Seventeen U.S. soldiers killed since Saturday

[bemildred]

The U.S. military is reeling from escalating casualties in Iraq.

Since last Saturday at least 15 troops have died in combat in Iraq, mostly from explosions. Another two died in action in Afghanistan.

The death toll is rivalling that of the six day period following the naming of the Iraq government on April 28. From that day until May 3, twenty U.S. soldiers were killed.

The latest deaths came Wednesday when two Marines died and 14 were wounded as an armoured vehicle in which they were traveling hit a mine during an offensive against insurgents in north-west Iraq.

BigNewsNetwork

[Melodybe]

1. My prayers and love to their families.

RIP

:patriot:

[fishnfla]

2. Look, there are real threats: dud grenades and errant Cessnas

posh with your dead soldiers!

[Solly Mack]

3. and many in America don't give a damn

people aren't dying in their back yards - and that's all they care about.
As long as they don't have to see it...it's not real to them.

[harpo]

69. that's why they never showed the cofins coming back on tv

[Imagevision]

113. And another three today (Friday)

[cawe24]

115. Not only do they not see it...

No one here is reporting it, so it doubly doesn't exist. Does anyone else get so incredibly frustrated that it manifests itself physically? I get this ache in the pit of my stomach from all the outrage and helplessness and frustration and fear. I know the remedy, but it involves America waking the f*@k up and impeaching this cancer of a president.

[Amich]

120. I talked to a woman the other day and to her it didn't seem real

She didn't have any loved ones over in the area or lost anyone at war. she said that she seen it on TV, but that it was not real to her because the way that it was portrayed. I explained to her about what it was like to know there was an explosion, and not knowing if the person you loved was dead or alive and waiting by the phone hoping for a call saying he was alive, or to be that far away from home and not being able to get home when you were needed, because there was no one to come and take your place. After the talk I had with her, she came back later and had a whole different attitude when she heard of someone else died in Iraq..She is finally starting to understand that the people who die are real not just on TV..

[Journeyman]

4. icasualties.org says there have been 21 killed since Saturday...

n/t

[bemildred]

12. Nothing would surprise me. nt

[Imagevision]

127. 21 killed Sat. thru Wednesday -- 3 more US. killed on thursday

[KeepItReal]

5. Here are some terms I am sick of: "I.E.D." and "Lose their Life"

First off, my condolences to the troops and their families. I wish Bush & Co. would let you do what you need to do and come home soon.

My main point: This is one of the first reports that I have seen that calls a landmine a freakin "mine" instead of "I.E.D." Thank you to that reporter for that small point. Please note that this same person goes on to use I.E.D. later in the article - ugh!

People are getting killed, not "losing their lives". Losing your life almost implies you may find it again. Words do make a difference. I wish thes f*ckers would wisen up and stop reporting by the Bush & Co. script.

[NNN0LHI]

14. The term "collateral damage". I hated when Tim McVeigh used it

I hate it even worse when our military and politicians use it. It truly makes me feel nauseas when I here it.

Don

[Journeyman]

17. In Vietnam it was "booby traps" and "wasted". . .

I suspect the change in language is meant to camouflage the sickening similarities between Iraqnam and the past. . .

[oasis]

6. America is paying a terrible price for Bush's "vision".

[aneerkoinos]

22. America?!?!?

US is hell bent on destroying the Earth, and you worry about the price that US is supposedly paying? 100.000 killed on top of millions of victims of sanctions, and that just in one country.

If USans ever expect rest of the world feel solidarity towards them instead of fear and resentment, they better start thinking outside their little sand-box.

[oasis]

24. America is not Bush, Bush is not America. This is Bush's war.

[aneerkoinos]

37. Clinton's sanctions, Allbrights "let' em die by millions".

Clinton's IMF.

America's gaz guzzling fucking way of life.

Shees, people, start taking some responsibility instead of the eternally infantile scape-goating.

[aneerkoinos]

44. More

The more I study, the more I learn, the more radical I get. Wake up, US people, wake up all the people. We are being royally fucked up.

[oasis]

46. No Bush=no 9/11. No 9/11=no invasion of Iraq. Gore would not have

invaded Iraq without provocation. He would not have manufactured a reason to go to war.

[aneerkoinos]

51. So

All that predated the manufactured war against Iraqi people was OK?

[oasis]

52. "All that predated ...."??? I'm not sure what you mean.

[aneerkoinos]

56. Please read

Clinton upheald sanctions against Iraq, the bomb campaing of 98, ordering UN guys out before they could declare Iraq free of WMD, infesting inspectors with US spies with plans to locate and murder Saddam, all the fucking lies, all the fucking murdering. Most of all making Iraqi people dependent on handout of monthly rations of food via Saddam, then meet the new boss, the same as the old boss. Or worse.

On purpose, I left out Madeline Allbright. I'm sure someone will educate you on her level of child-caring humanity.


I'm not sure what YOU mean? Dems good, Rebs bad? That what YOU mean?

Grow up.

[oasis]

59. You read: No Bush=NO WAR. Refute that if you will. Good luck.

Wake up and smell the coffee here in the real world.:hangover:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oasis]

75. My original post: America is paying a terrible price for Bush's vision.

Back to square one.

We can trash Dems, Republicans, Tories, Federalist, and Puritans on back to the captain of the Mayflower.

I choose to blame the culprits whose direct actions brought about the subject of this thread.

[amber dog democrat]

76. sorry its DEMS good Repugs bad.

Well not all repugs. I liked how Prescott Bush had some scruples.
This current gang of whores have nothing but the pathology of power and greed to motivate them. Neocon fascists are bad. Not all repugs are neocon fascists.

[Selatius]

85. "No Bush = no 9/11" is a shaky argument at best.

