U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 1,000

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sucks to be them.

I think the British death toll has risen to 65.
 
Once again, the US started this war to liberate the Iraqi ppl, wich was very nice indeed. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did he have WMD's, but he was a dictator so, no problem there.
Saddam Hussein is dead, the Americans placed their own leaders....so how come the US still has to bomb? (They bombed last night) How come US soldiers are getting shot at (killed even)?
Btw, this isn't a war, according to Bush the war ended in May 2003, so dont compare this to any other war.
 
Brave guys all around...

They'll get through this in complete success of eliminating a murderous dictator and helping the Iraqi's build a freer democratic society if the American public who sent them there keeps the resolve that they had when they, the civilians, put them in combat.

As a soldier my biggest fear is that the American public will decide they don't want to do it any more after we (Soldiers) have sacraficed so much to win a war that they (Civilians) told us to go and fight... What a waste that would be.
 
dkelly said:
I sometimes wonder if he even knows what he's doing. Or if he's just kind of being led to make these decisions. It's pretty obvious the poor kid isn't too bright.

Yea , I think Karl Rove is pulling most of the strings in the White House. Sure Bush still has the last word, but I think Rove has alot of influence on Bush decisions.
 
as long as there are occupational forces in iraq, coalition soldiers will die.
 
well I had this long diatribe on why they shouldnt be there but that line pretty much sums it up ...I should have stressed occupational
 
Hapless said:
Common knowledge? At best, it is the subject of intense debate. The economy was in the beginning stages of a downturn before Bush even took office. Bush took flak from the media for saying that during his campaign, but the signs were there. Then 9/11 happened. No economy can take a hit like that and not suffer ill effects. Common knowledge :rolleyes:

9/11.....

Israel suffers attacks every month and their economy is up and running. you can't blame 9/11 for anything other than airline crisis.
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
You changing your name to CptObvious now?

LOL! Good one! :thumbs:

I cannot believe that there are so many 'militants' in Iraq. The Iraqi people praised the Coalition when we toppled Saddam but now they don't seem to be doing anything to oust these mostly foreign fighters. It's almost as if they support the militants.

Morale must be low out there. I still support the goal however, and as long as the troops have our support they will continue to fight.

[EDIT] I know there was a huge contingent of Republican Guard/Elite Republican guard but they must know that they are fighting for a very much dead cause. Unless Bin Laden got hold of them and is using them as anti-coalition fodder. I can't see the sense in it otherwise.
 
Sprafa said:
9/11.....

Israel suffers attacks every month and their economy is up and running. you can't blame 9/11 for anything other than airline crisis.

Really!? How much stock do you own in Israelly firms? Good Investment there Rockafeller...
 
-JeZ- said:
LOL! Good one! :thumbs:

I cannot believe that there are so many 'militants' in Iraq. The Iraqi people praised the Coalition when we toppled Saddam but now they don't seem to be doing anything to oust these mostly foreign fighters. It's almost as if they support the militants.

Morale must be low out there. I still support the goal however, and as long as the troops have our support they will continue to fight.


Don't sell em short... Iraqi police & National Guard are dieing at a far greater rate than we are to rid themselves of those criminals...

BTW - You're right about the support... The guys getting sent over there have a lot weighing on their mind. Last thing they need to be worrying about is if the people back home are behind them or not.
 
-JeZ- said:
LOL! Good one! :thumbs:

I cannot believe that there are so many 'militants' in Iraq. The Iraqi people praised the Coalition when we toppled Saddam but now they don't seem to be doing anything to oust these mostly foreign fighters..

no that was orchestrated for the benefit of the american media, they didnt want them then they sure as hell dont want them now


-JeZ- said:
It's almost as if they support the militants

ya because the majority of casualties are american :rolleyes:

for every US soldier killed there's 3 iraqi civilians killed



-JeZ- said:
Morale must be low out there. I still support the goal however, and as long as the troops have our support they will continue to fight.

what's the goal? freeing the people of iraq? (by bombing it to oblivion?) getting rid of WMD? (the ones saddam didnt have but the US claimed they did because they sold it to them?) where's the supporting evidence that either scenario has or will ever be achieved?
 
