digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

3,987 Dead And No One Knows

huffingtonpost.com — Iraq American Death Count: Public Largely Unaware

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Deadpixel1221, on 03/14/2008, -70/+125For Christ's sake digg THIS story up people.
    • spookyttws, on 03/14/2008, -31/+14Yes, I know he said "for CHRIST'S sake," it's an expression. I too am an atheist. But I too am fully tolerant of all religions. Stop digging him down. That's bigotry. And he's right, people should see this.
      • kidcodea, on 03/14/2008, -6/+18i say jesus all the time and i know he was just a bowling freak who didnt like lebowski
        • loquedesea, on 03/14/2008, -6/+128 year olds, Dude...
        • CCoe, on 03/14/2008, -11/+7@ loguedesea - If people stopped referencing things at least as old as the Big Lebowski and FAR older, literature, film, and most of human culture would suffer. Grow up.
        • durant0s, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3You mean most of American culture would suffer. More Lebowski Please!
        • frazw, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6@CCoe
          I think you should re-read loguedesea's comment observing where the 's' is and that the big lebowski was made in 1998.
          If you still aren't getting it watch the film again.
          Still not getting it?
          He is quoting Walter in the Big Lebowski.
      • AntzNZ, on 03/14/2008, -4/+8Well I buried him for capitalizing 'this'... it just doesn't seem like the right thing to do... ya know?
    • yeslovelife, on 03/14/2008, -16/+4Things you didn't know about Saddam http://avideditor.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/saddamâ ...
      • cygnus2112, on 03/14/2008, -12/+6Even if there was evidence that Saddam hacked off the heads of the babies of political adversaries and threw a dozen puppies off a cliff every morning, it still wouldn't affect the opinions of those who are so diametrically opposed to the Bush administration and the war.

        To those who have actually read books on the history of Iraq and, specifically, Saddam's reign of terror - it's generally sad that true dictatorship is glossed over by domestic opinion and agenda.

        Yes, Saddam supported terror. There is ample evidence. Many will not care as they will reject any wrongdoing that will in any way, shape or form legitimize the invasion.
        • themuffinman, on 03/14/2008, -5/+18We are not the world police.
          • cygnus2112, on 03/14/2008, -11/+4We are when people request us to be there. Perhaps you glossed over that whole Gulf War chapter in High School yesterday.
          • 11oops, on 03/14/2008, -2/+15Gulf war: 1990-1991. Bush's *****: 2003-? Who requested us this time?
          • orangefly, on 03/14/2008, -3/+7@11oops....exon, bp, texaco, ect, ect....
          • DWalla, on 03/14/2008, -6/+5You're right... we're not the world police... so stop clamoring for us to go into Darfur...
            oh wait.... stopping tyranny in Darfur is ok... but not Iraq?
            Please at least be consistent.
          • archiesteel, on 03/14/2008, -3/+8Dwalla: is the US going into Darfur? No, it's not. Whether you realize it or not, this highlights the hypocrisy of the US intervention in Iraq, and undermines your argument instead of supporting it. In other words: fail.
          • EtherGnat, on 03/14/2008, -2/+6"stopping tyranny in Darfur is ok... but not Iraq? Please at least be consistent."

            There's no inconsistency there. The real questions in determining whether to intervene are A) can we make a difference, and B) What will it cost us (in money and lives). We went into Iraq based on trumped up charges with no realistic plan for how we would make things better. If somebody can convince me we could make a difference in Darfur then I might well support that action.
          • DWalla, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Personally I'm FOR going into Darfur.... because truth is, the battle against islamist fascism is going on there. They are all key parts to battling the terrorist ideology, because they are part of one and the same. (that's islamist... not muslim... yes, they are both muslims but there is a difference... look it up). I'm pro-muslim, anti-islamist.
          • DWalla, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1I see... so let me get your formula straight:
            people being tortured and killed in Iraq by a dictator = turn a blind eye
            people being tortured and killed by corrupt theology-driven ideologues = intervention

            So it's not people being killed and tortured that's the trigger... I'm still trying to figure out what makes going into Darfur any better.

            The beauty of all this, of course, is that if or when we go into Darfur... you guys would be complaining about that in no time. The second a bomb goes astray or whatever you'll all be out in the streets chanting "baby killers! baby killer!"
      • spaceman77, on 03/14/2008, -2/+11Yes and it is not hard to find a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand on the internet.
        The US helped him when the US needed him.
        • cygnus2112, on 03/15/2008, -2/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

          Suppliers of Iraq Arms Purchases between 1970 and 1990:

          Soviet Union - 19.2 billion - 61% of total
          France - 5.5 billion - 18% of total
          China - 1.7 billion - 5% of total
          Brazil - 1.1 billion - 4% of total
          Egypt - 1.1 billion - 4% of total
          Others - 2.9 billion - 6% of total


          Just wondering for the record since handshakes seem so important.. where does the US come in on that list of suppliers?
    • DaDrake, on 03/14/2008, -2/+17Its not like this is new information, secret, or anything surprising.
    • CaptainTater, on 03/14/2008, -1/+13Honestly? None of you knew this statistic before? It's never been a secret..
      • norcalscan, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Well, it isn't common knowledge as much as a puppy was killed over there. We gave an uproar over the puppy because we "saw" it happen. If we "see" these coffins, we might get in the "right" kind of uproar.
        • CaptainTater, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Actually if you watch the news frequently enough, you would have heard this number a lot more than the story of an airborne puppy.
    • ligyron, on 03/14/2008, -10/+2Did you say "For Christ's sake digg, THIS story up people"? or "For Christ's sake, digg THIS story up people"?
    • grhomepage, on 03/14/2008, -23/+63987 volunteer soldiers die. Yet 1.5 million american babies are aborted EVERY YEAR- they didn't volunteer for anything.