People like Osama bin Laden were borne out of America's insanely unjust, corrupt foreign policy that stretches back decades over BOTH Democratic and Republican administrations. Osama bin Laden or someone else would've attacked the US and inflicted casualties regardless of who sat on the "throne." The seeds of 9/11 were sown long, long ago. The day the US started propping up Middle East dictatorships for cheap oil was the day folks like Osama started getting born.

The blowback from all that activity that culminated in 9/11 was coming for a very long time, well before anyone heard of GWB.

[oasis]

96. Pres. Gore would not have used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq.

Nothing "shaky" about that.

[brettdale]

99. NewZealand Prime Minster's Quote about Al Gore

Helen Clark Prime Minster of NewZealand said this at the beginning of the Iraq war.

"The Iraq war wouldn't had happen under an Al Gore Presidency"

[Selatius]

112. I'm criticizing your "No Bush = No 9/11" argument, not the Iraq War

That is very shaky, in my honest opinion, because it attempts to dump what happened on 9/11 with those 3,000 people dying onto the lap of one administration that really ought to belong in the lap of several going back decades. I was not addressing how the Iraq War started at all, just your argument that Bush = 9/11. Osama bin Laden laid down plans long before 2000. He was going to attack regardless if it was Gore or Bush.

I don't challenge the assertion that Gore would not have invaded Iraq, but I strongly challenge any argument that basically attempts to put the blame of 9/11 on one president when anyone who has studied Middle East policy in the US would point the finger squarely at several decades of foreign policy creating such monsters. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have supported their fair share of dictatorships in this region, and there will be a price to pay for that crime.

If the US refuses to re-examine its foreign policy in this region and its energy policy, there will be more terrorist attacks.

[oasis]

128. Have you read the Clarke book "Against All Enemies"? I was ahead

of him on the condemnation of Condoleesa Rice and her failure to connect the dots. She was not qualified to be in charge of national security. She screwed up and they basically gave Tom Ridge her job.

A different administration would have had more competent people at the helm.

Therefore I stand by my original post: No Bush=No 9/11. It just wouldn't have happened under Gore.

[TheWraith]

97. Not shaky at all.

Bush and Bush's people deliberately ignored the information left for them, and new information that they received, that would have prevented 9/11. Gore & Co. wouldn't have. Look at the endless string of terrorism incidents that were prevented under Clinton: Milennium bombings, LAX car bomb, tunnel bombing in NY, probably more that I don't know about.

What you don't seem to get is that when you make blithe blanket statements like that about forign policy, you're equating people like Bush and Clinton despite the fact that the difference between them is huge and ludicrously obvious to others. It's like saying that a jaywalker is exactly the same as a child rapist because they both broke the law. It's a system of absolute black and white akin to the way Bush's people see the world. Okay, so the good guys aren't always perfect. It isn't a perfect world, and saying that the best and most honorable forign policy we've had in decades is equivalent to murdering millions is sacrificing good on the altar of some unattainable idea of perfection.

[Selatius]

118. I still need more convincing before I budge from my argument

Bush and Bush's people deliberately ignored the information left for them, and new information that they received, that would have prevented 9/11. Gore & Co. wouldn't have.

I don't really challenge that point at all, but folks like Osama bin Laden were created long before GWB was even a household name. Preventing terrorism is good, but by attacking what it is that creates terrorists in this region is, in my mind, a far better long-term solution. Both Clinton and Bush failed in that respect, as well as the last several presidents before that.

Look at the endless string of terrorism incidents that were prevented under Clinton: Milennium bombings, LAX car bomb, tunnel bombing in NY, probably more that I don't know about.

You have a REALLY SELECTIVE memory, don't you? I seriously suggest you look up the history before going further.

What about the bombing of the USS Cole? The bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia? The bombing of the two US embassies in 1998? What about Clinton's stupid policy of maintaining sanctions on Iraq when people like Madeleine Albright said flat-out it was perfectly fine that it killed 500,000 children as a result. That's absolutely criminal and simply highlights again why so many people over there hate us enough to become suicide bombers for our soldiers or drive planes into office towers in the US. What about Clinton's half-assed attempt at hitting back at Al-Qaeda when all he did was lob a few missiles at training camps in Afghanistan? Not to mention bombing a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that was guilty of producing medicine, not chemical weapons.

What you don't seem to get is that when you make blithe blanket statements like that about forign policy, you're equating people like Bush and Clinton despite the fact that the difference between them is huge and ludicrously obvious to others.

The simple fact is when you support Arab dictatorships and support militants for whatever cause including killing Russian soldiers over the years, there is going to be a blowback. Sure, Clinton left behind information Bush should've heeded, but on the same token, Clinton never addressed the root causes of terrorism either, much less Bush.

It's like saying that a jaywalker is exactly the same as a child rapist because they both broke the law. It's a system of absolute black and white akin to the way Bush's people see the world.

Clinton was different; I absolutely do not deny this, and you attempting to set up a strawman that implies that I don't know the difference I find counterproductive because I am fully aware of them, but he never attempted to reform foreign policy to something better, just attempted to patch a crumbling facade by trying to address a symptom of the sickness instead of the sickness itself. I am aware enough of the differences that if I were forced to choose between Clinton (or Gore) and Bush et al., I would choose the former but would have issues.

When faced with the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Mozambique, what did he do? Sure, he responded by lobbing a few missiles into Afghanistan, but that was it. Tell me: Did he even bother ordering a wholesale re-examination of US foreign policy at all? Did he try to follow up and keep the heat on Al Qaeda to as high as it could go? The answer is most definitely NO.

Until the US re-examines its relationship with many of these countries who are absolutely guilty of oppressing and killing its own citizens when they speak out for more democracy, there is going to be a simmering resentment and even hatred of the US for supporting their tyrants, the kind of emotion folks like Osama come along to manipulate to their advantage to generate suicide pilots and bombers for whatever twisted cause.

