What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
130 Comments
- borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Why are we in Iraq again? What has that country ever done to us?
- tharju, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22My grand dad (ww2 veteran) always told me Wars were won (strategically) only when you won ppl's hearts and minds. if you can't achieve that you'd never won any war in a long run no matter how many you've killed or how powerful your military was. and I have to agree with him. Just look back our past history not long ago, Vietnam war. Vietnamese casualty rate far greater than American soldiers casualty. But in the end, Americans didn't achieve winning ppl hearts and minds there, and they had to ditch. What did America learn? hmm..how about more precision bomibing?
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18101 killed this month as of 8:43 PM EST
- patience, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Republicans out.
Bush out.
Rumsfeld out.
I can't wait. - dredd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Looks of diggs for a story about US deaths. Pity no one gives a f*ck about Iraqi deaths.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Actually, British and US intelligence officers said the information they provided was questionable and inconclusive. George W. Bush decided to act on it without being able to verify it and then presented it as fact.
We know Saddam had chemical weapons because we provided him with the weapons to use against Iran when Iran overthrew its monarchy. - jhaydon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Absolutely nothing, but a war of any kind stimulates the American economy, as around 70% of the USA's GDP is military based.
In other words, its a political war. - Futurepower, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You may be interested to read some ideas I collected from about 50 books about why the Bush administration started the war, and how he was able to do it:
Why and How Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld started the U.S.—Iraq War
http://futurepower.org/why_and_how_the_war.html - everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14i love it how republicans compare the number of deaths in Iraq to earlier wars and say 'well at least we haven't lost THAT many'. A death is a death. How many men and women need to die before you raise your eyebrows? set a number please, we might just hit it.
- CanuckMakem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Please let me know when they find Weapons of Mass Destruction....
.... remember those?? - fundigger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Why are we in Iraq again?"
We are in Iraq because God told Bush to invade Iraq. - glmory, on 10/12/2007, -24/+31Lets just assume that we had been fighting a war of this intensity for every year since this country was founded. So, that is about 230 years, or 2760 months. At a rate of 100 a month we would have lost 276000 troops. Meaning that even if we stayed in a conflict of the level of Iraq another 230 years, it would only be the third most troops the United States has lost in a war. Compare this to total Union Civil war military deaths of 359 528 and world war two deaths of 407 300. So, for an actual true military defeat, not a media defeat, the insurgency better start doing a hell of a lot better.
While I don't doubt that had we spent this money on wind, solar, and fusion research we could treat the middle east like africa and completely ignore it, and it is questionable whether this war is worth our effort. I sure don't buy the arguments that we are going to get kicked out by the insurgency anytime soon. America leaves when we vote out politicians that want to leave troops there, not when our military loses. - ilitirit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There were probably more than 100 deaths in October.
http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=106619&list=/home.php
"Now it has been learned that over 300 American troops including US Army and Marines, CIA agents and US translators were among the casualties and there also were 165 seriously injured requiring major medical attention and 39 suffering lesser injuries. In addition, 122 members of the Iraqi armed forces were killed and 90 seriously injured who were also evacuated to the U.S. military hospital at al-Habbaniyah located some 70km west of Baghdad."
I'm not saying this is true, but the Pentagon says noone was killed in that attack. Find the video on youtube or google video (that is if you can, apparently it's been pulled) and make up your own mind. - legendxx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13what's with the fad of digging down the first comment these days?
I like glmory's analogy but the fact of the matter is that in every war that he cited we had a solid reason to be fighting. This was submitted as another slap across the face to make American's question the reasoning behind the entire Iraqi situation, not to show that a breathtaking amount of our boys had fallen. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Al Gore would have invaded Afghanistan and concentrated on finishing the job there. He would not have lost the support of half the American people and the rest of the world by invading another country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
- DookieNukem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hey manatee,
How about making a goddamn point instead of asking stupid questions about what someone may or may not have done?
