digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

DARK MILESTONE: More Americans Have Now Died In Iraq Than On 9/11

news.yahoo.com — Numbers: 3,015 Americans died (military deaths) as of September 9, 2006. 2,973 Americans died during the attacks on 9/11. - "Iraq didn't attack us on that day, and our misguided policy there has now taken more American lives than Al Qaeda."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -49/+177Rather then preventing 3,000+ Americans from needlessly dying again, the president spent $315B insuring it happened within 5 years, as a plus he lied to congress and illegally spied on Americans. Meanwhile we still don't have adequate security and the entire world hates us.

    IMPEACH HIM FOR CHRISTS SAKES
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -38/+62Don't forget about the secret prisons, or all the money that was MADE on the war, not spent. Oh yea, the faulty intelligence, the missing 9/11 = Iraq link, Katrina, I could go on...
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -29/+9it won't do any good.

      unless a bunch of other countries intervene nothing will happen. simple as that.
    • portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -68/+27Yes impeach him. Oh wait can't. He hasn't broken any laws.
    • Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38This article makes an excellent point that tens of thousands of Americans have been wounded in the Iraq occupation. How many of these people are going to be seriously impacted by this for the rest of their life? How many of these people have had their lives completely ruined?
    • sumoricky, on 10/12/2007, -25/+23For those who agree that bush should be impeached: http://www.impeachbush.org
    • Hoovooloo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+16@ portwojic
      http://tinyurl.com/kfwy6 [boston.com]
      Includes a few laws Bush has broken, as well as a description of how his is trying to give himself the power to make any law he chooses.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -25/+19LONG LIVE KING GEORGE!!!! WE'RE SAFER NOW UNDER YOU!!! COME ON EVERYBODY!!! LONG LIVE KING GEORGE!!!

      (lol, impeach the *****)
    • gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Dude you cannot put a price tag on putting the social fabric of the US back pre 'the new deal'. That just doesn't have a dollar figure or a value in human lives or misery. Its just priceless and every Bush supporter should be proud of what they accomplished.

      Oh Canada, Oh Canada ... how does the rest of that song go?
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"Yes impeach him. Oh wait can't. He hasn't broken any laws."

      Because he uses his powers and contacts to make his actions legal post-action.

      I don't beleive Impeachment will solve anything, the ruling party has been established with members on both sides of the political system, the Corporate Oligarchy has been put in place and writen in stone, the only way to overthrow that is to smash to stone...

      The only solution, is Revolution
    • MrCobaltBlue, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14@portwojc
      >Yes impeach him. Oh wait can't. He hasn't broken any laws.

      Lying to Congress is a crime.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4You can't impeach Bush as nothing he has done is illegal. And even if it WAS illegal, the bills passed by his administration have made sure that it is illegal no more. Besides, would you really rather have Dick Cheney running the presidency rather than Bush? I sure wouldn't -- Cheney is evil.


      And I won't comment about the ethics on the war or whether the choice to go to war was the right choice, but what I can say is this:

      If I was in the U.S. military, especially if I was a general, I would be sickened by the public opinion. Our military has been working their asses off to make this as successful as humanly possible. While atrocities have occurred, most of the people in the military and the generals in charge would never had wanted said atrocities to occur.
      Simply put, you can criticize Bush and the choice to go to war, but give the people out there a break. I mean, 3000 casualties in FIVE YEARS of war? If I was a military general, and my job was to go to war with a country whose military's sheer man numbers rival our own, and after five years of war and guerilla warfare, I had only lost 3000 men, I'd consider it a victory. I'm not saying that the purpose of the war was a victory -- I'm not getting into that discussion -- I'm saying that the real, full-scale warfare was immensely successful. We reached Baghdad in what, just over two weeks? And shortly after we forced a regime change?

      I certainly don't agree with the Iraq war, or how it has been handled, but you have to give it to the generals and commanders, as they've done an excellent job keeping our men and women alive over there.
    • w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10@masamunecyrus

      I can't stand the assertion that a lack of support for a war is a lack of support for the military. The very idea is ridiculous and reeks of ignorance or dishonesty.
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8"If I was in the U.S. military, especially if I was a general, I would be sickened by the public opinion. Our military has been working their asses off to make this as successful as humanly possible."

      Ask someone in the military (not me). They are sickened we haven't done enough to bring them home, let alone protect them with body armor and vehicle armor. Let's not forget the veterans getting their health benefits slashed upon coming home... Oh, and how about them being forced into 2 and 3 tours of duty after being told they're coming home?

      Why aren't you in the military? Join up! You'd change you tune faster than you can blink.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6If a cop decides NOT to give you a ticket for speeding, is that breaking the law? Bush isn't breaking the law by signing statements. How many of those statements are dealing with foreign policy? Do some reasearch on signed statements instead of saying, "750+ OMGF!!!! What @ lAmxor!!"

      Lying to congress? Ha. Congress, the President, the intelligence community have all confessed that we had faulty intelligence that led us to war. "But Bush had more intelligence", but does that mean that the intelligence he had conflicted the intelligence everyone else had? Of course not, you're just speculating.

      Bush then lied in the same way Hilary Clinton and John Kerry supposedly lied by your standards. They both were for the war for the same reasons. Never did Bush say Iraq was behind 9/11 or had anything to do with 9/11. You Democrats want to confuse Americans and try to make that connection and the intelligence community clarified this.

      Congress and Bush thought Iraq had links to Al Queda. The possibility isn't ruled out but the likelyhood of the link ever existing is narrow. But again, faulty intelligence. Even the mass media was convinced of the connection in the 90's.

      You diggers also say that even if Bush did break any laws, that he passes laws to protect himself from them retoactively. Which is completely unfounded claims.

      Pertaining to the NSA "wire tapping", the NSA have been gathering phone records for calls made to foriegn agents outside the US. So one person is domestic, and the other person is foreign. This is done without a warrant because records submited to a third party have no reason expectation of privacy. Purely domestic calls required warrants that have been obtained and have only been few in number according to the WashingtonPost inside sources.

      All you're doing is speculating and sensationalizing these issues. PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt that he BROKE the law. While I do not agree with his policies, you guys are just grasping for straws...
    • DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Please don't impeach GW because if he is then we get Tricky Dick Cheny. Do what GW and his gang should have done... THINK. Take away GW's Republican majorities in Congress. That will effectively castrate him for the remaining two years. Then he is gone!
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6If Bush goes, so will Cheney. Cheney is knee deep in this mess and will also be impeached. Justice must be served. If we don't impeach these rat bastards for all they have done, a precedent will be set forth telling future Presidents that breaking the law is A-OK.
    • igotdugout, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Wow, who writes these articles? These are great articles for godsakes, why the ***** aren't they in the front page of newspapers? Hell if the paper cost 10$ and was in front of my today's newspaper I would buy it.
      Hail yahoo news.
  • djbruker, on 10/12/2007, -33/+66That's 2,973 counts of murder for bin Laden.

    And 3,015 counts of gross criminal negligence resulting in death (manslaughter) for Bush.
    • jeffreym, on 10/12/2007, -19/+27I know that the current administration has long since given up on finding Osama Bin Laden. But what are we doing to bring George Bush, the world's biggest terrorist to justice?

      I'm surprised that the news media has not made more noise about this man's reign of terror. As of 9/13/06, he has murdered a minimum of 44,532 people. Some sources estimate the total to be as high as 49,209.

      That's 17 times more deaths than Osama Bin Laden is responsible for.

      We don't know where Bin Laden is but we know where this scumbag is at all times. And it won't cost lives or money to find him. Let's send him to Iraq for trial today.

      "I'm never wrong. I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken"
      http://celestial-reasoning.blogspot.com/


    • durazine, on 10/12/2007, -24/+14Don't forget John Kerry too, he voted for it as much as Bush did. DAMN YOU KERRY, WE'LL GET YOU!
    • 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Iraq did NOT attack us !