CptStern said:
no that was orchestrated for the benefit of the american media, they didnt want them then they sure as hell dont want them now




ya because the majority of casualties are american :rolleyes:

for every US soldier killed there's 3 iraqi civilians killed





what's the goal? freeing the people of iraq? (by bombing it to oblivion?) getting rid of WMD? (the ones saddam didnt have but the US claimed they did because they sold it to them?) where's the supporting evidence that either scenario has or will ever be achieved?

The goal is for a free and stable Iraq... Free meaning no occupation forces.
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
How many shares do you own? Take your own advice and read.

BTW - I have little respect for a copy and paste debater. If you want to make a point just say it. Try to be believeable on your own merits.


attack the message not the messenger

that "copy and paste" job did what it was supposed to do
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
How many shares do you own? Take your own advice and read.

BTW - I have little respect for a copy and paste debater. If you want to make a point just say it. Try to be believeable on your own merits.


I find much more creditable a debater that backs up with sources instead of one that just talks.

and Wikipedia is the ultimate source. unbiased, and comprehensive.
 
Sprafa said:
I find much more creditable a debater that backs up with sources instead of one that just talks.

and Wikipedia is the ultimate source. unbiased, and comprehensive.

My Google is smarter than your google... :rolleyes:
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
My Google is smarter than your google... :rolleyes:


The link you gave me didn't said the economy of Israel was falling, just that the socioeconomic gap between rich and poor is increasing in Israel. Which, btw, has nothing to do with what we were discussing.
 
Estimated, thoughout history, has more than 10 billions died in combats and war. That's a lot...
 
^Ben said:
And so it begins!

I guess you dont have much of an opinion ..this is just as bad as "in before the lock" spam
 
CptStern said:
I guess you dont have much of an opinion ..this is just as bad as "in before the lock" spam

At least he didn't paste someone elses opinion huh.
 
I gave you some points to debate, you're not side stepping the issues are you?
 
No i do have an opinion.

I'm just not gonna bother voicing it here, Because it will just turn into a roundabout of opinions between you and sprafa from the left. And shellback and a couple of other people from the right.

But if you want my opinion here it is.

The occupation has it's good and bad points. Getting Saddam was good but I belive the premise we were taken to war was pretty much BS. Im feeling down the line that the Iraqi people will see the benefits of not having Saddam. But i also belive we will feel the provebial brown stuff hit the fan because this war has almost certainly increased terrorism.

You could say im sitting on the fence because I can see the good that could come out of this but i also see the BS that has been fed to us and the consequences of our actions.

Ooopsy Sprafa ;)

Ok erm... those who will argue the war issue against and those for?
 
[SARCASM]Who Dared To Say I'm From The Left?!?![/SARCASM]


No really, I'm right-winged on most of my views. Bush just annoys me.
 
CptStern said:
I gave you some points to debate, you're not side stepping the issues are you?

What do you know of the goals in Iraq? Americans overwhelmingly supported the Presidents decision to go into Iraq... Why? Well, I will tell you why I supported the decision.

First and foremost the First Gulf War was never finished... Every time Coalition forces tried to leave the region Saadam restaged troops along the Suadi and Kuwati borders... When we built back up he'd pull back slightly. There was no way to get out of that other than to let Saadam pillage again or defeat him.

We were protecting the Kurds in the North... No way to leave without letting Saadam massacre them or defeating him.

We were protecting the Shiite in the South... No way to leave other than to let Saadam massacre them or defeat him.

Saadam ignored UN resolution after resolution... The UN hadn't accounted for the WMD he had... This made him a threat to more than just the Shiite and the Kurds.

He used WMD on the Irainians and his own Kurdish population...

He was a ruthless dictator... Torturing and killing civil opponents was the norm and it was carried out in mass.

One of these reasons may not have been enough in my mind to support the decsions to go to war but all of them together tells me it was necessary... However unfortunate.

The goal? IMO it was first and foremost to keep a ruthless dictator from finding a way to deploy WMD's on any number of his considered targets... That was achieved when we went into Baghdad and finalized when teh Lt. from Texas pulled him out of the spider hole...