      • Dubbsacc, on 03/14/2008, -5/+6Their mothers did.
        • BarleyWind, on 03/14/2008, -5/+10Abortion is morally equivalent to cutting down a tree, perhaps it is even more moral since trees are actually useful to the environment and there are already too many people on the planet.
        • DWalla, on 03/14/2008, -8/+5Yeah.... the mother's volunteered for a good shagging without using their head. After the heat of the moment they had their "oh my gosh what was I thinking" moment. And then decide to kill the baby because of their own lack of self-discipline.
          • archiesteel, on 03/14/2008, -5/+4Yes, because people are *always* rational when they're young and pumped full of hormones.

            And they don't "kill a baby". They destroy an embryo before it has had a chance to develop consciousness.
          • DWalla, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1You might want to go look at the statistics.... you're making the broad brush claim that the "young" are the ones getting the abortions. Yes... there are plenty of those. But look up the numbers, there are a LOT of women in their 30's doing it as well... a huge number. How do you account for them?

            Oh gads... I looooove the "they don't kill a baby, they kill an embryo" bit. I'm going to start arguing that every time a kid is killed by some sicko "honey, they didn't kill a kid... they killed an undeveloped adult"
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 03/14/2008, -6/+91.5 million embryos and fetuses are aborted every year. Very few babies.
      • Edwaldo, on 03/14/2008, -1/+4Congrats on changing the subject
    • diskit, on 03/14/2008, -2/+3It's sad, but the 2008 election has served as a distraction from the war...
      • PolishLogic, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Was it was sad that Katrina served as a distraction too? Or the recession? It's not like the 2008 election is a minor story with zero consequences for the war and the country's future.
    • pcgeek101, on 03/14/2008, -1/+4@OP: I'll dig what I want and bury what I want to.

      That said. Buried.
    • change1, on 03/15/2008, -2/+1There was NO link of Bin Laden to Saddam. It is an ILLEGAL war. It is based on LIES - therefore it's illegal.
      There are MANY despot leaders around the world that isn't why we're there.
      SUPPORT THE TROOPS NOT THE WAR!!!
      We're paying our enemies in Iraq $800,000 per day cash to NOT attack us in this "SURGE".
      What do you think they are doing with that money? Buying MORE Guns! it is THEIR civil war NOT OURS.
      • DWalla, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2oh gads... really?.... are we going to go down this "illegal" bit?
        You could argue it is unethical, a war made under false intelligence, or even possibly false pretenses, etc.... but illegal? Not hardly.
        Whether you like it or not Gulf War I never ended. That's right. It was simply a cease fire with lots of conditions attached. Any violation of these would end the cease fire. Please don't tell me you're not aware of any serious violations and breaches of contract by Saddam... because he did it time and time again. As such, whether he had WMD's or not, he had already disqualified himself from the terms of cease fire.
        Now personally, I'm not one for leaving a war open-ended like what occurred in Gulf War I..... I think wrapping it up is the way to go. But the ugly truth is that is what happened. As such, GW didn't require another declaration of war from congress.... like it or not... it's NOT illegal.
  • lunadestella, on 03/14/2008, -56/+6I digged it
  • macwisdom, on 03/14/2008, -20/+57Thats our "free press" in action!
    • Dustmuffins, on 03/14/2008, -4/+11Anyone could find this information out if they wanted to.
    • SuperCUBE, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6The free press applies to those who own the presses.
    • FredFredrickson, on 03/14/2008, -1/+6The government actually has a ban on the press taking photos of dead troops returning home. Makes those quotes around "free press" all the more justified, in my eyes.
      • change1, on 03/15/2008, -0/+0We should be honoring our wounded with celebrations welcoming them home. Instead they are snuck in the country in the middle of night-
        adding Insult to injury.
  • yo323, on 03/14/2008, -26/+201Support the Troops.........bring them back!!
    • rlmcintosh, on 03/14/2008, -32/+17Ron Paul is still in the race for president and he is the only candidate saying BRING THEM HOME RIGHT NOW. Funny how the "free press" is actually reporting that the congressman is out of the contest. Funny.....NOT.
      DIGG it.
      • ABadPerson, on 03/14/2008, -5/+19It wasn't too long ago when diggers supported Ron Paul, why did it stopped?
        • kidcodea, on 03/14/2008, -16/+8his paid task force of zealots stoped swinging digg after reality of numbers struck their faces hard.
          • gameforge, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2Yeah, and he gave the zealots all of that money they donated. You know, so they could donate it.