      Impeach!
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The Purpose of the "War on Terror"(officially) - Avenge the deaths of those that died on 9/11
      The Result of the "War on terror" - More Death and destruction than on 9/11

      Was it worth it?
    • jambarama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Unfortunately your figure on Bush is a little low. To date more than 60,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during our occupation. I won't start a debate over who is responsible for more deaths--Saddam or Bush--but I will say 3000 deaths is way too low to attribute to Bush. If a life is a life, You really have to consider at least some of the civilians killed in the crossfire.
  • bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -35/+69Words escape me. It is just mind-numbing how people can still support Bush.
    • jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -22/+11I Know! I also can't stand it when people disagree with me.
      If only there was some machine to make everyone see things the way that I do... Then I wouldn't have to sit around and think about how stupid people are who think differently than I.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@jakebarnes

      You mean like saying that homosexuality is a disease?
    • Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4"It is just mind-numbing how people can still support Bush."

      Midget minds always have a hard time with Global power politics. Its the instant gratification generation whose memory and undertanding of history spans the last three months and plans for the future extend into next week. The big picture escapes them everytime if you were taught to think in school you would not have a hard time understanding what Bush is trying to do.
  • tingham, on 10/12/2007, -23/+31I love this country. Err, I mean... uh...

    Seriously, sometimes I wonder how I would explain American morality to someone from another country. I wonder if Bush could do it.
    • Molly, on 10/12/2007, -38/+39He tried.

      "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
      --G.W. Bush

      when you live in a nation controlled by idiots, an idiot will rule.

      Democracy at work.

      socialism ftw.
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -21/+24@ Molly

      You were good until your socialism bit. Democracy isn't at fault for this country's failure. Bush is.
    • Skafloc, on 10/12/2007, -17/+41Socialism does not exclude democracy.
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11When people quote bush I always see alot of ---------- inbetween words....
    • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26it seems like the policy of poor education is finally paying off. Stupid people eat the ***** their government gives them. just look at all the idiots repeating "Islamic fascism" like parrots after Bush said it.
    • dahat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16@cybermort

      So if you don't like the term "Islamic fascism"... what would you prefer we call those who call themselves Muslim and seek to destroy those who do not share their beliefs?

      You've got to admit... the names we call them today are pretty benign compared to what the US called it's enemies in past such as "gooks," "krauts", "japs," and "gerries", etc.
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18@ dahat

      Why can't we simply call them "terrorists?" There are many people who kill in the name of a grossly misguided version of their religion. Anyone who kills in the name of their God is a terrorist -- why do we have to break it down any more than that?

      If you kill in the name of Islam, you are no different than any other terrorist. Your motives aren't special. Your motives aren't righteous. You are no different than the guy that guns down a kid on a bike because you felt like it. The United States, your people, and the rest of the world looks at you with disdain.

      So why should we assign their religion to the term? They are no different than any other uneducated, mindless thug, regardless of what they want to believe. Assigning their religion to it only plays into their hands AND hurts the true believers.
    • hoosierplew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"You've got to admit... the names we call them today are pretty benign compared to what the US called it's enemies in past such as 'gooks,' 'krauts', 'japs,' and 'gerries', etc."

      No, I don't. Soldiers don't call out "Islamo-fascist at nine o'clock!" in the heat of battle. As in every instance before, the locals have been given unflattering nicknames by the American soldiers (not that it doesn't happen with other Nations, I'm just going on the American perspective): Towlie, Terrorist, Towelhead, Jihad Jerry, Dirka, Camel Jockey, etc. Some existed prior to this conflict, some are fairly new. This is an unfortunate reality.

      We call the Iraqi resistance fighters "terrorists" because it fits our generalized view of the conflict, not because each and every fighter is a true terrorist. Many fighters are fundamentalists bent on enforcing the rules of their worldview on the general population (Islamic Fascists in the true sense). Some fighters join the conflict for personal reasons - the "murder" of family members, the destruction of their homes, etc (revenge fighters, neither Islamic Fascists nor terrorists).

      What exactly is a terrorist, anyway? Its a label too easily applied by politicians and pundits to explain away who is killing our soldiers without getting to the root cause. Terrorism is a tactic, it is not a nationality or a belief. It is driven by belief, but the beliefs are the core issue, not the tactics.

      I think of Iraq's fighters as part of a resistance coalition. Members of this resistance have their own agendas, but are fighting with at least one goal in mind. Our job is to deal with the resistance, not to just "defeat the terrorists" or "crush Islamic fascism". I think this change of language and outlook could really help our situation.

      But what do I know? I'm just another digger.
      /rambling
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4The problem with Socialism isn't the system itself, its the reputation the system has. All propoganda that was produced during the cold war and even post-cold war was inherantly anti-socialism, anti-communism, and pro-capitalism. Peoples inate beleif system became warped by government controlled ideals that placed Socialism, Communism, Stalinism, and Maoism in one collective melting pot and people assumed they where one in the same.

      People need to learn:
      Socialism is limited government control, unlimited liberty(without stomping on other's liberty of course), and complete equality for all, rich and poor do not exist, ethnic, religious, and gender backrounds do not matter. the government is in place soley for the purpose of ensuring that people do not impose their will on others, thus limiting their liberty.

      Communism differs from Socialism in that the government maintains more control and directly influences the citizen's lifestyles by making most of their choices for them.

      Stalinism and Maoism have their differences as well, but what they share is a dictator controlled government that uses force to censor and control their populations, their goal is to create a "hive-mind" lifestyle, one leader, a million drones.

      Capitalism, on the other hand, creates a divided society, The poverty class, lower class, middle class, middle-upper class, upper class, and wealthy elite. Capitalism controls its citizenry by neccesitating the pyramid scheme that most of us fall victim to without even knowing it. When you go to work, you have no rights to the product you create, you have no say in how its developed other than what say they let you have, you have no freedom to choose.

      When is the last time you've heard of a "commoner" getting elected to a federal office, or even a stste office for that matter. It doesn't happen, unless you have "capital", you have no power, when 5-10% of the population has more than 50% of the capital, that 5 - 10%+ has all the power, the remainder live at the bottom on the pyramid scheme living with tunnel vision and short-sightedness, Ignorance is bliss.
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1the last paragraph was punctuated badly and edit on digg sucks, heres what I wanted to say:

      When is the last time you've heard of a "commoner" getting elected to a federal office, or even a state office for that matter, It doesn't happen. Unless you have "capital", you have no power, and when 5-10% of the population has more than 50% of the capital, that 5 - 10% has all the power, the remainder live at the bottom on the pyramid scheme living with tunnel vision and short-sightedness, Ignorance is bliss.
    • isasusinfinite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think part of the problem hinges upon the naming of these groups in a manner that is instantly accessable to us in the English speaking world. The problem with the name 'Terrorist' is that it is such a broad stroke. Sure, these people are 'Terrorist's (which is defined as someone who uses fear as a tool to achieve their own ends), but so is that guy down the street who drives a Harley and plays loud music and beats anybody up who asks him nicely to turn it down.

      So, more specifically, these people are religious fundamentalists in a holy war, and happen to be using fear to achieve their end. So what do we call them? 'Jihadists'? That would work, except that the term Jihad isn't an English word, and is unfamiliar to many in it's normal context, and so promotes a xenophobic intepretation of the term's fundamental meaning that we'd like to avoid.

      The English word I believe most succinctly defines these people to our stems from the English word meaning 'holy war'. Crusade. 'Crusade' is the English term for a holy war. These people are quite literally 'Crusaders'. Religious fundamentalists fighting a holy war. Now, you can bet that you'll never hear that term spouted in the American government's 'talking points', but that's not surprising considering those people are on a different (and entirely antithetical) crusade.