So are we done? Not until Iraq is stable and free... Objectives change in war.. Hell in everything.
 
gh0st said:
hahaha.. bush chose to go to war. god i thought we'd cleared all this up about in about 150 threads. bush didnt just wake up one day and say "lets invade iraq". he didnt CHOOSE to go to war either. after exthausting weapons inspecters and un paths he (under authorization of the senate) allowed the war to go on. see, america is what we like to call a "democracy". THAT means 1 person cant just choose to go to war. it takes something called a "legislative" branch to authorize the war.

One second, there are report's that they were considering on going into iraq before 9/11,, for what reason's if 9/11 didnt happen i dont know,. but the legislative branch went over the head's of the majority of people who didnt want to goto war.
If you ask me, it was fear, and aggression alone that swayed somepeople's view's, Bush's speech's were a few of the deciding matter's (but still then not everyone agreed with him, infact I thought the majority didnt atall, but it still happened)
 
Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. And that's a fact. He never even considered not to.


One thing that is irrefutable is that Bush wins money with war. The Carlyle Group, where he's family is proeminent, has vast investments in defense and military agencies, i.e. -

official Carlyle Group website said:
United Defense Industries, Inc.
Carlyle Partners II; U.S. Buyout; Realized
United States Marine Repair, Inc.
Carlyle Partners II, Carlyle Management Group; U.S. Buyout; Realized
 
Sprafa said:
9/11.....

Israel suffers attacks every month and their economy is up and running. you can't blame 9/11 for anything other than airline crisis.

Wow, comparing the economy of a country which has been attacked over and over again, and are therefore used to it, to a country which hasn't been attacked on it's own soil since Pearl Harbor. I don't think there has been an attack in Israel that compares with 9/11. You need to consider the whole picture. Furthermore, I know nothing of the economy in Canada or Portugal, and I don't presume to spout off political propaganda about either of those country's economies because I don't like their leaders.
 
Sprafa said:
Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. And that's a fact. He never even considered not to.


One thing that is irrefutable is that Bush wins money with war. The Carlyle Group, where he's family is proeminent, has vast investments in defense and military agencies, i.e. -

And with this, you've lost all credibility. Do you wear a tinfoil hat so the aliens can't read your brainwaves too?
 
This is truly sad news. It makes the wait for my best friend Scott's home coming from there, even that much harder. God bless all the soldiers in Iraq, please bring them all home safely, and my thoughts and prayers go to the friends and family of those who've lost a loved one in this war. I also extend them to the innocent people of Iraq who find themselves caught up in this, and those who've needlessly lossed their lives, or the lives of a friend or loved one.

I cringe whenever I hear news of another death in Iraq. My friend Scott is somewhere in Iraq right now. When he came home for a two week leave he had accumulated, he painted a very eye opening picture of soldier life in baghdad.

From dodging mortar fire daily, being hit by a truck driven by a looter, fired upon, returning fire. Just the chaos that has engulfed that region. In his words nearly everyone in his unit is very angry with the administration at the moment. He had brought home a punk cd one of his mates burned for him, which I thought was odd, I've never known him to like punk music. But on the way home from the airport where we picked him up he insisted we listened to one song, at the start of the track a guy is screaming "you're gonna' die, gonna die, gonna die for your government die for your country, thats shit."

He didn't join for guts or glory, nor did he go because of 9/11. When he enlisted Bush was just coming into office, we were fresh out of high school. Terrorism/war were the last things on our minds. Like many people where I live, money for college and good jobs are extremely rare, and hard to come by. He turned to the military after recruiters came to our school several times and talked up the "benifets". He misses his family and friends as i'm sure many of the soldiers there do. And all he wants is to come home.

I truly hope and pray that the "optimism" we hear from the whitehouse will eventually find light. I'm tired of this war, the soldiers are tired of this war, the Iraqi people are tired of the occupation and the violence. The sooner we leave there, the better we will be.