The fact of the matter is that George Bush only did a half assed job to the point that less than a year after the WTC attacks, he responds, and I quote "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
Gore may have done a better job or he may have failed miserably. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that Bush has done a rather craptastic job. That someone else may have potentially done a worse job is not an excuse for your performance. - ardenr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Thanks. Seems you're a pretty clear thinker, and you've put information from many sources together well without going into hyperbole mode. Since I'm a visual kind of guy, I'd like to see more pictures - entirely from a layout POV, I think it would make it more readable. I'll read it again tomorrow to see if there's something I can contribute.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6but that would be like having a timeline, or goals, or some kind of plan. haliburton is still grazing there, we wouldn't want to interrupt corporate profits just for saving lives of soldiers and iraqis.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Maybe Wikipedia knows where Osama is? lol"
Darn I was hoping for intelligent discussion. I even modded you up. - everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5reporting the number of deaths this month isn't inharently a bush bash. it just ends up being one in discussion considering. So no, it's in the right place.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5wowbagger:
>They rather have them be alive and living in the US under sharia law.
Yes, there are no other ways to fight terrorism than to increase it by being in Iraq. Otherwise we'll all be wearing burkhas and chanting three times a day.
So says Bush, and Landrau, I mean Bush's word that these are the only choices is the word of god. All hail Landrau. I mean Bush. - everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"everyone makes a huge deal out of 3000 american deaths in iraq, they signed up to go fight and risk their lives, but what about the nearly 3000 that died on 9/11 just trying to go to work to provide for their families"
you're comparing 3000 deaths in a surpise terrorist attack to 3000 deaths of armed soldiers equipped with whatever our government sees fit to provide them with to protect themselves? Yes, more could have been done to prevent the WTC attacks, but ultimately these were peopl without the means to protect themselves. our soldiers, on the otherhand, have protection, and weapons to keep themselves from harm. Those 3000 deaths could have been far less if they were given the proper amount of weaponsand armor, not to mention initial forces into the country.
"And yeah, those WMD's, we found them, no nukes, but bombs filled with serin gas, which is considered a WMD, but since it wasnt nukes, the media didnt cover it"
no, they covered it. the only thing is, the serin gas was depleted and unusable, and had been that way for many years. he couldn't do more than a skin burn if he tried to deploy those weapons. and i;m not sure about this, so dont hold me to it, but i wonder how much of that stock pile was either given to them by us, or funded by us. Remember, Saddam was out bestest buddy back in the day, we were more than happy to fund his army when it suited our needs. You dont hand a man a gun to kill a mutual enemy, then turn around and yell 'look! he has a gun! get him!' - ardenr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Manatee - Good intelligence shows that Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan now, thanks to *****-ups so spectacular that conspiracy theorists are wetting themselves. How much have you heard about us invading Pakistan?
Also at manatee - how many people have to tell you to go away and learn something before you start to think that maybe you should actually do some research beyond Fox news? - koko775, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Here's some positive solutions:
*Shut down K Street, because it's a megaphone for rent by the highest bidder. It's not fair to legitimate, populist causes to have an ear-for-money congressional system.
*Impeach, congressional child molesters, and those who would appoint those molesters to head a committee on child protection and/or encourage those molesters to run for re-election.
*Hunt down racists in both parties and tell them to reform or get out.
*Impose penalties such as fines for a network's repeated telling of untruth as decided by a 2/3 majority of nonpartisan, representative group of Americans. (for example)
*Increase accountability for government contractors and don't give no-bid contracts except for matters of the utmost secrecy and importance.
*Have a president whose political strategy involving himself does not have the likeness of an ostrich's, and whose political strategy involving the right decision does not involve asking everyone to wait a generation to deliver a verdict on whether it was the right thing to do.
You can't have a clean, smooth-running system unless you KICK the ***** OUT. - Suits, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You're missing the point. You can't "compare" and say "Only" such and such died. One death, be that person Iraqi or American troop, is one death to many. All that filth you just spewed just confirms we don't belong in Iraq. All those wars you speak of had purpose. You're proof how blind America is. 2000+ dead for what? Numbers to add to your Only Died and Compared list it seems. What a shame.
- cuoops, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Nobody died. I know someone who works there.
- Daedalus17, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7jhaydon I would LOVE to know where you got that number. You think 70% of the GDP is military goods? Either you meant to type 7%, you're an idiot, or you're a liar.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The "truth" is that the invading Iraq when we did was a mistake. Why? Because despite what this administration says, the Iraq campaign is a distraction to our efforts in Afghanistan. Money, resources, and intelligence assets have to be diverted from one to the other. Most importantly, almost every American supported liberating Afghanistan. If Bush wasn't so gungho on invading Iraq , he could have done so much more in Afghanistan. Now, its looking more and more like we are losing there too because there have increasing attacks by the Taliban.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5War doesn't make money. Starting wars makes money. Boeing pretty much said it themselves, they're tired of wars because we use the cheapest crap we can get while they're trying to sell the shiny new stuff.
- everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5those who lose a limb or become disabled are considered a casualty IIRC
- tharju, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5manatee: well, im not a democrat, but i can answer that question -- how about destroy Taliban and capture Osama?
I think, ppl pay attention more to casualty rate in Iraq war is not only because of the media but also ppl don't like being lie to and not being able to explain why by the leader of this country. - abhie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Guess who has one of the world's largest reserves of oil? That's right, its Iraq. We canot afford to rely on Saudi Arabia and on other OPEC countries for our oil. I guess it makes sense to have some sort of control over our supply in case the muslim fanatics decide to start another oil crisis.
So is a 100 soldiers a month is the price that needs to be paid? Think about it the next time you top up the tank of your SUV. - koko775, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7my tone may be abrasive, but I plead with those who would digg me down to consider what I have to say:
manatee, you're a jerk. The best argument you can come up with isn't even an argument -- it's "But how do you KNOW Al Gore would've done the right thing?" I'm sorry, the rest of us don't need to question a fellow American's patriotism to feel secure in our own -- unlike you and unlike certain politicians (and before you label that comment as partisan, I do include at least one Democrat [former by his own choice] , i.e. Lieberman).
You say that if Al Gore had been president, he wouldn't know what to do. This despite being under Clinton, who despite his foolish affair had experience pursuing global terrorism. Remember that Clinton had a plan to invade, and all he needed was basing rights. *Which we got after 9/11*.
The fact is that YES, Gore would have retaliated against the Taliban, we KNOW there were plans, and we KNOW it would be justified and supported by the international community. And all you can do is doubt. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How do you 'fix' Iraq? Even Ghandi couldn't save India from violence, even when they decided to split it up into Pakistan/India. They just murdered eachother and Ghandi couldn't do a thing. And in Iraq the same exact thing is happening, Sunnis are migrating to Sunni-dominated areas, Shiites are migrating to Shiite-dominated areas. Soon they will save face and designate different countries, but this will cause a genocide of Rwanda proportions. People will start slaughtering others not like them in order to gain a favorable position when they divide Iraq up. One thing is for sure, Iraq is going to get much worse.
I'm all for soldiers standing up and getting the job done, but there's not a thing we can do, there's too much history, too many years sunnis oppressed shiites. This situation is way beyond Bush, he put our soldiers into grave danger and we're paying the price. When dems force a pull out, I'm sure republicans will blame the dems, but history will paint a different story. - kevisazombie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7What would Al gore have done after sept 11th? hmmm went in to afganistan and found Osama Bin Laden the man responsible?
- silenceHR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3two things
1) US does not report deaths of all kinds of contractors who do some of most dangerous things in Iraq - like securing supply convoys, there are also no reports on people killed in attacks on these convoys (truckers) who are mostly east european and turkish
2) casaulties are NOT only # of dead personal.... there are thousends more who lost their limbs and prolly hunderds of thousends that have PTSD
both of these facts make Iraq seem like "light weight" war, but truth is different then that. i come from country that had 5 years of war and i can tell you that some consequencies (like PTSD) are not so visible, but will cost many lives in future. our war ended over 10 years ago and we still have vets killing themselves, killing others, snapping and so on... PTSD is one hell of a problem and US troops in Iraq are under more stress then prolly any other occupying force in history.... check divorce rates, suicide rates, mental illnes rates among Iraq vets... THOSE are also casaulties of war...
playing number games is easy.. getting your hands dirty and doing real job is problem... - LunarOcean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As mentioned, it's rather irrelevant as to what Gore would have done, cause he's not the president.
I find it surprising, however, at the number of people who are completely convinced that he would have done what everybody now says we should have done. None of us "know" that.
Then again, this always happens. Whenever someone (say, in office) screws up, hindsight comes into play, and for some strange reason people get the idea that "the other guy would have done that the right way!"