      "
      Something for the rag and bone man
      Over my dead body
      Something big is gonna happen
      Over my dead body
      Someone's son or someone’s daughter
      Over my dead body
      This is how I end up sucked in
      Over my dead body
      I’m gonna go to sleep
      And let this wash all over me
      We don't really want a monster taking over
      Tip toe around, tie him down
      We don’t want the loonies takin’ over
      Tip toe around, tie him down
      May pretty horses come to you as you sleep
      I’m gonna go to sleep
      And let this wash all over me
      "
      - Little Man Being Erased.
      -- Yorke
    • Molly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2WTF am i getting dugg down?!

      it's the ***** truth!
      the majority of people in this country are ***** morons.
      and that's what "DEMOCRACY" does, puts the "POWER"
      in the hands of the "MAJORITY".
      the average iq is 100.
      which means about 50% are above that and 50% are below.
      go talk to someone with an iq of under 100 and tell me THEY should ahve the power to pick who leads your county.

      ***** bush lickers.

      ***** this country, i'm moving to europe.

      the Euro is Pwning the dollar anyway.
  • icontrolthesun, on 10/12/2007, -24/+17It's either Michael Moore's fault or Clinton's... I can't decide!
    • nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -22/+27Fahrenheit 9/11 was shown on UK TV screens for (I believe) the first time last night, although it has been on at the movies.
      What is unbelieveable is how a man can sacrifice so many lives just to make himself, his family and their cronies even richer than they already were.
      If you believe there is any higher motive involved here, I'm afraid you're being duped.
      I just don't see George Bush as a moral man, not for a moment. What he has got away with should make people angry, upset and yes, even ashamed, because it has been done in the name of every American.
      Young American men and women are being sent to their deaths to line the Bushes' pockets, and it's time all patriotic Americans who genuinely care about protecting American lives to stand up against this slaughter.

    • bryclark21, on 10/12/2007, -22/+25If you believe EVERYTHING in Fahrenheit 9/11 then you need to get out a little more.
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18@ nocountries

      I definitely agree with your sentiments about Bush, but be wary of anything put out by Michael Moore. He makes the Democrats look like much less than we are and his facts are very poorly researched/edited.

      I thought Fahrenheit was a decent movie, but like anything with Moore you need to take it with a grain of salt. Check out http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm for what actually happened in many of those scenes before Moore had them edited.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Moore is not a Democrat, he is a Green.
    • randf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@ nocountries

      our michael moore is about as useful and/or believable as your george galloway. both are attention starved and will say anything as long as a news camera is pointed their direction. the difference is that michael moore is obviously in it for the money, while george galloway pretends to be a politician but is really in it for the money.

      the biggest difference between these two clowns is that george galloway dresses better than micheal moore.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Galloway may be an attention seeker, but he sure can speak.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw
    • the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Wow a lot of Mike Moore hate here. I read the "Fifty-nine deceits.." article - a lot of the points seem to agree with Mike Moore but descend to nick picking here and there. But the funniest thing is to see how right Moore was with respect to Iraq and why we invaded it and how wrong the people who wrote this piece were.

      Though it's nice to see debate, even when it's wrapped up in the flag.

      Ciao
    • CallMeGoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So true lol
  • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -26/+20Yeah, deaths usually happen in war. The difference is, the 3,015 soldiers in Iraq had the expectation that they could be killed, the 2,973 civilians did not.
    • happyperson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18not necessarily, they were told they'd be treated as liberators and that this is what the Iraqi people wanted
    • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34Just as our solders have a duty to be loyal to the orders of their leaders, their leaders have a duty not to abuse the loyalty of the solders under their command.
    • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40The soldiers also had an expectation to be deployed only when NECESSARY, and to serve their country under competent leadership that will only put them in harm's way when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Signing up for the army does not constitute a deathwish... it constitutes a desire to defend this country when NECESSARY.

      The Iraq war is at best frivilous, and at worst, damaging to US foreign policy.

      In an effot to stay away from ad hominem attacks, I'll just say that believing an expectation that they could be killed somehow makes their deaths acceptable is just logically incorrect.

      As far as my comment being seen as a bashing of America rather than the president, I'll say this (to quote Quasi-Political rapper Immortal Technique): "I love the place I live, I hate the people in charge"
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -15/+17They are in the MILITARY, there is definitely an expectation that they could be killed.
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19You're missing the point. No soldier _expects_ to be cannon fodder. They expect that people promoted to leadership positions won't needlessly endanger them. A dead soldier is not a good use of resources.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8"The soldiers also had an expectation to be deployed only when NECESSARY, and to serve their country under competent leadership that will only put them in harm's way when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Signing up for the army does not constitute a deathwish... it constitutes a desire to defend this country when NECESSARY."

      They have no such expectation. When they join the military they are expected to do what their military leaders tell them to do, plain and simple. Not just Bush, but along the whole chain of command they are expected to follow orders, plain and simple.

      "In an effot to stay away from ad hominem attacks, I'll just say that believing an expectation that they could be killed somehow makes their deaths acceptable is just logically incorrect."

      No, it's not logically incorrect. When you sign on the dotted line to join the military, whether we are in a conflict or not, you know there is a possibility that you'll be killed while serving in the military.

      @ArchieAndrews

      "You're missing the point. No soldier _expects_ to be cannon fodder. They expect that people promoted to leadership positions won't needlessly endanger them. A dead soldier is not a good use of resources."

      Did I say cannon fodder? I just said there was a reasonable expectation that joining the military can mean you'll be killed, plain and simple. Don't read anything else into my comment. As for the use of good resources, if said soldier killed 30 insurgents and saved 3 of his comrades then yes, it is a good use of resources.
    • cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Right... because when you sign up for the National Guard you know you were likely to be sent to Iraq
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8@cybermort

      I'm assuming you were being sarcastic, so yes. The national guard soldiers still signed an enlistment contract. Killed is killed my friend, whether it happens in Iraq, or in a helicopter crash while saving people after a hurricane, the expectation of being killed is still there.
    • angelp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@TheBarge - I love the flippant way you dismiss those deaths just because those people are in the military. You may not have meant it that way, but it's the way it came off. Almost as if it's ok that they died since they expected that they could.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6@angelp

      Because I'm trying to be objective about it and comment on the facts and not my feelings. I have a friend in the military, and friends whose husbands are in the military, and are over in Iraq right now. Every single one of them would tell you there was an expectation that they could be killed when they signed their enlistment contracts. Period.

      Are the deaths terrible? Hell yeah, both the deaths in Iraq (both Iraqi civilians and the soldiers fighting insurgents), and the deaths of the civilians on 9/11.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9That's right, keep digging me down for stating the obvious:

      "If you join the military there is a reasonable expectation you could be killed."

      My original point still stands. There was a resonable expectation that the 3,015 soldiers in Iraq could be killed, and there was absolutely NO expectation that you could be killed by entering the WTC. I can't believe diggers can't understand that. Oh wait, yes I can.
    • duniyadnd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@theBarge: You're comparing a death of a soldier at a war declared by Bush amid quite a bit of controversy, to death by saving people in a helicopter crash after a hurricane. You really need to stop playing Command and Conquer, your perception of the difference between what is needless death, to death by unfortunate circumstances is quite flawed.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@duniyadnd

      You need to stop overanalyzing my comment. My statement was in no way flawed. I'm talking about the number of soldier DEATHS, not the WAY they died. My point is, it doesn't matter if you're national guard, army, navy, air force, etc. When you signed that enlistment form there was a reasonable expectation that you could be killed, plain and simple.
    • CallMeGoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i agree, as i am going to enlist, i expect that i may die
    • angelp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@TheBarge - Hey...no need to explain. I just noted that your comments sounded flippant and obviously other people agreed. My father served for close to 30 years and I grew up on military bases for 18....I can't imagine ever saying something like that. It seems weird you would, seeing as how you know people who may get a knock on their door one day.