Okay, so the good guys aren't always perfect. It isn't a perfect world, and saying that the best and most honorable forign policy we've had in decades is equivalent to murdering millions is sacrificing good on the altar of some unattainable idea of perfection.

No, it's not a perfect world, but I use perfection as a guidepost. Just because the world is not perfect is no excuse not to try to fight for something better. We'll never reach perfection, but I find it worthy to come as close as possible to it, at least. The US can do better, and I'm not afraid to call the government out on it regardless if it's Democratic or Republican.

[TheWraith]

122. Try this.

Actually, no, my memory is fine. All the incidents you list (and a couple others that I guess you forgot) happened overseas. Are you suggesting that we should have an FBI field office in Yemen? We don't have the same capability over there that we do here.

"Clinton's stupid policy," as you call it, was the result of a U.N. Security Council decision in 1990, which the U.S. worked to uphold as a containment measure. I'm the first person to agree that sanctions usually don't work except against first or second world countries, but it's hardly accurate to blame Clinton for a UNSC decision and some conventional thinking. And I'd like to see you back up that claim that Albright said it was okay to kill 500,000 children. Moreover, I heavily distrust that figure in the first place. UNICEF is, after all, a political organization, and it's not like political organizations ever exaggerate to make their case.

Out of curiousity, why do you disapprove of trying to kill Osama Bin Laden? That's what the airstrikes were intended for. Yes, they missed, but there wasn't much more that could be done--the Republican congress and the media were already screaming "Wag the Dog".

And thank you for the right-wing talking point, but the story about the "aspirin factory" isn't true. Investigations determined that the site contained precursor chemicals that had no potential pharmaceutical use.

Uh, Clinton didn't supply missles to Afghan fighters. That was kind of before his time. No, he didn't wave his hand and eliminate terrorism. But if you have the answers on how to do that, please share, I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing them. Yes, democratic reform in the Middle East. But that's a lot more difficult than its given credit for being, as Shrub is learning now.

Funny, because you seem to be putting the responsibility for the current situation on Clinton as much as on Shrub. Under Clinton, the U.S. regained respect and standing in the world. To hear you tell it, all Clinton did was duplicate Reagan, because he didn't immediately reform forign policy to your liking. I suppose you've never heard the expression that politics is the slow cutting of a very hard board?

Did he order a massive change in U.S. forign policy as a response to attacks against U.S. assets by fanatics? Of course not. Besides the fact that he'd be massacred by the Republicans for appeasing terrorists, it would send the message that if you want the U.S. to bend to your will, just bomb a couple of buildings. That's unacceptable no matter what. There's no possible justification for such actions, and suddenly realigning forign policy would by justfying them.

As for keeping the heat on Al Qaeda, we had considerable FBI anti-terrorism task forces working in the U.S., as well as investigations overseas. Shortly before Shrub took office, they produced a report that said that invading Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban was worth it in order to neutralize Bin Laden and dismantle the Al Qaeda network. Being a lame duck, Clinton couldn't do anything about it, and Shrub & Co. promptly ignored it when they got into office, even going so far as to dismantle the task forces and realign them to their own nutty agenda.

Would I be happier if we'd cashed out Osama's chips back in 1999, and had him and the rest of the Taliban stuffed in a large box somewhere in Nebraska? Absolutely. Even happier if we weren't supporting Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt, our three biggest problems in the region. But it's not going to happen soon, because the lines are simply too entrenched to move around easily. No, it's not perfect, I agree. But I don't see that as a reason to throw rocks at the good guys, I see it as a reason to support them. We'll never get real reform without progressive leadership, and that will only come from the left. The more support that we can rally behind them, the more average people we can convince, the greater ability and motivation they'll have to effect real change. Progress is sometimes a slow and frustrating course, but the less we allow ourselves to become frustrated, and the more we accept the nature of the process, the more progress we can make.

[Selatius]

124. Ultimately, I don't think we disagree on big goals except the details.

"Clinton's stupid policy," as you call it, was the result of a U.N. Security Council decision in 1990, which the U.S. worked to uphold as a containment measure. I'm the first person to agree that sanctions usually don't work except against first or second world countries, but it's hardly accurate to blame Clinton for a UNSC decision and some conventional thinking.

I blame him for affirming the commitment to the damn sanctions when it came up for review in the SC, several times. The evidence was clear by the end of 1995. The sanctions were dramatically increasing the mortality rate in Iraq, and it was hurting the Iraqi people more than it was hurting Saddam's regime. The World Health Organization and the Red Cross were raising concerns by then. No, he didn't start the sanctions, but he was to blame for helping to prolong them.

John English of the British Red Cross at the time said, "The level of malnutrition is on a par with famine ravaged countries like Sudan."

John English, British Red Cross, 29th January, 1996.

Health conditions inside Iraq are deteriorating at an alarming rate under the sanctions regime according to a World Health Organization (WHO) report. The United Nations humanitarian programme for that country lacks sufficient resources to cope with the growing problems, the report notes.

The vast majority of Iraqis continue to survive on a semi-starvation diet due to chronic shortages of both food and cash to buy it. Malnutrition among young children is now widespread; common symptoms include nutritional anaemia, vitamin A deficiency and protein-energy malnutrition. In addition, there are epidemics of malaria, cholera, typhoid and other infectious diseases.

The dramatic rise of mortality rates among infants and children is proof of the impact of such problems, the report states. For example, from 1990 to 1994, mortality in children less than five years of age, increased more than 600 per cent.

World Health Organization report:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/old.errors/0.dh2109.html
(Scroll down about half way)

And I'd like to see you back up that claim that Albright said it was okay to kill 500,000 children. Moreover, I heavily distrust that figure in the first place. UNICEF is, after all, a political organization, and it's not like political organizations ever exaggerate to make their case.