            Right.
        • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 03/14/2008, -4/+2Because his other Kooky ideas started coming out and he started losing every primary.
    • Idolatry, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2According to Faux News, you would be unpatriotic for making that statement
      • vat0r, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2If wanting our troops home now makes me unpatriotic so be it.
        • rmtatum, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1The real patriots are those who dissent from tyrannical government!
  • RPHeadquarters, on 03/14/2008, -85/+33This is ridiculous. This war is unconstitutional and unnecessary. It's costing the country over $10,000,000 a month and all these innocent lives are getting taken. It's time to just end this ridiculous war. Don't think we can? Here is a simple explanation from presidential candidate Dr. Paul (who IS STILL RUNNING BTW): "We marched in. We can march right out." There's not much more too it than that.

    Dr. Paul is the ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO HAS VOWED TO IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW TROOPS FROM IRAQ IF ELECTED. Support Dr. Paul. Read more about him at www.RonPaul2008.com. To see a good comparison between him and all the other candidates, go to www.KnowBeforeYouVote.com.

    United we stand!
    • JosephCHart, on 03/14/2008, -40/+13Who downvoted? idiots
    • RPHeadquarters, on 03/14/2008, -30/+12One correction needs to be made. The war is costing over $10,000,000,000 a month; much more than the $10,000,000 figure previously stated.
      Also, if you downvote my comments, please comment on why you're downvoting. If you downvoted because of the error I corrected, then I understand. If not though, then I demand an explanation.
      • canewediggit, on 03/14/2008, -22/+13you want an explanation? here's my explanation- you touch yourself at night paultard. welcome to digg, you're 6 months late, we've already buried your friends.

        got any other demands?
        • haydesigner, on 03/14/2008, -7/+7@RPHeadquarters: " If not though, then I demand an explanation."

          1) Bite me, bitch.
          2) Why are people digging you idiots down? He has about -15% chance of winning. Yeah, that's right. Negative.
          3) I actually thought that Ron Paul was one of the better choice on the GOP side. But again, he has NO CHANCE OF WINNING.
        • diskit, on 03/14/2008, -3/+1"he has NO CHANCE OF WINNING."

          Man, I've been saying that for months.
      • SHv2, on 03/14/2008, -15/+9hell, i'm burying because i just want to get to the next comment without hearing about people whining about ron paul
      • JulyZerg, on 03/14/2008, -12/+6Same, we don't need the preaching about how great ron paul is...
        • AntzNZ, on 03/14/2008, -8/+5I really don't like you using the word 'downvoting', that's why. And your political spamming.
      • Lookuhs, on 03/14/2008, -13/+5Dug down for Ron Paul support. Ron Paul and his supporters are sophists. Libertarianism just isn't viable because it operates under the pretense that all people are created equal in this country, which simply isn't so. Systematic economic marginalization has created a completely stratified economy. Social services are the only attempt at a leveling mechanism (albeit a failing one).
      • aaronwolfe, on 03/14/2008, -7/+4Buried for downvoted.

        Ron Paul lost. It's official. Sorry about that.
      • mike17032, on 03/14/2008, -7/+5I dugg you down because I ***** hate you. Like that reason?
      • Synova, on 03/14/2008, -1/+8A. He dropped out.
        B. Candidate spam on a topic not in U.S. Elections 2008
    • Jeffler, on 03/14/2008, -11/+25I agree with your sentiments until the Ron Paul bit. You'd think RP spammers would realize that McCain already won the nomination...
    • JusticeFriend, on 03/14/2008, -12/+14Who is Ron Paul?
    • goffy59, on 03/14/2008, -19/+11He wont get elected because of our corrupt piece of ***** government. We currently stand for everything our founding fathers fought against. Its amazing how we have dishonored their hard work so massively. Don't know what I'm talking about? Wake up sheep.
      • otero1, on 03/14/2008, -13/+8How could anyone bury goffy's comment? You mindless ***** sheep.
        • ChoiceMad, on 03/14/2008, -4/+7I support the sentiments of RP but I don't support such blatant hypocrisy. I don't normally mind hypocrisy (as 100% of the human pop are hypocrites at one point or another in their lives) as long as it isn't immediately visible. If you eat industrial food you are just as much of a "sheep" as those you mean to belittle. You sheep!

          /hardy har
          • goffy59, on 03/14/2008, -3/+3Sheep are those who are brainwashed and mesmerized by propaganda spread by our government through main stream media and ***** investigations about other countries.
          • ChoiceMad, on 03/14/2008, -3/+1@goffy59
            The fact is--if you want to be a part of society you must accept your 'sheephoodliness'(?) on one level or another. If you do not follow anything that society (or parts of society) does/believes then society will take offense and reject you as you have rejected it. The concept of follower-ship is not restricted to any particular type of belief system (such as policy).

            Also:
            Hypocrisy is similar to ignorance. It is not something to be offended by but something to be embraced and learned from. Hypocrisy is simply a conflict of beliefs in oneself. To stall or reject reaching for a conclusive judgment between those conflicting beliefs is what 2nd and 3rd parties are offended by--not the idea of hypocrisy itself.

            The reason that it is difficult to see hypocrisy in some ppl (specifically RP) is because they spend the time inside their heads to reduce conflictual beliefs and previous/future actions. These people are careful thinkers. Sadly, Dr. Ron Paul seems to have underestimated the fact that most of the population of the USA are not careful thinkers--or maybe he simply has hope of something otherwise?
      • ElectroOverlord, on 03/14/2008, -2/+7First before he could even be ***** by the government he has to pass the muster of the primaries where the AMERICAN people voted...and more than 90% of them either have no idea about him or rejected him for another. Face it...he lost. Maybe next time..