      But thank you for stating the obvious. It was helpful.
    • diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@TheBarge

      I think what people, at least me, are getting hung up on is that you keep using the word 'expect' - a better word would be 'possibility' as in "When you enlist in the military there is a posibility you will be killed." Not expectation to be killed.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@diecastbeatdown

      I used "expect" and "could" in the same sentence, but I could see how you could get hung up on that. I'm definitely not saying they EXPECT to die, but they know it's a "possibility" (thanks for pointing that out).

      @angelp

      "Hey...no need to explain. I just noted that your comments sounded flippant and obviously other people agreed. My father served for close to 30 years and I grew up on military bases for 18....I can't imagine ever saying something like that."

      Saying what? That people die? It happens. The guy I know who's there would have NO problems with me saying "when you signed up you knew you may get killed right?" He would just nod and say "of course, but I do what I gotta do."

      "It seems weird you would, seeing as how you know people who may get a knock on their door one day."

      Why is it weird? As I said above, they know it's a possibility. Am I going to say "I told you so" to his wife if he does get killed? Hell no.

      "But thank you for stating the obvious. It was helpful."

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you were attempting to be humerous with a sarcastic remark? Either way, re-read my ORIGINAL post if you even bothered to read it in the first place. My original point is that you can't compare the deaths of around 3K civillians who were killed in a terrorist act to the deaths of 3K soldiers in war. It's war, we're in it, and you can't fight a war and have no casulaties.
    • duniyadnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@theBarge: Over analysing your comments? You the one who mentioned there is no differences between the two deaths. If you know that it isn't a good example, and you don't want it to be read and analysed to understand which perspective you coming from, then why use it to make a point?
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@duniyadnd

      "Over analysing your comments? You the one who mentioned there is no differences between the two deaths. If you know that it isn't a good example, and you don't want it to be read and analysed to understand which perspective you coming from, then why use it to make a point?"

      I said there was no difference in the death of a soldier whether it be by the hands of militants or a crashing helicopter. So death is a possibility no matter what branch of the armed forces you are a member of (that was in response to a cybermort's comment about the national guard).

      I said there was a difference in the deaths of 3K civilians in a terrorist act and 3K soldiers killed while the country is at war. So try and read ALL my comments and who I'm specifically responding to before smashing two of my comments together and picking/choosing what words you'd like to use next time.
    • dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@TheBarge: what an ignorant thing to say - did you get that from Anne Coulter, or what? Our brave men and women in uniform take an oath to defend our constitution and understand the inherent dangers; but damn it, their lives must be protected at all costs by their commanders and not squandered on ridiculous, fruitless, indefensible ventures like Iraqi New World Order Operations. To do so is not only negligent, but criminal.

      Since you've obviously never taken the oath:

      "I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Note that the last line is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection)"

      You'll note that nowhere does it say, "I accept that I may be unnecessarily killed due to the failed foreign policies of my amoral, messianic, maniacal commander and chief."
  • themarq, on 10/12/2007, -9/+46Just so we're clear:

    Iraq and 9/11 are NOT RELATED.
    • Dested, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Well that all depends on which speech your referencing.
    • robertl30, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11That's not true. I listened carefully to Bush's speech on 9/11/06. He clearly stated though Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack our war with them is related to the global war on terror. Load of crap of course, but he's still insisting on making a linkage.

      What's up with "war on terror" anyway? How do you fight an emotion? Shouldn't it be a "war on terrorism". What's next? "war on apathy", "war on fear", "war on shame"?
    • lynnallan, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9There are terrorist activities that are not related to 9/11. There are more threats to peace, justice and freedom, than Al Queda.

      How many do you suppose would have died if those brave 3000 soldiers had not given their lives to protect the rest of the world from extremists? 1993 WTC bomb, US Cole, attacks on the embassies, Kuwait, etc, etc, etc. It was going to keep happening unless someone hat the guts to make it stop. Bush has the will to do what needed to be done. The world is a safer place because of it.

      If 400,000 Americans had not given their lives in WWII, what would be the state of peace, justice, and freedom in the world? There wouldn't be any, because tyranny would rule the world.

      Thanks to the soldiers who sacrifice for our freedom. I mourn the needless deaths of the 3000 who died on 9/11 before we had a president who finally had the balls to do something about the problem. I celebrate the untold lives that have been saved by our actions against terrorism around the world (including Iraq).
    • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Bush basically sent us into an area of the world with no shortage of chores that can be done, and then failed to declare any goal. He set up a system in which he can keep it going as long as he wants. Whether it was intentional is hard to say, but that is what he has done.
  • catfish182, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16what we as americans need to do is make sure Bush does not get rid of the war crimes act. He must be responsible for actions he has done. He is making Saddam be responsible for what he did in iraq so he should do the same. Its a dark day when this stat was released. George W Bush is no better then Bin Laden.

    TheBarge- but what right does Bush have to send these troops to iraq when there is NO proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Bush wanted to finish what his dad did. Plan and simple. Bush has used america for his own toy and to further his own goals.
    • robertl30, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Of course we're forgetting the ~45,000 Iraqi dead. But whose counting? Oh, this guy is: http://iraqbodycount.org
    • chmod, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"George W Bush is no better then Bin Laden."

      If you honestly believe that, I feel a great deal of pity for you.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"but what right does Bush have to send these troops to iraq when there is NO proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11."

      He's the commander-in-chief and got support from the rest of the government, including the democrats, to go to war with Iraq, that's what gives him the right.

      "Bush wanted to finish what his dad did. Plan and simple. Bush has used america for his own toy and to further his own goals."

      Really? So you have some top security clearance and we're given that information? Or did Bush call you and tell you himself?

      Look, I'm not saying I agree that we should still be in Iraq. Fact is, we went in due to bad intelligence, we found no WMDs, then we removed Saddam from power. What did you want us to do after that? Just pull every troop out and leave Iraq a war-torn nation in civil war? We're screwed, that's what it boils down to. We can't just leave, no one wants us to stay, etc etc.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Yup, Bush is much worse. We don't even know what Bin Laden really did, but we do know what Bush did.
      http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm - no 9/11 mentioned
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ICSU

      "We don't even know what Bin Laden really did"

      Ooooooook. I think we know exactly what Bin Laden did. What are you talking about? Oh, and I think Bin Laden is a little beyond being on the FBI's most wanted list.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1or are we?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY
      and related videos
    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2robertl30

      But didn't we kill 1.5 MILLION with our sanctions?
      and another 500,00 kids?
      And you wanted to keep the sanctions on

      http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright
      http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072100-03.htm
    • catfish182, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1dont pity me for one.
      two we went to iraq under the word of Bush that he was part of 9/11 and had WMD.
      Neither was true. He lied to the american people.
      If any one thinks for any time that Bush thinks of anyone but himself then i pity you.

      He is horrible as a president and has damaged the United States reputation around the world.
      Dont give me the "what did you want us to do? leave after invading?" WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE. Thats the point. Bush uses fear tactics to further his issues.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@catfish182

      "Dont give me the "what did you want us to do? leave after invading?" WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE."