It's always easy to say what should have been done in hindsight. It's always easy for, in this case, Gore to say "I would have done x and y and z." If Gore was president and screwed up, it would be just as easy for Bush to say, "Well of course, I would have done it this way." These comments come after everyone else is aware that there's been a screwup.
It's not like that's just in politics either. After the game is over, it's so obvious that they should have ran a sweep instead of a screen pass during their last drive. I mean, anyone with a brain would have made that call, right? I could have done it!
That's what we tell ourselves, at least. But it's in hindsight, where we already have data that wasn't available to us at the time. - JoeyDeacon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Nobody died at Camp Falcon? Who do we believe?
Over 300 American troops, including U.S. Army and Marines, CIA agents and
> U.S. translators were casualties and there also were 165 seriously injured
> requiring major medical attention and 39 suffering lesser injuries 122
> members of the Iraqi armed forces were killed and 90 seriously injured
> members of same, were also evacuated to the U.S. military hospital at
> al-Habbaniyah
> located some 70km west of Baghdad.
The installation itself is full of smoking rubble, and fires were still
> burning the following day. Although it is still very early to be accurate,
> reviews here of Falcon's inventory indicates that losses will certainly
> exceed $1 billion.
>
> That addresses the loss of property. The loss of life is even worse
>
> *Over 300 * American troops, including U.S. Army and Marines, CIA agents,
> U.S. translators and contractors *were killed or injured* outright or died
> immediately afterwards en route to hospital or in hospital and over 125
> seriously injured, requiring major medical attention and 39 suffering lesser
> injuries By accounts, charred and totally unrecognizable fragments of
> personnel were scattered over an eight block area.
>
> *122 members of the Iraqi armed forces were killed* and 90 seriously injured
> members of same, were also evacuated to the U.S. military hospital at
> al-Habbaniyah
> located some 70km west of Baghdad. U.S. medical personnel at al-Habbaniyah
> initially stated that the US military hospital at the massive
> American-occupied air base there had begun to receive dead and wounded
> personnel. The military hospital in al-Habbaniyah, the largest in occupied
> Iraq, was opened on 12 May this year in response to sharply rising (and
> redacted) US casualties.
>
> Initially three large military transport aircraft with the red cross
> displayed under the wings and on the fuselages, had flown into the base, and
> casualties were being unloaded and sent into the hospital at the
> al-Habbaniyah base, and officially, we predictably released a flood of
> 'official statements' that claimed there were "only a few personnel wounded
> and no fatalities whatsoever." Also predictably, our people overreacted by
> launching a wild series of bomb and rocket attacks on random parts of
> Baghdad, killing an estimated 120 Iraqi civlinans and injuring an unknown
> number as well as setting fires that were still burning the next morning.
> There were strong ruimors that a container of artillery shells containing
> some kind of a nerve gas (for use against Iraqi militant strongholds…shades
> of Hussein!) turned out to be false. What was involved were a kind of tear
> gas, thank God, or we would all be dead now!
>
> By now, it should be clearly obvious that the reporting of fatal casualties
> in both Iraq and Afghanistan are really under stated. For example, we had a
> young officer in here about three days ago who was talking with several of
> us. He is assigned to the air field from which the dead are shipped back to
> Dover, Md. According to him, last month, he supervised the loading of over
> one hundred and seventy military caskets but amazingly, the official DoD
> reportage had only a fraction of that. Of course he has no names, only
> numbers, and perhaps some high officer or Halliburton thief is shipping dope
> or underaged girls back to the states inside the boxes but this man had no
> reason to lie. It will be interesting to see if the DoD website shows the
> deaths over the Falcon incident. Time may tell but they won't." - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Glmory had a valid point. He was only saying that the number of troops we have lost is not really that many compared to all previous conflicts we have been involved in. This war is pointless, there are many reasons to hate it, but the loss of soldiers' lives is just a shallow wound with a slow drip that makes it feel worse than it really is (or makes it feel exactly as painful as it should be, which is gravely).
War fatigue is worse than war losses, and Republicans keep asking us "Are you willing to stick it out, give your all, sacrifice?" Except none of us in our comfy high-backed chairs are really sacrificing, and they know that. - cuoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3everfalling...nobody got hurt bad either. Just a couple of small injuries
- everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3when an article about that comes up it'll all be about that. rest assured iraqi deaths will end up coming up eventually...