        I voted for him in Michigan's Primary but you have to know when you have lost and work on something new.
        • goffy59, on 03/14/2008, -6/+1Its a revolution. I like how hes getting his message out there. All the other candidates don't focus on anything important. They don't seem to care about the 4th amendment or our monetary system. Whatever though. I'll support him 'til he drops dead, unless I see someone better for the "job"; which is serving the people. I'll not ever fight in any war regarding a fight between TWO OTHER countries. Thats ***** ridiculous. We helped Isreal, looked where that got us? We went to Vietnam... need I say more? The Korean War? Why don't we just invade Russia and China while we're at it.. I think they need some democracy.
      • EtherGnat, on 03/14/2008, -2/+5"He wont get elected because of our corrupt piece of ***** government."

        Come on, that's *****. It's not some grand conspiracy, Ron Paul didn't get elected because not many people support him. Maybe it's ignorance, or stupidity, but not a conspiracy.
    • mike17032, on 03/14/2008, -10/+4Old Paul could vow to ***** a monkey on the moon and bring about the second coming of christ if he was elected. It hardly matters what stupid ***** promises you make if you have no chance in hell of being elected.
      If everyone in the country cept for old paul of 2 other people died, chances are he would still lose the election to one of them.
    • Edwaldo, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Actually, Bill Richadson was also a presidential candidate (Democrat) who promised an immediate scaleback of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
    • repmekevets, on 03/14/2008, -2/+3personally, i hope about half the republicans vote ron paul in november.
      • sparkmonkeyz, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2He isn't going to be on the ballot.
      • repmekevets, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1do you know what a write-in is?
  • change1, on 03/14/2008, -47/+200END THIS ILLEGAL WAR!!!
    • JosephCHart, on 03/14/2008, -28/+23Who the f*ck downvoted you? +1
      • Lythium, on 03/14/2008, -4/+9The term is "dugg down." This site already has its jargon; get with the program.
      • sparsely, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2assimilate or gtfo!
    • barthook, on 03/14/2008, -22/+12What exactly makes this war illegal? Did Congress not vote on it? It is completely valid to disagree with the war, but calling it ILLEGAL is quite disingenuous.
    • smashhell, on 03/14/2008, -6/+15@ barthook
      Yes, he is right.
      This War is illegal because it's completely against our Constitution in every word. And most of all, we never declared War on Iraq. Our troops are just there because we said so. =/
      • p3nguin, on 03/14/2008, -4/+7No he is not correct.

        "Military engagements authorized by Congress

        Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war."
        • gummih, on 03/14/2008, -2/+7Yes, that's kind of like saying - "While I know murder is forbidden, since there is no mention of it in the law, I can still de-life someone, right?" Creating new names for ***** does not get you off the hook. A war is a war - even if you try to call it something else.
          • jackyyll, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3Even if you call it peace? :o
          • gummih, on 03/14/2008, -1/+4Yes, war is war, even if you call it peace.
            "War is peace", a famous quote.
            Here is another quote: "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" does that sound familiar? Of course, it translates roughly to "War (over there) is peace (over here)"
      • JoJoDilio, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Not that I'm arguing for either side here, but could you be more specific as to how it's against the Constitution?
      • rockemsockm, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0Congress didnt vote for us to go to Vietnam either. Was that illegal? Notice that by this point, the role of commander in chief has superceded the power of congress to "declare" war.
      • change1, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1There was NO link of Bin Laden to Saddam. It is an ILLEGAL war. It is based on LIES - therefore it's illegal.
        There are MANY despot leaders around the world that isn't why we're there.
        SUPPORT THE TROOPS NOT THE WAR!!!
        We're paying our enemies in Iraq $800,000 per day cash to NOT attack us in this "SURGE".
        What do you think they are doing with that money? Buying MORE Guns! it is THEIR civil war NOT OURS.

    • solid12345, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4I'm for pulling out of Iraq too as long as nobody bitches at us if the Shiites and Sunnis go back to bleeding each other in the streets,
      • JoJoDilio, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3WHAT?! You want to have your cake AND eat it?
        Face it, America will continue to be the blame for all the worlds problems for as long as it's a popular thing to do.
        • archiesteel, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3American foreign policy since WWII *is* responsible for a great deal of problems in the world today. For starters, Iran wouldn't be a theocracy today if the US hadn't conspired to topple its democratic government in 1953.

          The conduct of the US in Central and South America during the 70s and 80s, in particular, is quite shameful. I don't think the US should be blamed for *everthing* that's going wrong in the world, but at the same time it should take responsibility for what it did.
          • burtonbe, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1The USA decides to stay in Iraq = critized for occupying a country and refusing to leave.
            The USA decides to leave Iraq = critized for the resulting chaos and violence.