      Don't give you that? That's the whole point. Bush, his administration, other government officials, and the democrats were all told that there was a reason to start the Iraq war and they all agreed with it, including the democrats. So saying "WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE" is a bit of an afterthought. The fact is, we received bad intelligence, and we, as a country decided to invade Iraq. We are now there. What has been done has been done, so tell me what we should do next. You can't tell me that. All you can do is bitch about the fact that we're there even though the ENTIRE government, republicans and democrats, all agreed to the war.
  • Quikster, on 10/12/2007, -20/+10except that the 3000 is over 5 years and includes normal accidents that would have happened in training anyway. Also that is 3000 people that signed up and knew what they were getting into instead of 2973 civilians who were minding their own business at work. who needs to look at things logically lets just overreact, but great job comparing them here, not....
    • jkaiser, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11I agree, 3,000 for a war is not bad. Look at WWII 418,500 (Wikipedia) for about 4 years. 3000 in Iraq for about the same time...thats pretty low.
    • icontrolthesun, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8The war ain't over yet.
    • Quikster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7and its still 5 years vs less than a day
    • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8You don't know those accidents would have happened anyway. If those accidents took place moving equipment to, from or around in the theater, then they wouldn't count.

      Besides, that's the most lame justification I've ever seen. Appalling. 3,000 of our guys are dead for a lie and you pick nits about them dying in accidents anyway. You pathetic, miserable little piece of *****.
    • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Bush hasn't declared war on smoking, and every year a very large numbers of normal citizens are considered to have died because of it. Then again, a war against smoking wouldn't allow him to have bills blindly signed into law regardless of their merit, for his entire term in office.
  • jkaiser, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4Digg Down
  • ninjacob, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11Irrelevant. More Americans died during WW2 than died at Pearl Harbor.
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22The Japanese attacked us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24Yeah but the Japanese were the ones responsible for Pearl Harbour. Why are we in Iraq again?
    • bryclark21, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Japan attacked us. Why did we invade Germany?
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@bryclarke - When did Iraq invade most of western Europe and open a front in Russia? I must have missed that.
    • tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@bryclark21

      you are obviously refering to the hundreds of innocent US civilians on boats that were killed from UBoat attacks.
    • lynnallan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Japan attacked us, not Germany, not Italy, yet we fought in those countires.
    • bryclark21, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@ArchieAndrews - Didn't Iraq try that in Desert Storm? And when did Hitler use WMD on his own citizens?
  • CHAIN, on 10/12/2007, -16/+13Don't make it seem like these U.S. soldiers are dying needlessly in Iraq.Don't forget all the people that have been liberated becuase of our presence in Iraq.Namely rights for women.In my opinion Saddam committed enough atrocities that had nothing to do with 911.Chemical weapon attacks on his own ppl.Not to mention the oil fires..Who knows how much ecological damage that really did.It's been a long time coming for Iraq.
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11By "liberated", did you mean "forced into civil war?"
    • CHAIN, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9No by "liberated" I mean,not having a group of terrorists shaking down everyone like there the ***** mafia.By liberated I mean being able to vote,or get and education..By liberated I mean not getting beheaded in a soccer stadium for speaking your mind.
    • Ndiggnation, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11So, why in the world did we decide to start policing the world there, in Iraq? If we're going to be the mighty cursaders of democracy and justice, spreading our ideas, values and rights across the world, why start there? Seriously?

      Would have been better to start somewhere else, like Africa where murder, genocide and famine and oppression are much more prevalent there.

      People always make that justification for the Iraq war, because the original justifications laid before the American people now ring hollow.. "Gee, Saddam was a bad guy, and look at the freedom and rights the Iraqi people have now!". Why didn't we give a ***** how bad Saddam was 15 years ago in Gulf War I, or in the 80s, or before that. Great time to start caring about the fate of a people we didn't give a damn about at the end of the Gulf War.

      There were at the time, and are now more pressing world problems to take care of than an old grudge against Saddam Hussein. Yeah, he really was a bad guy, I won't argue that. I will argue the timing and justification for this war, now.
    • Ndiggnation, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2So, why in the world did we decide to start policing the world there, in Iraq? If we're going to be the might cursaders of democracy and justice, spreading our ideas, values and rights across the world, why start there? Seriously?

      Would have been better to start somewhere else, like Africa where murder, genocide and famine and oppression are much more prevalent there.

      People always make that justification for the Iraq war, because the original justifications laid before the American people now ring hollow.. "Gee, Saddam was a bad guy, and look at the freedom and rights the Iraqi people have now!". Why didn't we give a ***** how bad Saddam was 15 years ago in Gulf War I, or in the 80s, or before that. Great time to start caring about the fate of a people we didn't give a damn about at the end of the Gulf War.

      There were at the time, and are now more pressing world problems to take care of than an old grudge against Saddam Hussein. Yeah, he really was a bad guy, I won't argue that. I will argue the timing and justification for this war, now.
    • AndrewLake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Women had rights in Iraq, I think you mean Afghanistan. It was also a secular country, now it's being divided up into mini religious states. I'll give you the chemical weapons, but I don't think the ecological damage was used as an issue when Bush/Blair ordered the invasion
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Beheaded in a stadium? Are you thinking of the Taliban in Afghanistan?
    • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12@CHAIN

      "Namely rights for women"

      You might want to do a little research before you spout off nonsense. Women actually had MORE rights under Saddam than they do now. Saddam was moving Iraq in a more secular direction. The new government has written suppression of women into their constitution, as it's controlled largely by religious fundamentalists.
    • angelp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@CHAIN - Rights for women? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
    • Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Rights for women? Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was being fashioned into a secular state. There was a very high degree of gender parity prior to US involvement. In fact, bin Laden and his Talibani associates cited Hussein's government as one corrupted by secularism and western ideas. Hussein considered them a very tangible threat (and they probably were until the US got involved).

      Now that Iraq has implemented a democratic theocracy and made Islamic Sharia law the law of the land, the women now have far fewer rights than they did before.

      You might also consider asking an actual Iraqi how "liberated" they feel. You'll find that they acknowledge being free of Hussein, but now they are more fearful for their lives than they were before and generally worse off. There's more lawlessness, more violence, sectarianism.

      I'm not saying Hussein wasn't an evil dictator -- he was. I'm just saying that for the average Iraqi, we've made the situation much worse instead of better. Even if you buy that there was some sort of non-mercenary rationale behind going into Iraq, you have to admit that better planning and leadership could have yielded a better result.

      Nobody seems to press the issue, but as far as anyone can tell, there never was a concrete plan outside of "end the Hussein regime by force" for Iraq. Even today, there's no checklist of goals that we can measure our performance by. Failing to plan is planning to fail.

      Why was it again that the US State Department, who has an entire group devoted to post-ware reconstruction and building fledgling democracies, was explicitly told to stand down and stay out of Iraq?
    • youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Altotus

      That is exactly why I have a problem with this administration! I'll concede that everyone/party made bad decisions based on bad intelligence and getting into this war was probably a mistake but that's all in hindsight. But the planning of this war and how it was carried out and the lack of goals is the sole responsibility of this administration and I have never seen such incompetence!

      So when I hear that there are 3000 soldiers that died from this war, I can't help but wonder how much lower that number would be if a competent administration was in charge. I can't help but wonder if better planning had been made how many needless deaths would have not of happened.
  • dbstovall, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10I'm sorry but I fail to see the significance of this statistic.

    Let's say that the war in Iraq is legitimate. Then the comparison is ridiculous. That would be like comparing the number of US lives lost in the Pacific island hopping campaign in WWII to those lost in Pearl Harbor. Of course there were more lives lost over the course of the war than in a single battle.

    Now, let's say that the war in Iraq is not legitimate. Pretty sound considering that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Since there is no connection it is an outrage that one American life would be lost in Iraq, let alone 3,015. It doesn't make sense to me to compare it to an unrelated event. That just lends credibility to Bush's claims that Iraq and 9/11 or connected.
    • Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Let's say that the war in Iraq is legitimate.

      Then this wouldn't have been posted.
    • Ndiggnation, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6People make the connection, like here, between 9-11 and the Iraq war because the Bush Administration tries to sell that connection to the American people. It's not our fault the two are being compared, it's the Bush, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz. Donald Rumsfeld, the PNAC and all it's other cronies.
    • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@dbstovall: Actually, that's the point. Iraq IS unrrelated to 9/11, by your admission. However, you claim that relating the stats is irrelevant because of this.