The claim came from an infamous exchange on 60 Minutes (5/12/1996) between 60 Minutes investigative reporter Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright.

Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died . I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

FYI, the 500,000 number did not come from UNICEF. It came from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Stahl got her number from their report, which states that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died from the sanctions.

However, later studies showed the number was closer to half that number, which is still unacceptable in my book anyway. The 1999 report by James Garfield of Columbia University ("Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children") pegged the figure closer to 227,000. Regardless if it was 227,000 or 567,000, the answer from Albright was and continues to this day to be absolutely unacceptable by me. Garfield's report indicated child mortality rates doubled from the previous decade, and it was Garfield who later on revised his estimates upward to 350,000.

Garfield report:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/sanclook.htm
60 minutes exchange:
http://www.zmag.org/hermanworthit.htm

Out of curiousity, why do you disapprove of trying to kill Osama Bin Laden? That's what the airstrikes were intended for. Yes, they missed, but there wasn't much more that could be done--the Republican congress and the media were already screaming "Wag the Dog".

Loaded question there. That's totally uncalled for.

Point to me where I disapprove of those airstrikes. I never did such a thing. I only wished that he could've at least followed it up by putting more concerted effort into putting agents/informants on the ground in the two years after the missile strikes on the camps.

Honestly, If I were Clinton, I wouldn't have cared what the Republican Congress at the time would think if I ordered the CIA to increase its presence in Afghanistan, especially after they tried to skewer me with Lewinsky.

And thank you for the right-wing talking point, but the story about the "aspirin factory" isn't true. Investigations determined that the site contained precursor chemicals that had no potential pharmaceutical use.

It's not a rightwing talking point. It's true. The claim that EMPTA, a chemical precursor in VX nerve gas, was found there in soil samples primarily came from the CIA. If the owner of the plant was really linked to terrorists, he would never have been legally able to enter the US without being blacklisted before arriving in the US, which means he would have never been able to file suit in US court suing the federal government for his $30,000,000 loss in 2000, two years after the bombing, nor would he even be able to hire a Washington law firm to represent him. Last time I checked, these guys don't file lawsuits in Washington. They try to drive planes into it instead.

Having discovered only after the strike that Idris was the owner of the plant, some U.S. officials alleged he was linked with bin Laden and other terrorist groups. But despite these claims, Idris was never added to the State Department's terrorist watch list, for which he'd have been an obvious candidate if the link was strong enough to justify bombing a factory. And last year Washington quietly released his assets in U.S. financial institutions, which had been frozen following the raid. The Wall Street Journal characterized Idris as "a Westernized Saudi Arabian banker" with no known ties to Islamic extremists. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and their acolytes certainly aren't generally in the habit of filing suit in Washington, D.C.

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/07/28/factory7_28.a.tm/

I find it funny you label it a rightwing talking point, since Michael Moore's own website seems to have fallen for it:

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/sudan.php

Not to mention Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html

Uh, Clinton didn't supply missles to Afghan fighters. That was kind of before his time. No, he didn't wave his hand and eliminate terrorism. But if you have the answers on how to do that, please share, I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing them.

Wait, I never said he did. No, I never said I expected him to end terrorism over night. Where are you getting all of this? I said clearly that the "long-term solution" (reread my previous posts) here is a total re-examination of US foreign policy. No, it's not an easy thing to do, but I can't remember something so good being so easy to accomplish in life either. The least he could have done was take the first step and at least get the ball rolling on real, meaningful reform, but he failed to take that first step: Re-examination.

As I said, you must treat not just the symptoms (terrorism) but also the sickness (corrupt foreign policy that supports oppression, which breeds radicalism). Trying to stop terrorism should be commended, and I give Clinton credit where credit is due on this half of the equation where he did succeed in stopping attacks, but trying to address the underlying reasons behind, say, people wanting to target the US, the other half of the equation, is a whole other story.

What I am saying is that no, Clinton isn't as bad as Bush Jr., but on the same token, what Clinton did really didn't answer the long term problems that give rise to terrorism either. Regardless of what the Republican Congress thought, Clinton should have gone ahead and tried to reform US foreign policy by taking that first step of ordering a review of policy in the region. I think he deserves fair criticism for that, nevermind criticism leveled at Congress. No, that doesn't involve making wars across the face of earth to get a proper result. No, that doesn't include torturing one person to save several, as is the tortured logic with the Bush crowd, and no, I am not blaming Clinton as badly as Bush for not listening to the warnings because even he tried to stop incoming attacks, but on the same token, he doesn't get off scott-free either.

[stillcool]

60. i hear ya....

the more i read the more radical i get as well. Great site for anyone who wants to find out what our countries been doing for decades.
http://www.winterboy.com/dejavuintro.html

This crap started long before bushco or even Pappy. I believe that the reason it has gotten so out of hand is because of peak oil, and because too much power has been in the same elitist hands for far too long...

[aneerkoinos]

74. Yup

Since Carter Europe has beeing doing slightly better than US, but only slightly so.

Deep poopoo for all of us. Nobody cares, but my cynical, factual and honest analysis is that only way to survive this predicament is love, compassion and cooperation. Aka socialism, Green socialism.

The saddest thing is that the economists are still trying to sell us that we are doing worse than US, because we have no privatized prisons to prop up EU GNP etc...

[0007]

121. I hope your reading Howard Zinn

[TheWraith]

95. Horseshit.

You do your arguments no good when you trot out total bullshit like screaming about the Iraq sanctions and claiming that Clinton murdered millions of children. It sounds like something you'd hear from the freepers, and it's not true... but I repeat myself.

[Protagoras]

7. I feel terrible that these soldiers are being used and killed

in an immoral invasion. I feel aweful about the pain their families must be going through.