            That's the reason why the USA pretty much just ignores the World's advice. Either way we lose, so ***** the opinions of other nations.
          • solid12345, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1The Shah wouldn't have toppled Iran's democracy if Mossadegh had not been overreaching his powers either. Mossadegh was a corrupt politican who was put into power because his party assassinated Iran's prime minister before him and forced the Shah to nominate Mossadegh for the new PM or face a revolt by a coalition of communists and Islamic fanatics. We didn't "install" the Shah we only put him back on the throne after he was exiled for a week.

    • betweenthelines, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1You are an idiot, illegal? Wow, read BOTH sides, read all the conservative AND all the liberal publications and form your OWN opinion
    • 1033, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0The information you read is far from the truth, the government would never let us know whats really going on.
      • betweenthelines, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0what about my friends that are there? I have a buddy who is a captain, they took over one of Saddam's palaces to use as a base. Suddenly a scared young corporal approached him and said "Uh sir we have a problem." Turns out Saddam had a pit with 2 tigers tied to a post that were used to eat the virgins they raped. Can you imagine if our president had something like that in the backyard of the white house?
    • MrSlumberjack, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Rather than 'illegal', I would just say it's ***** RIDICULOUS.
  • Stevanoski, on 03/14/2008, -59/+44Note, over 3,000 killed when terrorist attack New York on 9/11, why have the media ignored this story today?
    • SuperWinner, on 03/14/2008, -16/+60Note, over 3,000 killed every day in car accidents, why have the media ignored this story today?
      • Grym11, on 03/14/2008, -4/+4Don't be a fool. The fact that only 3% of the news stories have bothered to remind the U.S. public about their most significant geopolitical and financial liability is a goddamn tragedy and is outright inexcusable. This is not about the number of deaths. It's about the public's level of awareness and education of the world around them. The media is failing us.
        • sexypeon, on 03/14/2008, -1/+6The media exists as a business and as such wants to make money, they give the people what the people want. If people want more stories about Jessica Simpson and other useless information then they give that to them.
          • EtherGnat, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1It's not news that you can make more money appealing to people's baser instincts, but US news outlets used to have a higher purpose.
      • EtherGnat, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1"over 3,000 killed every day in car accidents"

        Actually it's about 117 per day in the US, but who's counting.
        • ncapone, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1People are people no matter where they are.
          • EtherGnat, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1I did some research and it seems 3,000 people do in fact die per day worldwide (I would have thought it would be lower) but I still fail to see what relatively unavoidable traffic related deaths have to do with the subject at hand.
    • Mardala, on 03/14/2008, -8/+39Note: the Iraq war was a mistake and there were no connections to 9/11 to Iraq. In fact the terrorists were Saudis and yet we continue to back the Saudis. The horrible thing called 9/11 will always be a tragedy but when I hear it in context with the Iraq war I just think of all the lies and betrayals from this corrupt administration that pushed for this war that is going to be such a humanitarian scar on the moral of this country. All of these deaths in Iraq, the soldiers, the kids, the parents, the Iraqis that work for the US, the contractors, it was all based on some tragic plan that these "evildoers" had, and I am not talking about Al Qaeda. This is Cheney, Bush, the administration, the Neocon fascists. This tragedy is on them. Its their doing. I don't know how they can sleep at night, but I've given up. I think they are soulless and have no concsience.
      • DaDrake, on 03/14/2008, -16/+4Nobody ever said Iraq was involved in 9/11. If you listen to Bush, he is defining a more broad interpretation of terrorism (obviously, Al Queda aren't the only terrorist group). Saddam had a long history of destabilizing the region, and Iraq strategically is a very important spot (sits on the border of 7 other countries). To me, this was the real region of war... President Bush wanted to influence the entire region and strategically, Iraq is the place.

        Secondly, your using the word neocon wrong. Someone like Rudy Guliani could be called a neocon, but Bush (and diffidently not Cheney couldn't). Neocon been used in history books for the last 30-40 years with a very specific meaning.... and blogs somehow have totally butchered its actual meaning. In the end, saying he is a neocon and a fascist is just an attempt to make rhetoric instead of an actual intelligent argument.
        • makkaveli19, on 03/14/2008, -6/+7lol at saddam having a long history of terror. when was that? when saddam was the us's BFF? haven't you seen that episode of the simpsons where they find an old magazine with uncle sam and saddam sharing a milkshake saying"why america loves saddom" i
        • swicken, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3Firstly, you're using the word your wrong. I don't have a secondly.
        • 11oops, on 03/14/2008, -2/+9"There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." -- Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

          "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," - President George W. Bush, Washington Post, June 18, 2004.

    • haydesigner, on 03/14/2008, -4/+31@Stevanoski: "Note, over 3,000 killed when terrorist attack New York on 9/11, why have the media ignored this story today?"

      I could be wrong... my memory is a bit hazy... but I seem to recall the media covering it a decent amount when it actually happened.
      • SuperWinner, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3and for many years afterwards....
    • biotch, on 03/14/2008, -2/+12Maybe because they've already covered it more intensely than any other news story Ive ever witnessed in my life?
    • Troy64, on 03/14/2008, -5/+8In World War II on D Day there were 5,100 allied troops killed in one day, Okinawa campain killed 13,000, Iwo Jima 6,900 Killed.

