 9/11 and iraq...yet, they're right here trying to make one.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Well, the war in Iraq was supposedly a response to the events of 9/11, but the fact that the NIE says the war has increased terrorism and we've lost more soldiers to the war than in 9/11 makes it seem like it didn't, y'know, work.

 

HTH!

 

 

This is why everyone knows you are an idiot. Bush explicitly said there was no link between Iraq and 9/11.

 

I guess you forgot about the 17 UN Resolutions Saddam ignored that caused the war. Yet another reason the UN is a useless waste of U.S. taxpayer money.

 

I guess since we lost more soldiers in WWII than we lost at Pearl Harbor makes that a failure by your logic.

[Guest Davaco]

This is why everyone knows you are an idiot. Bush explicitly said there was no link between Iraq and 9/11.

 

I guess you forgot about the 17 UN Resolutions Saddam ignored that caused the war. Yet another reason the UN is a useless waste of U.S. taxpayer money.

 

I guess since we lost more soldiers in WWII than we lost at Pearl Harbor makes that a failure by your logic.

 

too bad there wasnt a UN resolution stating Iraq should be invaded. Dubya failed at that resolution. You cannot use the UN when it favors you and ignore it when it doesnt

[Recliner Pilot 61]

too bad there wasnt a UN resolution stating Iraq should be invaded. Dubya failed at that resolution. You cannot use the UN when it favors you and ignore it when it doesnt

 

 

Try reading UN Resolution 1441 and get back to me.

[MDC 5,912]

This is why everyone knows you are an idiot. Bush explicitly said there was no link between Iraq and 9/11.

 

I guess you forgot about the 17 UN Resolutions Saddam ignored that caused the war. Yet another reason the UN is a useless waste of U.S. taxpayer money.

 

I guess since we lost more soldiers in WWII than we lost at Pearl Harbor makes that a failure by your logic.

 

Bush repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front on the war on terror, and he made the case that we have to hit Iraq before they hit us in a 9/11 style terrorist attack.

 

Since you have repeatedly said that the UN is useless and the United States has violated UN resolutions, why do you care what Saddam did? You say that the UN is worthless but you support spending $400 billion+ to enforce their rules. Nice logic.

 

WWII has absolutely nothing to do with the war on terror. In WWII we were at war with nations, not terrorist organizations or an ideology. Until you morons figure that out you'll keep losing in Iraq and everywhere else.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Until you morons figure that out you'll keep losing in Iraq and everywhere else.

 

 

Thanks for proving the point you libs don't want to fight the war on terror.

 

[Uh-huh 0]

Thanks for proving the point you libs don't want to fight the war on terror.

 

Hey Fluffy, take your meds. You have some drool coming out of your mouth. :disgusting:

[MDC 5,912]

Thanks for proving the point you libs don't want to fight the war on terror.

 

 

I'm not a lib and I do want the US to engage in the war in terror - I just think it's been pretty much conclusively proven that you idiotic, knee-jerk neocon chickenhawk poosays are so focking dumb that you stumbled right into al Qaida's plans and you'd rather watch out troops die for nothing than admit you were wrong and change course, you aching bagina.

[Guest Davaco]

Try reading UN Resolution 1441 and get back to me.

 

good one The USA drafted it. a drafted resolution means nothing if no one votes on it.

funny how the only real country to back it was the UK. where was the colation from china, russia, etc.

 

Also, 1441 says we can invade, conquer, stay for years, and turn Iraq into a democratic, free standing country? really? i thought the invasion was about disarming Iraq. They are disarmed, saddam wil be dead, so why are we still there?

 

Iraq will never be a democratic, free standing country. Iran and syria will influence it. Bush failed

 

Thanks for proving the point you libs don't want to fight the war on terror.

 

 

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. these are Iraquis fighing iraquis.

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

Ruffin and his ilk on this bored only bring up the deaths of our soldiers when it hits some magical number these assdarts can use in a lame attempt to slam Bush. Case in point: this thread. I mean, WTF does the number of deaths on 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

 

They don't really care about the soldier's deaths unless they can hop on here and try to make a political point.

 

TIA

 

Ask GWB what 9/11 has to do with the deaths in Iraq. To say that myself and my ilk don't care the the death of our soldiers in Iraq is ludicrous. The fact that we do care is why we are opposed to staying the course and watching the toll rise. Do any of you hawks actually believe that this invasion will end well and Iraq will become a beacon of democracy?...Just asking.