      No, it isn't. The statistic means to point out the inherent ridiculousness of the situation. More lives have been lost in a war that, according to the administration, strengthens America against terrorism (but actually doesn't) than the initial attack that started the war on terrorism.

      To summarize:
      If Iraq was legitimate, then the deaths are warranted.
      If Iraq was illegitimate, then the deaths are irrelevant compared to 9/11
      If Iraq was illegitimate, but claimed to be legitimate, then the stat proves the ridiculousness of the situation.

      The valid comparison to WWII would be FDR claiming that Italy was resposible for Pearl Harbor, attacking Italy, and having more lives lost there than were lost in pearl Harbor.
    • dbstovall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Kyderdog

      That is kind of my point. The Iraq war is not legitimate. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, they didn't have WMDs. There was no reason to go to war with them. So comparing the number of US lives lost in Iraq to those lost in 9/11 only serves to further connect the two events in people minds when there is no connection. And we all know who's agenda that furthers.

      The deaths of the US soldiers in Iraq should have weight and merit on their own. They don't need the context of the 9/11 attacks to remind us to the misguided policies of this administration.
    • dbstovall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@mikesherov

      Well of course the situation is ridiculous. But, in my opinion, using stats like this simply concedes the administration's contention that Iraq and 9/11 are related.
    • nathanrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7how many of you are old enough to actually remember Desert Storm? the problem here, is that the American public can't think nor remember past about 2-3 years, and think, that for some magical reason, Iraq is innocent and undeserving of what the US brought.

      you're misguided. even IF Iraq was 100% disconnected from 9/11 (i personally believe it to be about 70% disconnected) there is enough evidence to (mass genocide, chemical warheads (remember what Saddam did to the Kurds?? probably not...), just to name a few off the top of my head.)

      we are also talking about a WAR here... not some single battle. Comparing 9/11 deaths to Desert Shield is like PETA using the number of animal deaths to justify the "saving the whales" campaign... you can make statistics say whatever you want.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@nathanrobinson

      Agreed. I do think Iraq had some connection with 9/11 only due to the fact that they were harboring Al Queda. What about Al-Zarqawi? Was that alone a reason to go to war with Iraq? No. Were there other contributing factors? Yes.
    • mos6507, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1" I'm just saying that for the average Iraqi, we've made the situation much worse instead of better."

      Iraqis themselves should accept some responsibility for the situation becoming worse. They are the ones who are perpetuating the sectarian violence. The US can not babysit every Iraqi to make sure they don't kill eachother.
  • TritonX, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Sorry to say it, but be prepared to suffer thousands more because there is abolutely no solution in sight. I'm just wondering, how can anyone involved in that big lie that is Iraqi Freedom can sleep at night. I'm not talking about the poor soldiers who had nothing to say about it, but those whose job is to manipulate the public opinion, come on we know they exist and we know on which side they are.
  • Quikster, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8i love how liberal digg is anything pointing out that this is war vs civilians gets burried. Don't look at facts burry them and overreact
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I bury them for reasons such as "fake" or "misleading"... I wish the bush admin had a big thumbs down button next to them.,..
    • eastbeast314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's called voting and the server is down :(
    • schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you want to count civilians, why don't you mention the 50000 to 200000 (who bothers to count ragheads anyway I guess) Iraqis that are dead because of Operation Iraqi Liberation.
  • spect3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ ninjacob - Yes, but Pearl Harbor didn't start WW2.

    Also, I found this to be quite amusing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor_US_Propaganda.jpg

    I wonder if there are such posters for the war on "terrorism"
  • KanosWRX, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Pretty dumb topic, as people have stated there is a huge difference in the type of deaths that occured. On 9/11 people were murdered, the soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan while horrible were the lives of people who were willing to give their lives for the freedom of this country. I am sure they would rather it be them then one of their family members back here in America. I know if I was over there I would say the same thing. And to the person that brought up Kartina in there post what are you smoking, do you blame Bush and his foreign policy for a Huricane that mother nature made too?
    • McShaken, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Your logic if flawed... Iraq was never a threat to America. We're already free (to an extent), and a country like Iraq could never have invaded our country and taken our freedom. The tragic loss of life because of an unjustified war in inexcusable.

      Our freedom would never have been taken by Iraq... The Bush administration on the other hand...
    • asurroca, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Then shut up, put your life where your mouth is, and enlist. Right now. Stop reading this, and volunteer to go to Iraq and fight.

      It's easy to put words in dead soldiers mouths from the comfort of your computer at home or work, isn't it?
    • dahat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@McShaken

      You are absolutely right... Iraq as a nation could never have invaded the US... but the same goes for the former government of Afghanistan... they too could never have invaded the US... but guess what? That’s not the point!

      Both nations have supported organizations which have directly attacked the US and it’s allies. Just because there is no threat of a military invasion does not remove the likelihood or threat of other indirect threats... or do you see a difference between a man killing his wife vs hiring someone to do the deed for him.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even Bush now says Iraq didn't support terrorists, FFS. Update your propaganda.
  • OMGWTFROFLMAO, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's not going to get any better. We still have Iran and North Korea to go!
  • Mabu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I feel safer already. Don't you? Thanks George. Thanks Clear Channel. Thanks Halliburton. Thanks Exxon. Thanks CNN & FOX. Thank you for spinning this whole political mess in a way to keep the populace from really trying to effect change. Thank you democrats, for having your testicles removed and acting like a bunch of cowardly sheep.
    • asurroca, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Damn straight Mabu. The Democrats disgust me as much as the Republicans. I love the USA, I hate the people running it (both parties).
  • 77Bird, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Reading these comments just confirms my belief that ALL of us don't have a clue what we are talking about. The only truth is man will generally always do the wrong thing if given the opportunity.
  • wfmk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Bush threw away all the goodwill and sympathy of the world by invading Iraq needlessly.
    This resentment will last for decades.
    • youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yep! He had a chance to not only unite this country but to unite the world. He had a chance to fight terrorism globally with the support of many countries and has now squandered that opportunity.

      He had the world in the palm of his hand and then spit on it and said my way or the highway.

      In the history books bush will be remembered as the "Great Divider".

      Terrorism is a global problem and should be fought with all nations standing together why this administration thought they could rid terrorism by themselves is beyond me.
  • MrRockabilly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Isn't it eerie how History seems to always repeat itself? Im not old enough to remember the Vietnam war, by no means. But the state of America now has a striking resemblance to the America of the 60's and early 70's. So much uncertaintity . . . next year when the candidates are up for election, the war in Iraq will be on the top of the agenda. And of course all whom oppose the war will automatically have half the country's support.
    [/2 cents]
  • SuckItUp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6So the ***** what? Every US soldier we loose is precious, but they died in an honorable conflict. I salute and praise them for the sacrafice, they are better than I.

    But really? The number is very small in the reality of warfare.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll
    • apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There is nothing honorable about this conflict.

      Those soldiers deserved better than to be treated like the personal army of Dubya, like money that could be spent in the acquisition of other assets. A soldiers job is defend his or her country, not to pad the bank account of the president and his friends with his blood.
  • rlahiff, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6you ***** liberals - these are civilian casualties vs military casualties. Military personal are honored to fight and die for their country. 9/11 were CIVILIANS.

    all you liberals do is moan about how we should impeach bush and that he is so horrible. Your dissent is what is horrible about this country. Go fight yourself and get this conflict over. Political dissent only hurts our political system as a whole.
    • VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"Political dissent only hurts our political system as a whole."

      *****, it strengthens it. The founding fathers would slap you for saying that.
    • dahat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@VeganG

      There is a difference between political dissent and outright treason with regards to opposing the actions of a leader just because they come from that leader.