But I'm also sick at heart that so many headlines are devoted to how many American Soldiers are dying, and how few actually talk about how many "PEOPLE" are dying in Bushco's rush for Empire.

[rodeodance]

8. and this happens while he bikes blissfully

[lyonn]

9. Army recruitment nearly half of expections

This will only get worse. Then these same troops that have been in Iraq 2 or 3 times already will get to do it many more times, if they survive. And the damn British Memo gets buried! The TRUTH is BURIED! Those attacks near the syrian border were a fiasco according to what little info I can find. Someone told the plans to the enemy. What a mess and getting worse. Bring em home! Obviously we are making things worse for the Iraqis too.

[Tinoire]

34. Heard the same thing. Heard they were a fiasco. 5 Marines dead

(per official lying count) and no one knows how many wounded.

Operation Matador

[TahitiNut]

10. "Bring 'em on!" (and on and on and on and on.)

:puke:
Those filthy fascist bastards should be in prison for war crimes. :grr:

[harpo]

80. "smoke em out of their caves"

[tabasco]

11. The crap really hit the fan after Chalabi was made Oil Minister.

That was an extreme insult to the Iraqi people and told them that they do not and will not have democracy under US rule.

[lyonn]

15. How true

The media doesn't mention the heavy casualties happened immediately after him and other U.S. backed Iraqis got high positions. Those people arn't as dumb as bush would Like to assume. he assumes way too much and is wrong all the time.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

13. It keeps getting worse. What will it take to end this nightmare?

I'm afraid G.W. Bush and PNAC has signed America's death warrant.

[amber dog democrat]

35. yes, but 52% of the voters in 2005 are accomplices

I have a difficult time not feeling compempt for people who have those W'04 stickers on their pickups and SUVs.

if Amerika signed its deathwarrent, who am I to hop on that band wagon and take sides?
Its like watching a train wreck.
I feel like I am living in a occupied country managed by Quislings.

[osaMABUSh]

73. BTW. Am i seeing more W'04 stickers AFTER the election?

Is it my imagination or I am seeing more extreme righties adding those dammned W'04 stickers now?

Besides my DU sticker I have a "W stands for Wrong" in huge letters. I love that sticker.

[amber dog democrat]

79. probably

If there is a band wagon, sheeple tend to hop on and proudly display their affiliation.
I just assume the SUV wth the W sticker is owned by some one less rational than I am.
I try to keep clear - and in a way I am kind of glad to see them, It tells me whom to avoid .

[DivinBreuvage]

107. Here in NE Ohio there definitely seemed to be two periods

when Bush bumper stickers suddenly flourished. The first was in the weeks immediately following the election; the second was perhaps a couple months ago; I can't remember what was happening politically at the time but it was before gas prices shot up. I see very few Bush stickers now, however.

[BlueManDude]

16. Now back to the Runaway Bride...

when will she appear on Larry King to enlighten us about her personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

[leftchick]

18. That does not include soldiers who have died stateside this week

Like this Stryker Brigade soldier who died yesterday. They are only including "on the battlefield" numbers? Shameful!

:(

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1465654

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Since the article seems to take the names directly from icasualties

I wonder if it was written before the DoD and icasualties posted the information for Michael Bordelon.

In any case, the DoD IS counting Bordelon's death as an OIF death, as is icasualties, so one wonders who you mean by "they" in "they are only counting...etc." Unless you're simply repeating the fraud that wounded soldiers who die stateside aren't counted?

[LynnTheDem]

88. No they aren't including "only on the battlefield" numbers

Regardless WHERE they die, if they die from wounds inflicted in Iraq (or Afghanistan), they are included.

That Stryker Brigade trooper is included.

Poor souls; dead for geopolitics. :(

[cliss]

19. If we had these numbers on a simple Excel

graph, I believe the line would go sharply upward, probably starting about the beginning of 2005.

I haven't done it (I'm working on my own list of fatalities).

For those who are wondering about the lack of troops; the situation is MUCH worse than we realize. While we're counting fatalities, there's an entire group which goes under the radar....it's the wounded troops.

These are people who have been injured so badly they can't be returned to combat (thank God for that!). I've read figures anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000. So while they're alive (thank God), they can't fight so they're not much use to the eager generals.

Guess how much this comprises of the troops in Iraq? An amazing 10% if we use conservative figures.

Let's go with 30,000 + 1,600 dead. 31,600 divided by 150,000 = 21%. Imagine, we've been in Iraq about 3 years, and we've lost close to 1/5 of our fighting force.

This is a staggering figure, one that will make the Generals in the Pentagon sweat profusely.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. You pull the number 30,000 out of thin air

Then begin using it to produce your calculation. Geez. I'm glad you're not my insurance agent.

[KC21304]

28. All rightie then. How about you call up Mr. Rumsfeld

get the correct casualty count and post it here for us ? That would be much appreciated. Or we could ask Barbara Bush. Oh that's right, she said she couldn't bother her beautiful mind with such things.

[aneerkoinos]

29. Well, no

30.000 is probably a conservative estimate of all med-evacs (not only WIA, but illness, mental problems etc.)

So coalition KIA when mercs are counted in is well over 2000. Using the norm of times KIA ten for WIA+KIA casualty rate gives 20.000. Add out of fighting force for other reasons, and the 30.000 is very plausible and conservative estimate for occupation troops. And add to that the real blead, coalition partners that have left or are leaving the coalition in a year, 40.000 troops. And US recruitment is down catastrophically.

US is loosing the war of attrition big time.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Silly me

I thought the 30,000 as used by cliss referred to people injured so badly that they cannot be returned to combat, not to "all med-evacs," total. How'd I get that idea? Cliss said it:

These are people who have been injured so badly they can't be returned to combat (thank God for that!). I've read figures anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000.