[What is the deal? 1]

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. these are Iraquis fighing iraquis.

yeah, none of them hate America and want to eliminate us from the earth because we don't worship Allah They are all perfectly normal people that should just be left alone just like Bin Laden and his buddies were prior to 9-11

 

Fact of the matter, the war is failing because the proper leadership isn't in place to train the Iraqi soldiers. They are being trained by Army Reserves that have rarely seen combat instead of experienced soldiers, former police officers, etc... This is not Bush or Rumsfeld's fault since obviously they don't take the time to check the resumes of the peeps before the military hands out assignments. That would be equivalent to the CEO at my company doing background checks on all 27,000 people that work here...

 

Ask GWB what 9/11 has to do with the deaths in Iraq. To say that myself and my ilk don't care the the death of our soldiers in Iraq is ludicrous. The fact that we do care is why we are opposed to staying the course and watching the toll rise. Do any of you hawks actually believe that this invasion will end well and Iraq will become a beacon of democracy?...Just asking.

YES!! it must end correctly. You are a confused person if you think appeasement will lead to peace anywhere... We lose in Iraq and we look weak throughout the world- including NK, Venezuela, Syria, and Iran. This will give those rogue nations confidence. Why would they sit down at a table and negotiate with us or adhere to those negotiations if they think we are weak and want to wipe us off the map anyways? When I say "we"- I mean the liberals who scream appeasement and failure from the high heavens of course

[Guest Davaco]

yeah, none of them hate America and want to eliminate us from the earth because we don't worship Allah They are all perfectly normal people that should just be left alone just like Bin Laden and his buddies were prior to 9-11

 

 

 

prior to 9/11 bin laden attacked us numerous times, but Iraqui people havent. then we invaded, slaughtered 10s of thousands of innocent Iraquis and created a country full of people that will be influenced by Iran and syria.

 

Iran and syria dont like us either, are they next?

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

yeah, none of them hate America and want to eliminate us from the earth because we don't worship Allah They are all perfectly normal people that should just be left alone just like Bin Laden and his buddies were prior to 9-11

 

Fact of the matter, the war is failing because the proper leadership isn't in place to train the Iraqi soldiers. They are being trained by Army Reserves that have rarely seen combat instead of experienced soldiers, former police officers, etc... This is not Bush or Rumsfeld's fault since obviously they don't take the time to check the resumes of the peeps before the military hands out assignments. That would be equivalent to the CEO at my company doing background checks on all 27,000 people that work here...

YES!! it must end correctly. You are a confused person if you think appeasement will lead to peace anywhere... We lose in Iraq and we look weak throughout the world- including NK, Venezuela, Syria, and Iran. This will give those rogue nations confidence. Why would they sit down at a table and negotiate with us or adhere to those negotiations if they think we are weak and want to wipe us off the map anyways? When I say "we"- I mean the liberals who scream appeasement and failure from the high heavens of course

 

Put on your rose colored glasses and tell me how you envision this occupation ending if we stay. When the last soldier leaves Iraq in the year 2063 do you see Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the mid east? I'm really curious. When Bush was asked about his legacy he said "What do I care, I'll be dead" When will the remaining 12% wake up. I'm really asking how you see it ending if we stay. How many dead soldiers before you see it as the cluster f... it is.

[jets24 6]

prior to 9/11 bin laden attacked us numerous times, but Iraqui people havent. then we invaded, slaughtered 10s of thousands of innocent Iraquis and created a country full of people that will be influenced by Iran and syria.

 

Iran and syria dont like us either, are they next?

 

 

Damn focking right they are!

[What is the deal? 1]

prior to 9/11 bin laden attacked us numerous times, but Iraqui people havent. then we invaded, slaughtered 10s of thousands of innocent Iraquis and created a country full of people that will be influenced by Iran and syria.

 

Iran and syria dont like us either, are they next?

I am offended by your completely ridiculous statement that we "slaughtered 10s of thousands of innocent Iraquis"

 

It's not even worth replying to...get a clue

[MDC 5,912]

I am offended by your completely ridiculous statement that we "slaughtered 10s of thousands of innocent Iraquis"

 

It's not even worth replying to...get a clue

 

Saddam is going to hang for gassing what? 150 people to death?

 

Bush lies his way into a war that's killed over 40,000 civilians and 3,000 US troops.

 

Great stuff. Couldn't we have just gotten these two into the ring?

[donhaas 18]

Thanks for proving the point you libs don't want to fight the war on terror.

 

 

Recliner Haggard reporting live from Iraq out of his mother's basement in Fergus Falls, Minnesota

 

 

R. Haggard: Wake me up when one of you chickenhawks want to fight it. Nothing emboldens terrorists more than the knowing that there are thousands and thousands of flabby suburban neo-cons who talk tough about war but run away like little girls at their chance to serve.

[GettnHuge 1]

43,443 people died on our highways last year

 

what are we talking about here? 3,000 casualties in just under 4 years time? 3 thousand people in a dangerous area who are targets

for terrorists. how horrible. 43,000 dead on the highways...meh. no bigdeal.