      I’m sorry guys but the Dems have lost elections for so many years for a reason and there is no point is screaming bloody murder because the American people have shown time and time again over the last decade that the Democrats are not as popular as they would like to be.
    • nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Without political dissent America would still be part of the British empire, you Bush robot.
      You are a traitor to American values, and so is Bush.
    • captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Political dissent only hurts our political system as a whole. "

      Are you f'ing kidding me. Political dissent is our system. That whole freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc... You think those were put in the Constitution to create jobs?
    • youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Political dissent only hurts our political system as a whole"

      Call me whatever you want but the fact remains you are a ***** moron!
  • nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8What I can't understand is why more Americans don't seem to care about the Americans who are being sent out there to fight and die in the war. Someone even said in this thread that they can "expect" to die, as if somehow their lives are expendable.
    Nearly all of them come from poor backgrounds. Bush isn't sending them to war to defend freedom, or even America, just to make himself, his dad and their friends a whole lot richer.
    • wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2They cry some crocodile tears, but mostly it's just chest-thumping and "WE LOVE OUR BOYS IN IRAQ!" to get patriotism points.
      You only have to look at how Sheehan and the other pissed off parents got treated to see what they really think.
    • randf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ nocountries...wow...where do i start?

      "Someone even said in this thread that they can "expect" to die, as if somehow their lives are expendable"

      expect to die? we all expect to die. the difference here is that in our voluntary military, we all are willing to die in the protection of our country and it's values...and if required, for the protection of our allies.

      "Nearly all of them come from poor backgrounds. Bush isn't sending them to war to defend freedom, or even America, just to make himself, his dad and their friends a whole lot richer"

      just more michael moore rubbish. you mentioned you watched his cr*p movie on UK TV...come back and discuss his BS diatribe has left your system.

      i will emphasize that it's a volunteer force, from all sorts of backgrounds. i can attest to that personally. i suppose the UK military is still made up of Lords and gallant noblemen, leading mercenary bands around europe? i saw that on discovery channel last night...does that make it true?

      volunteer force...why not check the reenlistment numbers of units recently rotated back to the US from iraq/afghanistan. if our military was full of poor folks tricked into military service, tricked into combat when they were promised cushy desk jobs, then returnees would be leaving the military in waves.

      volunteer force...we're happy/proud to serve our country and take our orders from elected officials. if we disagree with those orders, we are free to do something about it...vote for new leaders. if we are unhappy with our jobs, we are free to leave the service when our enlistment is up and perhaps become future elected leaders, or enter into the civilian workforce. that's just some of the benefits of serving in the best fighting force in the world. (note i didn't say perfect or flawless)

      the same could be said about our country...best, but not flawless.

      the 9/11 dead were ordinary people doing ordinary things in their ordinary, but valued lives. the fine servicemen brushed off here as a statistic, did so to prevent more ordinary people from dying while doing ordinary things.

      the fine servicemen who have died were not cannon-fodder, but are now being used as stastics-fodder for people trying to make emotional comparisons where there are none.
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1just remember we are safer since 9/11
    well the ones of us not sent to war or having friends and realitives sent to war
    but atleast our buildings are safe.
  • boonesfarm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Yes, try to explain to soldiers in Iraq why they are mindless dupes under the iron fist of lord Bush. Those soldiers would show great interest in your progressive blogs and would love to have you explain Iraq to them.
    If you content that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then why would you equate death tolls?
  • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Not all the innocent civilians who died on 9/11 were Americans submitter.
  • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This certainly is a change of tune.

    All I've been seeing during the last few conflicts is the separation of military deaths and civilian deaths. Civilian deaths garner MUCH more outrage. They've been held aloft as CRIMES OF WAR and reported with infinitely more emphasis, while military deaths are reported as somewhat of a statistical afterthought.

    Until now. Suddenly the media has decided to compare them and lump them together for drama's sake.

    I despise using deaths as political propaganda. This contrived little 'milestone' qualifies quite nicely.

    And did anyone bother to figure in the health related statistics to 9/11....or are we just stupidly winging numbers around for effect?
  • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6407,300 Americans died in WW2.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
    47,424 Americans died in Vietnam.
    http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/vietnam.pdf#search=%22vietnam%20casualty%20rate%22

    And now in this war we've lost 3,015. It's still sad to lose the best men in our country while the worst and most cowardly ones ones stay home and breed, but it's obvious we're doing much better on this go 'round.
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7More troops died on the beaches of Normandy than at Perl Harbour, what's the point of this story?
  • habpro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11" - Then why Iraq now?

    To: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,

    You used our fears, saddness and anger to fatten your wallet. Dragging us into a war at the wrong time. Shame on you!

    Shame on us for letting them.
  • Baddox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This is the dumbest comparison I have ever seen. Stop taking for granted your luxury of sitting back and brilliantly figuring out which of two completely unrelated numbers is larger.
  • whiterocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Small correction: the milestone was passed quite some time ago because 316 of the folks killed on 9/11 were not Americans:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-American_casualties_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks

    Hardly matters though. People dying for stupid things like suicidal hijackers and dubious military action are on the same side of the suckage spectrum.
  • nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I don't believe that the Republican Party, which carries more than its fair share of people who are suspicious of Arabs, or just plain racist towards them, has gone to war to protect Arabs in Iraq and deliver their freedom.
    And I don't believe it has thing #1 to do with protecting Americans, either, given that those responsible for 9/11 were Saudis based or controlled from Afghanistan.
    This war is about making George Bush richer, along with his family and friends.
    Bush must be stopped. In the UK , the campaign against the war has contributed hugely to Blair being forced to promise to resign within a year. The UK economy is fine, unemployment is not soaring, inflation is low.
    Bush should face the same pressure. Impeach him.
    • realperson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1a) Americans killed by Terrorist attacks on US by Saudi Terrorists, the mastermind of which is a family member of the most important business partners of the President's RICH family..

      b) Americans killed in IRAQ as a consequence of the rage and fear unleashed in response to (a) , a connection made on trumped up charges and disingenous rabble rousing speeches by the President's branch of the gov't. A war which has cost billions and billions of dollars in costs a lot of which have been paid to contractors in the same President's RICH family, with the same associates as in a)
  • thefoxtrot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6i love how liberals blame the deaths of americans on bush. shouldn't this article (and comments) be focusing on the common fact that all these deaths were the work of terrorist attacks?
    • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"...shouldn't this article (and comments) be focusing on the common fact that all these deaths were the work of terrorist attacks?"

      Precisely.

      The war in Iraq was over long ago. Our soldiers are being killed by outlaws and criminal terrorists in a quest for political power. They are not being killed in battlefields of war.

      The Iraqi government and the ex President of Iran agrees that the US should stay and help fight the terrorist elements who are trying to undermine the prosperity and security of a free Iraq.

      Blaming politicians for the murders of peace keeping coalition soldiers committed by terrorists is intellectually dim and a blatant indication of a politically poisoned mind.
    • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1EDIT: Wrong bloody place.

      You'd think I'd have the hang of this by now, eh?

      BTW....I'm not blaming liberals. I use the word 'activist' to avoid insulting my liberal friends.
    • pdbq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Most of the terrorists involved with 911 were Saudi Arabians and Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. I wonder why we aren't at war with Saudi Arabia.
    • djbruker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@koosebane: When are politicians to blame for the deaths of soldiers who are killed by our enemies?

      Bush, as commander-in-chief, is responsible for his decisions of how to use our human resources in the military. If a decision to go to war is any sense elective, or based on fraudulent or exaggerated claims, then Bush is responsible in part for the deaths and destruction that follow.

      If I decide to drink and drive and then kill someone, I can be charged with manslaughter.