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Bush talks about how we must leave only when 'we find a solution' but then we see US casualty figures not improving. He's a child behind the wheel, it's time we confiscate the keys before he does more damage to Americans in Iraq and in the United States.
- ardenr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6***** off manatee. I'm sick of modding your dumb questions and inane points down, and it's not like you even read the answers. This is the first time I've ever started a whole new thread just to ask someone to shut up. Stick to watching your stupid videos.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In WWII we were fighting actual Nations not insurgency.
Tell me... How many US soldiers died during the occupation of Japan or Germany? - everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"There were 16,137 murders in the United States for 2005. That works out to be about 44 murders per day. Completely senseless acts."
Agreed, senseless acts, committed onto people with little or no defences. this, compared to our soldiers, who have the ability to be protected. THe thing is, even with that, soldiers are volnerable because our government didn't see fit to provide them with adiquate armor and protection, not to mention the loop holes in the contracts of halliburton make it an incentive to drive empty trucks across militarized zones to be blown up and marked as a loss, and therefore, a profit.
"The soldiers that die are dying in defense of our country."
are they? Does the fact that the suicide bombers and jihadists they're fighting now didn't exist in that country until we ripped its government out of the ground? Flawed as it was, at least saddam had the forsight of inforcing a secular regime, keeping the very types were fighting now out of the country. I don think we're safer, and i dont think the motive they're ultimatley dying for is our defence.
"Anyone who joins the military knows that there is a chance you will die."
Not everyone in the military knows they're going to be shipped off to war. many went for the work experience and the college money, which is pitiful at best, if you ever get to actually use it. Not to mention the stop loss that's going on, so those who have finished their tours are being forced back into action. Because the soldier has to abide by the contract no matter what, but the government has the power to change that contract as it pleases. Imagine an ever changing cell phone contract with very costly cancelation fees and an end date that keeps moving. and oh yeah, the cellphone could kill you at any moment.
"I was in the Navy and our ship caught on fire and have witnessed it myself. We all know it is part of the sacrifice."
I'm not saying being in the military isn't dangerous. What i'm saying is, just because you signed up to defend our country, just because you're meant to fight, doesn't mean you ARE defending our country, and it doesn't mean when you sign up you're even going to see action in the near future. - jcarrion1976, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What's even more disturbing is that there were 2,503 murders in California during 2005. I say it's time to pull out of California and re-deploy to Iraq.
- tharju, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21) might as well, we should mention Civil War while we are at it. You don't get it. WWII was supported by majority of the American publics. You say we are at war, yes I agree with you but not with Iraq. Like I said before, ppl care about casualty rate when they are not sure why we are fighting over there. It probably has nothing to do with ppl chicken out.
2) Comparing death rate in US with US Troops killed in Iraq is irrelevant. At least we live in US without worries of being killed, being hated, being captured. We have a sense of full control of your daily life. Over there, the moment you open your eyes you wonder "today could be my last day"
3) Hmm..the last time i checked, Republicans have controlled over the Congress and The White House. They simply can't take the responsibility which id very bad for this country future. - JimJones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"We are in Iraq because God told Bush to invade Iraq."
When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long?
Does he ask to rape our women’s' rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto's broke
No, they're lazy, George, I say we don't
Just give 'em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That's what God recommends
When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God
When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own *****
When the president talks to God?
I doubt it
I doubt it
-Conor Oberst - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That is the million dollar question. India was in a better position when they broke up into different countries since they had over a century of British rule, learning about democracy, western-style education, universities, the magna carta and justice. Now India is a thriving democratic country. Iraq has only the formerly ruling Sunni when it comes to running a country, and they don't know a thing about democracy. We probably can't do what the British did to their insurgents - blow them up at point blank range as punishment. Imagine Abu Ghraib where insurgents were sentenced to a cannon balling. The correct path is harsh punishment for insurgents aka war crimes then administering Iraq until they can take over.
We actually conquered insurgents in the Philippines and made them 1000x's better off compared to when they were ruled by the Spanish. We of course had to 'kill any male over the age of 10', after that we had control of the Philippines.
I just don't think we can do what needs to be done to pacify a country and promote democracy to people who don't know what democracy/freedom mean. Back in the old days the military suppressed their actions so we could do the dirty work, nowadays that isn't an option for the military. -
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is