I've also read figures around 10,000-15,000, though I've never seen anyone use 30,000. I'm partial to the approx. 15,000 figure myself for all med-evacs; and this guy I read from time to time puts it at about that number for the "grievously wounded":

The butcher's bill to date: 1,610 American soldiers dead, times ten grievously wounded

Is this the writing of Donald Rumsfeld? No, William Rivers Pitt.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051105A.shtml

At the end of the day, though, it just seems unreasonable (or dishonest) to set up a range of 10,000-30,000, then immediately go with the high end of the range, then use that high end to make your point.

[aneerkoinos]

53. My math is my own

Not Will Pitt's ore anybody elses. All we are doing is guessing and guestimating. So go stuff your accusations of dishonesty.

I didn't set up a range, even though it is interesting others come close to me, but gave the estimate of US lead coalition plus mercs loosing 30 000 of their ACTIVE fighting force. Which of course is the real number of casualties that matter militarily. The number is fluid as some wounded return to service, but then there are guys at sick bay etc., and more and more sick and more and more troops with low morals, so with all recycling and all that, I still stick with the 30K number of overall coalition casualties, which means about 15% casualties for the available fighting forces not counting in the abysmal recruiment situation both in US and UK.

Youp, they are loosing the war of attrition. What happened in Vietnam.

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. Since I was referring to cliss's post

I'll just shrug at your bizarre post here.

[aneerkoinos]

57. But you didn't

You answered my post, not once but two times.

"Shrug" and "bizarre" are the classic DU attempts to avoid factual and honest discussion, so go join the crowd.

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. Is it your speculative calculations you'd like me to address?

OK then.

1) You start by adding 400 "mercs" (I assume you mean mercenaries, which is to say, the creeps from Blackwater et. al.) deaths to the known dead of 1615. For what reason you think these would apply, or how you arrive at that number is never stated. Not that that matters, because

2) You proceed with a 10X casualty/out of action for dead rate. Do we know this is accurate? No, just that it is the "norm." Of course, the addition of the "mercs" helps you tack on 4,000 (!) out of action to your calculation of US troops, not a untidy profit to be derived from a number with no support or even reasonable connection to the question! (Since I'm more comfortable with the approx. 15,000 all med-evac figure which I've seen published, the number of dead x 10 actually works for me). But how did we manage - Enron-style - to tack on another 10,000 (!) to the already dubious 20,000 figure? By more three-card monte-esque slippages, since we now are to believe that

3) The original 10x figure was just for wounded in action, and not for all casulaty/out of action, so we're throwing in another 10,000 for pregnancies, influenza, crotch rot, and clap. What a nasty bag! We are truly in the realm of fantasy here, or at least the region of arbitrariness. Because your numbers are all arbitrary, right?

Any grounding for these other than guess-timate?

[aneerkoinos]

72. I don't care what is your address

No, I add (very conservative number of ) 200 mercs, which certainly is below the actual number.

10x fatalities seems the best guestimate, and it's not mine, but one that is used all over DU. Give you 9x, 8x, or 11x, no big differenence, but there's plenty of evidence the number is reasonably valid.

In next sentence, you become incomprehensible, with no relation to my post, which was pretty simple and reasonable.

For the reast, the numbers you speak about are US Gringo plus mercs, I'm speaking about the totality of coalition troops.

And the obvious fact that sick bay in the theatre is allways much more than medevac to Germay and US. And that I'm talking about fighting force, the number that matters militarily. It's not pure guestimate, fantasy, but what happens allways, with real armies, everywhere. The numbers are vague, because the situation is vague and Army never tells the awfull truth but the best possible truth, but they are based on facts and numbers that every Grog - and military planner and analyst - realizes. For all I know the situation mitht be much worse, I have just spelled out the most likely situation based on what we know about history and what we know - or presume on good grounds - about this situation.

So far you have only proven that you have very limited understanding of military matters.

[alcibiades_mystery]

81. You don't seem to care about much

Let's bottom line it then.

Do you believe, as cliss (in the original post I responded to) implies, that 30,000 troops have been "injured so badly that they can't return to combat"?

That was the original question. Agree or disagree?

[aneerkoinos]

86. No

That was not the original question.

All military situations are dynamic, and now the situation seems that that about 30.000 troops are out of foreign anti-Iraq fighting troops. In few months that number is likely to go to 40-000 troops, or much much more, if we count coalition allies leaving the ship. The important point is that US is extremely hard to replenish its losses, Iraqi patrioric resistance has no such problems. Thus we get back to my real point, resistance is winning the war of attrition.

[alcibiades_mystery]

91. That was the question I was dealing with

since I was esponding to cliss's post originally. So I guess we're talking past each other.

[Roy]

82. actually probably more than 40,000

At the end of the Mclaughlin Report on Sundays he reports the number of military personnel removed from theater due to injuries mental and physical.

The last show I saw he reported more than 38,000, and I have missed the show the last couple Sundays.

And this before the recent escalations.

Check it out!

[alcibiades_mystery]

83. I'd like to see the data on that

I'm happy to be wrong here, but I am concerned about the distinctions.

[LynnTheDem]

90. Not "thin air"; The DoD shows apx 12,000 combat wounded, with another

apx 15,000 troops medically evac'ed from Iraq due to illnesses, war-related and not.

Wounded in Action Total 11888
Last update from the DoD: 09-Apr-05

[alcibiades_mystery]

92. I agree with 12,000

Problem is that cliss conflated those two numbers, and said 30,000 "injured so badly they could not return to combat." I put that at 12,000, according to your figures.

[LynnTheDem]

93. 12, 000 combat related, ie wounded in action; another 15,000 from non-

combat related illnesses.

[alcibiades_mystery]

105. Thanks

I can read.