      Even though the death of any troops is bad there needs to be some perspective. The Iraq war has been one of the least deadly wars ever.
      • pcghost, on 03/14/2008, -7/+4Something tells me that is little consolation to the average Iraqi citizen right about now.
      • andymci, on 03/14/2008, -2/+3Well, that just makes everything better then, doesn't it? "Don't worry folks! This isn't the deadliest war in history! Go about your daily lives. No need to be concerned until we hit seven thousand, maybe eight thousand tops."
      • razor150, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2The only reason there isn't a higher death count then there is now is because the Military has become better at saving wounded soldiers lives. The lower death counts means we sending a higher percentage of military personal home maimed instead of dead.
    • bluehexagonsun, on 03/14/2008, -5/+2And the misallocation of the world's abundant resources, fostered by inequitable accumulations of national wealth, kills roughly 40,000 per day (i.e. from starvation alone). Where's the public outrage against the "free" market?
    • MisteryMeat, on 03/14/2008, -3/+6Yet another note: Bush is responsible for more American deaths than Osama bin Laden.
      • Wargalas, on 03/14/2008, -3/+2Perhaps you should take a look at Osama's activities before you make that factually incorrect statement. There have been other attacks besides 9/11 that he's responsible for you know.
        • sparsely, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2He can't even be tied to 9/11 with any hard evidence.
          • Wargalas, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2Let's see: An admission, communication intercepts, his #2 guy admitting it, PDB's stating he wanted to hit us, what more would you like?
        • neognostic, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Cite your sources
          • Wargalas, on 03/14/2008, -1/+21998 Embassy attacks. USS Cole. Hundreds dead, thousands injured.
          • MisteryMeat, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1As I mentioned in my other post:

            1998: 12 Americans dead
            USS Cole: 17 Americans dead

            Bush is way ahead of Osama.
        • MisteryMeat, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Yes, I am aware that there were other attacks. Compared to Iraq and 9/11 the number of *Americans* killed is insignificant. But if you must, here is a breakdown. I grouped Osama/Al-Qaeda together, I did not see a direct link to Osama in all of them.

          Osama bin Laden:
          11/26/1993 - 6 in the WTC bombing
          11/13/1995 - 5 in a truck bombing in Riyadh
          08/07/1998 - 12 in the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania
          10/??/2000 - 17 in the U.S.S. Cole bombings
          09/11/2001 - 2974

          Bush:
          2003 to 2008 - 3987 Americans killed and growing
    • Myonosken, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Battle of the Somme 19,240 killed in the first day, why did the US media not cover this on the day?
  • JosephCHart, on 03/14/2008, -42/+306Also add 600,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians from US bombs(according to the NYT)
    • Ljiljani, on 03/14/2008, -10/+50Bush doesn't admit to all the studies and surveys done to put the death rate above 600,000 Iraqi deaths. He stands by his own estimated figure of only 30,000 deaths since the war began. I seriously don't understand how he sleeps at night
      • kidcodea, on 03/14/2008, -3/+12horizontally
      • AntzNZ, on 03/14/2008, -4/+1830,000... ***** hell, screw having that on your conscience, let alone 600,000 (which I kinda doubt).
        • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Conscience? that's funny. The leaders have rationalized any blame for this away long before it began.
          "War is necessary", "If we don't attack them, they'll attack us.",
          Of course assuming they have a conscience, otherwise it's merely an excuse to stealing money and giving it to their buddies.
      • 1randomguy08, on 03/14/2008, -5/+3To be fair alot of those deaths were between the different factions aswell.
        • otero1, on 03/14/2008, -5/+8Factions that came to be after we tore that country apart. Operation Iraqi Freedom isn't the correct term, it is Operation Iraqi Genocide.

          ***** ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THIS WAR!
      • Frostek, on 03/14/2008, -0/+9On a big pile of money?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1That was his estimate for shock and awe.
      • cornswalled, on 03/14/2008, -9/+1He knows he's right, and that this is a just war that will keep terrorists thrashing in Iraq instead of attacking the USA.

        How many Sept 11 scale attacks have happened SINCE then? Oh, right NONE, because Bush tightened up the lax policies Clinton had in place. No, I'm not blaming Clinton, Bush SHOULD have made the necessary changes when he took office, not AFTER a massive terrorist attack that killed thousands.
        • neognostic, on 03/14/2008, -1/+5Oh, and the moon hasn't run into the earth either, so I guess we have Bush to thank for that too.
          Name a single legitimate terrorist plot that has been thwarted by our involvement in Iraq. There aren't any, or the Bush administration would be shouting from the rooftops of their success.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2There was that guy in the UK who broke an ankle kicking some terrorist in the balls, does that count?
    • Strikersgun, on 03/14/2008, -22/+1The Whole World can die in a night and if i survive i can sleep at night but thats just me
      • Pistolero2, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1That quote should be in the dictionary for the word "Selfishness".
        Way to go man, I know I don't want to be your friend.
    • Picaroon, on 03/14/2008, -10/+15From US bombs only? 600,000? I'd like to see this New York Times source linked rather than just your words "NYT"
      • haydesigner, on 03/14/2008, -7/+13Yeah, because all those bullets flying around never kill anybody.
      • Troy64, on 03/14/2008, -4/+1Can you get the date of their article. I would love to see there sources.

        It is probably the same anonymous sources from there John McCain expose'.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 03/14/2008, -0/+8http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast ...