[What is the deal? 1]

Put on your rose colored glasses and tell me how you envision this occupation ending if we stay. When the last soldier leaves Iraq in the year 2063 do you see Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the mid east? I'm really curious. When Bush was asked about his legacy he said "What do I care, I'll be dead" When will the remaining 12% wake up. I'm really asking how you see it ending if we stay. How many dead soldiers before you see it as the cluster f... it is.

we get the right people training the Iraqi forces and get them up to a point where they can defend themselves and protect their country. Army Reserves aren't going to do the trick...that's been the main problem so far, but nobody talks about it because you can't blame Bush

 

Do you realize what the consequences will be if we withdraw? Saudi Arabia (and probably Jordan and Egypt) will be forced to partner up with Al Qaeda to finance the Sunni Arabs in a fight against the Iran/Syrian led Shiites. No matter who won that war, we would be screwed because our moderate allies would have partnered up with our worst enemies.

 

On the bright side, I guess it would give us time to start planning emergency disaster exercises in every major city. That's what we will need. The problem is we won't know how they are going to hit us- whether it be chemicals in the gaslines or water system, a nuclear weapon, or some other creative warfare.

[MDC 5,912]

43,443 people died on our highways last year

 

what are we talking about here? 3,000 casualties in just under 4 years time? 3 thousand people in a dangerous area who are targets

for terrorists. how horrible. 43,000 dead on the highways...meh. no bigdeal.

 

There are about 300 million people in the United States.

 

There are about 130,000 US troops in Iraq.

 

That means there are about 2,300x the number of people in the US as there are soldiers in Iraq.

 

Lets say last year's stats on car fatalities is typical - that would be about 170,000 people killed by car crash in the US over the past four years.

 

Multiply the number of casualties in Iraq over that time (3,000) by 2,300 (for the ratio of US troops to US citizens) - 690,000.

 

So, even if it was worth comparing car fatalities to soldier casualties - and it's not, because people need to drive but we really didn't need to invade a nation that posed no threat to us - a far higher proportion of soldiers died over the past four years than citizens dying in car wrecks.

 

HTH.

[Old Sarge 0]

we get the right people training the Iraqi forces and get them up to a point where they can defend themselves and protect their country. Army Reserves aren't going to do the trick...that's been the main problem so far, but nobody talks about it because you can't blame Bush

 

Why can't reservists handle this mission? Who would you suggest?

[What is the deal? 1]

Why can't reservists handle this mission? Who would you suggest?

 

have you ever tried to learn from a teacher with no real world experience. They aren't very credible and it makes a mockery of the classroom. On the other side, I've had older professors that were almost to the point of alzheimers, but respected their opinion and knowledge because of their experiences.

 

I would suggest qualified combat veterans and people with law enforcement experience. If we have to hire more experienced people from the private sector, then that is what it takes.

 

Our failure to teach them to be ready- combined with a pool of Iraqis that are reluctant to fully cooperate is why this mission is failing...

 

There are about 300 million people in the United States.

 

There are about 130,000 US troops in Iraq.

 

That means there are about 2,300x the number of people in the US as there are soldiers in Iraq.

 

Lets say last year's stats on car fatalities is typical - that would be about 170,000 people killed by car crash in the US over the past four years.

 

Multiply the number of casualties in Iraq over that time (3,000) by 2,300 (for the ratio of US troops to US citizens) - 690,000.

 

So, even if it was worth comparing car fatalities to soldier casualties - and it's not, because people need to drive but we really didn't need to invade a nation that posed no threat to us - a far higher proportion of soldiers died over the past four years than citizens dying in car wrecks.

 

HTH.

are there currently 130,000 troops in Iraq or is that overall since we have been there?

 

I thought it was more along the lines of 160,000. Which would put the number of deaths at somewhere along the lines of 2 out of 100. I'd say our war strategy works a little better then what we used in WWII or Vietnam. Although, I really hate talking about deaths like it's some sort of statistic to be used for propaganda...

[GettnHuge 1]

but we really didn't need to invade a nation that posed no threat to us

 

and we've never done that before, huh?

 

I was hoping someone would come up with a ratio of deaths vs. population. I think just 1 of all these

deaths is unacceptable. but

you prove my point of 'meh' by suggesting there is some ratio which is acceptable.

 

so 3,000 dead in iraq >>>>> 170,000 dead here.

interesting

 

i suppose tho i should help you with your numbers, there are approx 200m licenses out there and many million of them don't drive anymore.

as for iraq i think you should consider the total number of troops who have been there since it began, not just whoa re there now. but no matter,

next you will probably say that this is worse than vietnam where we lost 20x more people.

[Snuff 10]

MDC in a Bush bashing thread! NO WAY!