The problem is that the 15,000 non-combat illness would seem to have a very high proportion returnable to combat (after, say, the pneumonia passed), which is precisely the opposite of what cliss said.

[LynnTheDem]

106. 15,000 not returned to duty.

Edited: waste of typing space and of my time.

[alcibiades_mystery]

108. Don't waste your time

Just support your claim.

[Frederik]

40. Yes, I agree but

the number of wounded must be divided by the number of all the troops that have been in Iraq over three years, which is a lot more than 150,000.

[LynnTheDem]

94. Graph;

[teryang]

23. intelligent mine warfare

US Army's worst nightmare.

The impact of the so called improvised explosive device and the car bomb is not just in the direct casualties caused but the indirect effects of inhibiting movement and commerce. Mobility is one of the basic foundations of military security. This is why most militaries love mines and minefields. Low cost, low profile, big impact. The worst effects are not just the sensational ones you read about in icasualties.org. The impact on the total security of the country and the effectiveness of the huge expenditure of American resources is unseen but even greater. The cost effectiveness of intelligent mines is off the charts. These are the precision guided munitions of guerilla war.

Why is it that the media doesn't discuss these matters? How long before the media can overcome its censorship of one of the most sensational military failures of our era? Corporatism tied its ship to the war mongers. Except for the war profiteers and the domestic legislation agenda, the war has been one of the most sensational and dramatic failures one can imagine.

Dramatic military failures presage dramatic political failures.

[bemildred]

25. I was speculating when it started ("Matador") that the primary objective

was not military in any case, but a PR effort and distraction,
an attempt to emulate "shock and awe" off the beaten path where
it would be "safe".

Instead we seem to have a giant recruiting success for the
"insurgents" and a PR debacle for the occupation. I gather that as
we speak some of these villages are having the crap bombed
out of them in hopes of obtaining "revenge" or something.

[leftchick]

26. I hope you are wrong

but my best guess is you are right.

:(

[bemildred]

31. Jihad Unspun is practically frothing at the mouth over it.

You know, dozens of aircraft down and stuff. Here's
a bit more reliable source:

Syrians watch as battle between Marines and insurgents rages on their border

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) From their rooftops, Syrians in frontier towns watched airstrikes and battles on the other side of the Iraqi border, where U.S. forces are fighting insurgents in an offensive raging uncomfortably close to Syria's doorstep.

Rawaf Hamad, a farmer in the village of Showaiyeh, said he was shaken awake at 3 a.m. Thursday by shelling about a mile away in the Iraqi town of al-Qaim. He heard the sound of warplanes

''There was heavy gunfire that lasted until 6 a.m today,'' the 24-year-old said.

---

In Abu Kamal , a town of 70,000 about three miles from the border, residents could feel the ground shake from the fighting across the border. People took to rooftops to watch U.S. fighter jets and helicopter gunships bombard insurgents hiding in houses in al-Qaim. The Syrians said they could hear small arms fire from the ground, apparently insurgents returning fire.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/132/world/Syrians_watch_as_battle_betwee:.shtml

[leftchick]

38. Thank you for the link

That is a lot more information than I have seen in a while about that area of Syria.

[Darranar]

49. "hiding in houses"...

Apparently the US military can see through walls and roofs?

It is disgusting the way killing one hundred people in forty-eight hours is seen as a "success," something people should cheer on and be proud of .

Especially considering that the figure is likely invented, and among the dead are certainly plenty of innocent people.

[bemildred]

54. Yes.

Remember at the beginning of this fiasco when they said something
along the lines of this one town turned off all it's light "to
signal the others"? I remember think that maybe they just wanted
to hide. What would you do if a bunch of tanks were coming your
way?

[teryang]

32. I agree 100 percent

let's try something somewhere where we can win something. Bring the embedded journalists. Get them out from behind the concrete walls.

[jayfish]

33. Mines Make The March...

of freedom very difficult.

Jay

[The_Casual_Observer]

27. And riding a bike for 2 hours in the middle of the day/week

is hard work. At least the commander and chief is trying to feel their pain.

[Erika]

30. This blood is on Bush's hands

and why are we there? I trust www.icasualties.org more than I do any other site.

[ckramer]

36. More people died for Daddy's war!

[amber dog democrat]

41. it does not matter. Today's bushes are con artists , weasels, and crooks.

only the Chimp is a giggling serial killer to boot.
The bushes are an affliction not just to our country but the world.
It ended with Prescott.

[DemoTex]

39. We are right. They are wrong. This war is a big mistake.

It is far, far worse than Vietnam, and I was there. We are metaphorically fucked by Bu$h and his wars. It gets worse by the day.

[leftchick]

42. ahh Demo...

:cry:

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. I think it is that simple

And it has been borne out time and again on any number of war-related issues.

We are right. They are wrong.

Period.

Good post. And welcome home.

[VegasWolf]

70. We are not just metaphorically fucked! Look at the economy.

[NYC]

84. Why do you say it is far worse?

?

[DemoTex]

125. I say that it it is far worse, because we should know better.

The lessons were not learned.

[NYC]

126. I suspect we actually do know better.

Bush doesn't have to win the war to make a profit.

[progressivebydesign]

45. That's heartbreaking. We all know who is responsible.

Wonder what ever happened to that memo everyone was talking about.. the one wherein we trumped things up to go into Iraq.

[Darranar]

48. Bring them home. That is the only solution...

This death and destruction has gone on far too long.

[bettyellen]

50. i wonder what the average time served was for those soldiers who have died

i see alot of a young ones for sure.
i don't know, this new 15 month enlistment thing gives methe creeps, makes me wonder how they decided 15 months.

[leftchick]

114. one who died stateside on Wed. was in his 30s with three kids

and had been doing his second tour in Iraq when he was fatally wounded.