        "Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.”
      • gummih, on 03/14/2008, -1/+5You are right that the deaths are not all caused by us bombs, only a small portion - but they ARE because of the US invasion.
      • TheSlinky, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Should be a digg article with the title "600,000 Dead and No One Knows".
        • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1or "600,000 Dead and No One Cares" perhaps "No One" is imprecise.
          I suppose they don't count 'cause they are sandn****rs and not noble like our Americans soldiers.
      • vat0r, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1What difference does it make if it's 600,000 or 10,000? It's just as sad and shameful in the end.
    • JulyZerg, on 03/14/2008, -9/+13They aren't important to him - he only cares about christians
      • jakkyl, on 03/14/2008, -14/+5uhhh OK, how much money again did he send to Africa (most Muslim) to battle aids? Don't have the specific number but from what I've learned it's a higher number than any President that has preceded him.
      • mdcarso, on 03/14/2008, -0/+5Why? He certainly isn't one.
      • Blakestone, on 03/14/2008, -0/+5He only cares about oil.
        • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3You're wrong.
          He cares about money, influence, and power.
    • jonnyboy88, on 03/14/2008, -3/+17It's not just from bombs, it's from destroyed infrastructure (hospitals, roads), sectarian violence etc.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ira ...
      • DrVoltron, on 03/14/2008, -3/+10Which are a direct result of US bombs.
        • smotpoker, on 03/14/2008, -1/+9Don't forget Blackwater and rogue soldiers
          • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1I don't mind being killed as long as it's not by a private contractor, then I'm gonna be pissed. /s
      • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1If that makes you feel better.
    • masterm1nd, on 03/14/2008, -14/+4It's now around 250,000 according to most recent studies and most previous studies. Google is your friend.
    • Ljiljani, on 03/14/2008, -6/+8655,000 according to CNN
      http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.dea ...
    • lennybird, on 03/14/2008, -7/+46Am I the only one who believes 655,000 dead civilian iraqi's is far more of a stunning number than 4,000 of our own? No offense to our troops, but that's a ***** high number with our arsenal of "smart" bombs. I truly feel bad for them.
      • masterm1nd, on 03/14/2008, -5/+6To bad the people doing most of the killing don't have smart bombs. And if they did, they would just end up killing more civilians.
      • LastDitchHero, on 03/14/2008, -3/+5655,000 isn't from our bombs, it is from what they feel is either directly or indirectly related to the war. Example, if you were a diabetic and couldn't get insulin cause the roads were bombed out and you died you would be counted. Also, clean water, illness, and other commonly treatable things. Not saying that some of those people wouldn't have died in Iraq if we were or were not in there but that is how they record the numbers.
      • cornswalled, on 03/14/2008, -6/+3Most if the dead are the result of insurgent suicide bombers and IEDs.

        Iraqis are killing Iraqis.

        The US hasn't killed many people since the invasion ended.
        • TheSlinky, on 03/14/2008, -2/+4You really don't know ***** do you?
          • PolishLogic, on 03/14/2008, -2/+3Just out of curiosity, do you think that US troops have killed every single one of the 600,000+ dead Iraqis? You honestly don't think the insurgents have killed anyone?
      • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2"I truly feel bad for them."
        I have problems with this...
        one hand they're in a bad situation, other-hand without their blind allegiance situation would not exist, not to mention they're still perpetrators of violence against Iraqis and themselves.
        But my God some of their consequences are horrible burned, maimed, PTSD, suicide, murder-suicide. and obviously death. They helped do this to themselves, but they didn't know what they were getting into. Don't kill people you don't konw just because someone tells you to.
        • PolishLogic, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1People die in war. People get hurt in war. It's not a battle to see who can tickle more people until they piss their pants.
          • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Indeed. You are a very estute student of the obvious -- keep going.
          • PolishLogic, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Ok, since you asked.

            "Don't kill people you don't konw just because someone tells you to."

            You do understand the basic premise of war, right? People kill other people they don't know because somebody tells them to.
          • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1"basic premise of war ... kill other people they don't know because somebody tells them to."
            Yeah, I'm kinda against that.
            I like your tickle-piss option better.
        • lennybird, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2Well regardless, I still feel bad for them, we're not perfect... They ***** up plain and simple; and so did we. I feel our military follows orders on blind faith, too... I could be wrong, though.
          • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1I feel conflicted i.e. both ways. I don't want people to die be killed and maimed, but they are not innocent in this, nor blameless. The punnishment is often too severe?
            If there are bullets flying etc. etc. there is little thought, faith, etc. etc., the goal is not to get into such situations to begin with.
            How did I (we) ***** up? (besides posting a wildly unpopular sentiment.)
    • masterm1nd, on 03/14/2008, -8/+6At this link you can quickly compare 7 different studies and their methods used. The 600,000 dead lancet study you refer to basically counted everyone that died in Iraq period. "The estimate is for all excess violent and [*]nonviolent deaths. That also includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc" The study attributed 31% deaths to the coalition, and how many of those were terrorist/insurgents?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ira ... .
      • overtoke, on 03/14/2008, -8/+5Lancet studies excess deaths DUE TO THE WAR. The number is accurate, and 'terrorists/insurgents' do not target Iraqis. They target Americans. Americans target Iraqis and Americans support death squads.
        • Picaroon, on 03/14/2008, -7/+6*****. Terrorists/insurgents target Iraqis MORE than they target US troops! Do you even look at the news?
          • haydesigner, on 03/14/2008, -6/+5Aaaaand would the terrorists/insurgents be there if we had not started the war?
            I'm guessing you will say 'yes', regardless of the facts.
          • smotpoker, on 03/14/2008, -4/+8You mean the same news that suggested we have a real reason to invade?
          • cygnus2112, on 03/14/2008, -4/+4You mean all those people that Saddam would have executed weren't actually part of a greater sectarian divide?
          • drmangrum, on 03/14/2008, -1/+5@haydesigner
            Yes, yes they would. It wasn't the war that caused it, it was the removal of Saddam. With a culture steeped in violence, his iron fist was the only thing keeping the peace.