      Remember that Bush & Cheney did not present an honest case for invading Iraq. Case in point: "Plamegate" is not about who leaked first - it is about Dick Cheney and staff trying to suppress or hide the fact that the evidence Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons was weak or false. When the administration knew that evidence against Iraq was weak, they hid that information from the public.

      What Bush does not understand is that his position is one of extreme responsibility for our security. Although Bush has paid lip service to this commitment, his actions prove otherwise. Instead, he and his staff consider power as something to be abused to their own ends. And it is for abuse of power, resulting in death (manslaughter), that he will face criminal prosecution.
  • snuf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2What about the casualties on "the other side", (I'm not using the word 'enemy'); the victims of American aggression, all the innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do they matter?

    "shouldn't this article (and comments) be focusing on the common fact that all these deaths were the work of terrorist attacks?"

    These deaths are a result of American foreign policy..
  • riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7more people die from medical malpractice or lack of treatment than terrorism.. where's our War on Medical Profiteering or Big Pharmaceutical?
    • chadandjody, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@riverside

      The problem with Medical/Pharmaceutical is that it's not nearly interesting enough for most people. It's much more fun to rally around a war, especially when you've got "revolutionary" things like throwing around the word "impeachment" and other such things. The truth is it's just much more fun to look a bashing political cartoon, write about it in your blog as if it's fact, and think in your mind you're some sort of radical making a difference everytime you scream "impeach". Especially among the early 20 somethings who probably wouldn't have the slightest passing interest in political affairs if it wasn't for blogs and movies like Faren. 911.
  • msipes, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Digg = Liberal Talking Points.

    You libs are pathetic.


    @ Koosebane. BRAVO....well put.
    • apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You name callers and generalizers are pathetic. Grow up and think for yourself.
    • steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh boy, we're "libs". I'm sorry, but don't assume just because you watch alot of tv and are probably 20 somethings that everyone else is. To say that people in their 20's or in my case (30) are only interested in politics due to "movies" just shows that you are really bitter and are making a hasty generalization due to the fact that most of your arguments fall flat. Keep watching your fox news, the best fiction around.
  • enforcerpsu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This is just stupid. Taking one tragedy and comparing it to a "war" and saying the war was wrong because more people have died.

    Every life lost is terrible, but this skirmish that is going on in Iraq is NOTHING compared to what the US has seen and been involved with before. Personally I'd like see a free Iraq...run as a democracy. I don't know if we will ever get there, but I truly believe one day we will.

    Vietnam was a tragedy, not Iraq.
    • apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No one said the war was wrong because more people have died, perhaps you should actually take a moment to consider what people are saying and think about things before you try to sum up the arguments and make yourself look silly.

      The point is that American lives are being thrown away unjustifiably by their own government, the comparison to 9/11 is to demonstrate that you have as much to fear from your own leaders as far as a willingness to trade your life for a cause (in their case money) as the enemies of the U.S. (in their case fanatical hatred).
  • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wait, more lives than we lost to Al Qaeda?

    Last I checked, we were still fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. I mean, call me crazy because I actually have a brother in the Marines who has gone to Iraq and who will probably go back soon, but I actually have a clue what I am talking about.

    Zarqawi? Ya, he was not an Iraqi and he was the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. It's rediculous that I even have to point this out.
  • rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Jeez, you Bush bashers are seriously impaired.
  • d8cam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How about you stop bashing anyone and just don't care because you cannot change anything. That's a fact...
  • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3War is ugly no matter what. Death by anothers hands is horrible...

    Good going for cheapening the lives these men and women gave up so you can be free and don't have to worry about being blown up while you go to your local target or walmart....
    • apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Good going for supporting something that cheapens the lives of these men and women by treating them like their lives can be thrown away unjustifiably because the president said so. Look, I can make you out to be a bad person for disagreeing with me too!

      Its really sad how so many people feel the need to try and paint those who oppose the war as military haters, or crazy "libs" or like they are acting immorally because they don't believe these men and women deserve to be fighting this war.

      Seriously go ahead and disagree with those who think they are dying for nothing and that is wrong, but don't try to make them out to be evil or bad people. No one is trying to cheapen anything, no one is trying to insult their sacrifice, some people just believe that its worth more soldiers dying and this is a justified cause, and others don't agree. How can people wanting those serving in the military not to be sent to die be cheapening them? It just doesn't make sense.

      Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and despite what most of you want to believe the common people on both sides of this debate really believe in the morality of their stance. The have the best intentions, they only want what is best for the country to be done. What that means is completely different to the two groups, but those of you who are trying to insult, demean or paint the other side as jackals or horrible people with evil agendas really need to grow up a little. You can't *really* believe that all those people who disagree with you are fundamentally bad people who will do anything to push their agenda can you? You can't be THAT blind.
    • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think it is terrible that ppl that support it (including politicians) are evil and are "neo-nazi's".... Seriously, that is what quite a few have said.

      I'm ok with ppl feeling that we should not be there, but ONLY if they are not being led by the nose and they have all the facts. To often we just auto accept what someone says because they are a reporter....

      But comparing the death numbers from 9/11 to the deaths in Iraq is not ok. I feel it is in poor taste. Heaven forbid people treat each other with decorum or call someone out for not doing so.....

      I agree the war is not going like it should.. For the simple fact that the military is NOT allowed to do what it is trained to do... :/

  • tocksin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2We sure showed them who can get Americans killed better. America #1!
  • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Wow...
    More Americans were killed in Highway accidents last year than have been killed in Iraq.

    Fact.

    Digg me down pussies!
    • csspublic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14470457/

      Some 43,443 people were killed on the highways last year, up 1.4 percent from 42,836 in 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Tuesday. It was the highest number in a single year since 1990, when 44,599 people were killed.

      Something must be done. I guarantee no one buys a car with the expectation to die in it. When are we going to learn and ban cars? Or 20mph speed limits! Mandatory harnesses. We should sue GM, Ford, Honda, etc for building such death machines. IMPEACH Rick Wagoner!
    • ciberw0lf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Roughly 17,000 of those 43,000 that died on the highways involved Alcohol. We should ban all alcohol and cars.
    • endlessrayne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why are more people dying when cars are supposed to be safer?

      The answer is actually quite simple. The safer automobiles are becoming, the more risks people take because they feel comfortable doing so. The car companies can't control what you do with your car, only you can. The fact is that cars ARE safer than ever, drivers are not.
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its quite refreshing to see that some people are starting to realize that one of the most dangerous things that you will ever do is get in a car. In fact, statistically, one in every 84 people dies in an automotive related accident.
      http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

      Solutions to prevent this would be an encouragement of public transportation, increased safety in automobiles, and research into the development of automated drivers to prevent collisions -- such as shown in the movie irobot.

      All this being said, trying to use these facts to justify the death toll in Iraq is just ... stupid. You are justifying the death of US soldiers from bullets and bombs through the death of American by cars. No death is justified.

      ps-Before you start the incorrect arguement that I am pushing for the banning of all cars, read what I wrote.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"No death is justified."

      Hey Scooter. Everyone who has existed, does exist, or will exist will die. Or didn't you know that? The concept of justice doesn't apply. Tell everyone in your therapy group I said so.
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@HarryBauzonia
      "The concept of justice doesn't apply."

      Wow that's deep. And 99.99% of all living species are now extinct. Its like the cycle of life that all things live and die. Trying to use that concept as an excuse to justify murder might fly -- if your ever arrested for murder try it on the jury.
  • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Bury.
  • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I hate how the comment system sometimes dumps a comment in the wrong place.
  • shadekeiko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1How can you compare three and half years to three and a half hours?
  • diggonit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That was excellent car safety info.

    War is wrong and people dying over this is senseless, but I think we are doing what we have to do thanks to extremist Muslims who want not just their holy land back but to forcefully spread their primitive doctrine across the planet. Where is the digg article on this making the front page?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.