:(

[ckramer]

58. The Congress keeps feeding billions after billions to the war machine

As long as it does, the Iraq war will never end. Or it will end when the USA is finally broke.

Did Kerry vote for it?

[Disturbed]

62. The majority of Dems support the Occupation of Iraq.

They beleive in that light at the end of the tunnel.

Maybe when the U.S. Troop death toll reaches 10,000 Amerikans will pressure their Reps to stop funneling $Billions into the Iraq rathole.

[Joey Liberal]

64. No they don't n/t

[Disturbed]

71. $83Billion more just passed.

How many Dems voted for it?

[harpo]

68. I would disagree with that unless you have data to back it up

[Joey Liberal]

63. I do not feel sorry for them

Most of them support Bush and his policies. They all cheered him and voted for him. Bush will close down many of their bases too. But they asked for it.

[harpo]

65. "all volunteer army" is the term I hear on the tv all the time

[Joey Liberal]

67. They were all for invading Iraq

They treat Bush like a hero. So, I cannot feel sorry for them.

[amber dog democrat]

78. That is because they are " indoctrinated"

and limited in the ammount and kind of information about the world at large.
I suppose they are not much different from the common " landser" in the Wehrmacht during WW II. I still feel sorry for them. Its no cause to die for.

[tabasco]

89. No they weren't n/t

[Doctor_J]

77. Bring it on!

while the short bus resident rides his bike. What a loser.

[LynnTheDem]

87. Let's "SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" a la republicans...

Will the republicans chant their usual denigration and trivialization of their deaths?

"More Americans die in one year in the State of California in traffic accidents..."

--Forget about the fact that there are 35 million Americans in California that they're comparing to 150,000 Americans in Iraq...common sense never gets in the way of rightwingnuttery.

"More Americans died in one day in WWII..."

--Same can be said for 911 though, stupid rightwingnuts. Never thought about that, did ya.

While you're "supporting the troops" by trivializing their deaths, rightwingnuts, why dontcha ever trivialize and marginalize the deaths from 911? After all, what's 2400 dead Americans when 18,000 Americans die EVERY YEAR from lack of healthcare?

Rightwingnuts; stupidest MFers on the planet.

[Bhaisahab]

98. good post. you're funny!

and yeah, rightwingers ARE the dumbest lunatics in the civilised world!

[LynnTheDem]

100. Funny, huh...

That's good I come across as funny, coz in reality, especially being the spouse of one of them "troops", I am so incredibly ****ing *** damn ****ing FURIOUS with the ****ing **** ****ing son of a ******* warmongering ****ing ****ers and their ****ing **** sucking ****ing *****ers!

And I REALLY REALLY MEAN that!

[Bhaisahab]

101. i clarify

by funny i meant you got just the right amount of the acerbic wit that i enjoy.
and i also believe it will be so cool if you used that to counter the rage you feel living in these dark times.

[Hekate]

102. And in other news, McCauley Culkin defends Michael Jackson

"Did you share your bed with any other 35-year old men?" the prosecutor asked him, with some exasperation.
"Michael Jackson was the only 35-year old man who understood me," the former child actor replied.
(In deep deep denial, that one, is what I say.)

More air-time definitely needs to be given over to this riveting story; and we need some in-depth follow-ups to the Blake and Schiavo stories. Any lost puppies out there? Some babes in the woods? C'mon newshawks, where's your nose for a good story? Don't forget those car-chases on the LA freeways -- never can tell when someone will die in a hail of gunfire Right On Live Camera. It just doesn't get any better than that.

Hmm, hmm.

Hekate

[MadisonProgressive]

109. I'm hoping they'll retry the Peterson case.

That poor boy was railroaded! :eyes:

[0007]

103. Died for what?

Bring the troops home alive not dead in flag draped caskets.

[Algorem]

104. Bush had a nice bikey ride,though.

[MadisonProgressive]

110. Strange, no one ever dies when I ride my bike...

[Algorem]

123. You ain't livin' large like our great Emperor.

[Jo March]

111. Freedom is not on the march

Freedom has been run over by a tank and pulverized.

I am so sorry for the families.

[killbotfactory]

116. Do soldiers even know the purpose of being over there anymore?

Oil? Too easy to sabatoge.

Freedom? Uh, sure... as long as we call the shots.

WMD? Hey... they could be buried somewhere in the desert... right?

Or is it so that they could get their asses shot at while "Military Contractors" with ties to top Bush officials can grab as much cash as possible from the debacle?

[BeHereNow]

119. #3 according to my nephew

He and his wife are both army and although
they both went in to the military gung ho and pround to "serve"
they are both completely disgusted now.
They have agreed to stand together in refusing to
return, no matter what the consequences to them
personally.
There is a growing dissent among the troops-
they know fully well that they are being used and have
been lied to- they are NOT happy with Bush and the Neocon nazis
in charge.
I predict mass fragging any day now.
BHN

[understandinglife]

117. MNA Day 3 is only 17 more deaths away.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3632200

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Be it MNA Day 3 or 8 or 15 or .... the day will come when 10s of millions of Americans and others stop their typical activities for 24 hours and urge 10 times that many to join should another MNA Day be required. On that glorious day America will have begun truly to be "America," again.

[Judi Lynn]

129. Update: make that 25 today....

Last Update: Saturday, May 14, 2005. 8:29pm (AEST)
Week of fierce fighting claims 25 US soldiers
The US military says four marines have died of wounds sustained in fierce fighting in western Iraq close to the Syrian border.

The deaths brought US losses over the past week to 25, making it one of the deadliest periods for US troops in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

The four marines died on Friday after being fatally wounded in a roadside bombing earlier in the week.

"The assault amphibian in which they were riding struck an explosive device during 'Operation Matador' in Karabilah" near the Euphrates Valley town of Al Qaim, the US military said.
(snip/...)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1368664.htm