I'd take a bullet for Scott, just as i'm sure he would for me. He proves his courage by being there now, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm to much of a coward to join the military. But I also feel strongly about not joining, not fighting. Especially for a war I believe to be wrong, based on falshoods and lies, and an army that I feel is being raped by D.C. fat cats, civillian leaders in the pentagon and main members of the white house itself all for the love of power and profit.

Here is to the safe return of every soldier left there. This IS NOT their war, they never asked for it.

/rant
 
clarky003 said:
One second, there are report's that they were considering on going into iraq before 9/11,, for what reason's if 9/11 didnt happen i dont know,. but the legislative branch went over the head's of the majority of people who didnt want to goto war.
If you ask me, it was fear, and aggression alone that swayed somepeople's view's, Bush's speech's were a few of the deciding matter's (but still then not everyone agreed with him, infact I thought the majority didnt atall, but it still happened)


My God, this never ends. There were contingency plans for Iraq, just as for any other contry where something might flare up. Clinton had them too. "The legislative branch went over the head's of the majority of people who didn't want to go to war"? What? Ohhhhhh, that's right, we are a democracy now, not the representative republic we have been for the past 200-odd years.
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
What do you know of the goals in Iraq?

apparently more than you

Sgt_Shellback said:
First and foremost the First Gulf War was never finished...

what? wasnt killing 100,000 iraqi soldiers not enough? killing 500,000 children wasnt enough?

"Madeline Albright was asked whether the over half a million children killed by the [Iraqi] sanctions were "worth it." Her response was: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it." [60 Minutes, May 11, 1996]"

Sgt_Shellback said:
Every time Coalition forces tried to leave the region Saadam restaged troops along the Suadi and Kuwati borders... When we built back up he'd pull back slightly. There was no way to get out of that other than to let Saadam pillage again or defeat him.

so you're saying even with 20 years of war, two thirds of the army decimated they still had plans to conquer their neighbours? :upstare: propaganda and outright lies

Sgt_Shellback said:
We were protecting the Kurds in the North...

protecting? :

"A report prepared by the top CIA official handling the matter says Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the massacre, and indicates that it was the work of Iranians. Further, the Scott inquiry on the role of the British government has gathered evidence that following the massacre the United States in fact armed Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranians chemicals for chemicals"

protecting by letting them die? and then arming saddam?


Sgt_Shellback said:
Saadam ignored UN resolution after resolution... The UN hadn't accounted for the WMD he had... This made him a threat to more than just the Shiite and the Kurds.

saddam complied to every resolution leading up to the invasion

Sgt_Shellback said:
He used WMD on the Irainians and his own Kurdish population...


weapons supplied by the US ...see above source

"following the massacre the United States in fact armed Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranians chemicals for chemicals"

Sgt_Shellback said:
He was a ruthless dictator... Torturing and killing civil opponents was the norm and it was carried out in mass.

is that why he was an ally for 20 years? rumsfeld shaking hands with the devil days after the news broke that saddam gassed iranian troops.



Sgt_Shellback said:
The goal? IMO it was first and foremost to keep a ruthless dictator from finding a way to deploy WMD's on any number of his considered targets...


is that why he was an ally during his most ruthless period? ...you didnt care that saddam was using WMD before, why care now? in fact Iran tried to bring forth a UN resolution against saddam for crimes against humanity ..but guess what? ...the US blocked that vote ..WHY? because saddam was an ally

Sgt_Shellback said:
That was achieved when we went into Baghdad and finalized when teh Lt. from Texas pulled him out of the spider hole...

propaganda ...it was a kurdish force that captured him and ransomed hm to the US

Sgt_Shellback said:
So are we done? Not until Iraq is stable and free... Objectives change in war.. Hell in everything.

no you wont be done, because you're already creating the next saddam. The current PM of iraq is a terrorist and a criminal ..oh and he's also on The CIA payroll
 
Hapless said:
And with this, you've lost all credibility. Do you wear a tinfoil hat so the aliens can't read your brainwaves too?


[SARCASM]yes, actuallly [/SARCASM]

Why did I lose all credibility ?

show me a quote where Bush says that there might not be a War in Iraq and refutate that he didn't won money with the War.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top