            The Iraqis are fighting each other of whos flavor is Islam is correct and which gets to make the laws. The US military isn't what's killing Iraqis, it's Iraqis killing Iraqis.
          • haydesigner, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1@drmangrum said: "@haydesigner
            Yes, yes they would. It wasn't the war that caused it, it was the removal of Saddam"

            That is just insane! What caused the ***** removal of Saddam??? THE FREAKING WAR!

            If we had not started the war, Saddam never would have been removed from power. Therefore, the terrorists/insurgents would not be there.

            I don't know how much more *obvious* it can be, and I'm staggered that 6 people dugg me down (5 dugg me up) for saying that. And even more staggered that 5 people dugg 'drmangrum' up.
        • PolishLogic, on 03/14/2008, -1/+5Ah, so those bus bombings and market bombings are going off in the American buses and markets. Gotcha. They probably just keep messing up and planning them on the "Iraqis only" days.

          /facepalm....***** dummy.
      • purdueAl, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2This is NOT 600,000 deaths since the war, it is 600,00 EXCESS deaths.
        • masterm1nd, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3But that's assuming Saddam would have magically stopped genocide of millions on his own. There just was no option where no body gets hurt. The best option is where the least amount of people get hurt. If it's really about human lives for you, you should add up Deaths attributed to Saddam and divide by how many years it took him to kill that many. Then do the same for the US Military. Saddam killed people at a faster rate than this war does no matter who's numbers you go by (I've done the math). And that doesn't factor in the future of a peaceful democracy and a future of ethnic civil war, genocide, and more genocide that results from genocide.
    • DaDrake, on 03/14/2008, -10/+8The 650k death is from a study FUNDED BY G. Soros ...... keep it in perspective people; this allready been debunked (and its sad they need to exacerbate the situation).
    • snowblind113, on 03/14/2008, -6/+6key word is NYT's
      • PolishLogic, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2BIngo!! I wouldn't call the NYT a bastion of accurate and even-keeled reporting. Not to mention they seem to only dislike fake news stories when they're caught printing them.
    • drmangrum, on 03/14/2008, -4/+4If you believe that you're a fool. The bulk of Iraqi casualties is at the hands of other Iraqis. It's the Shia/Sunni civil war that kills over there.
      • purdueAl, on 03/14/2008, -3/+2You're the fool. The bulk are at the hands of the US, and either way, the deaths are a result of the invasion, hence US responsibility.
        • PolishLogic, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3So the number killed because of the UN sanctions used that didn't work as hoped, or the number killed directly at the hands of the old leadership were perfectly acceptable then?

          You can't have it both ways. To say we shouldn't be there because of the death it's causing, is essentially accepting the death that Saddam and the UN sanctions brought on Iraqi. If you're going to accept the Saddam caused deaths or the UN sanction deaths, then you probably shouldn't be in this conversation to begin with.
    • TruthOasis, on 03/14/2008, -3/+1Screw those bias reports that were centered on U.S. government information. The number is more like 1.2 Million; WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
      http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?New ...
    • masonreloaded, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3"There are always casualties in war. If there were no casualties it would just be a rather nasty argument with lots of pushing and shoving." -Arnold Rimmer
    • DemDude, on 03/14/2008, -3/+4Way to go America! You're already at 1/10th HOLOCAUST!
      ***** hypocrites...
      • PolishLogic, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1So then what is the UN when you look at the 1.5 million that died under their 'do nothing' sanctions? Looking at the numbers 1.5 in 10 years versus 650,000 (accepting your belief that we're responsible for each of those deaths) in 7 years means we don't kill as many Iraqis as the UN, apparently.

        Yet you're bitching. Go screw.
        • DemDude, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Two wrongs don't make it right, idiot.
    • Stevanoski, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1I would like to see any posts from the Left, here on Digg, where they held Clinton or madeleine albright accountable for Rwanda. Madeline held up the shipment of armor etc so it could be painted UN blue and so the help missed the ship and didn't get to Rwanda until 6 months later, when another 600,000 had been killed. Why did she do this? "...wanted the world to know it was the UN and not the USA..." helping them.
      • PolishLogic, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2Good point, but the Left will blame it on Bush or some *****.

        Remember the train of thought you're dealing with here. According to them Clinton doing nothing while the UN sanctions racked up a huge death toll and left Saddam alone is good. Bush taking action, removing Saddam, attempting to bring a democratic government to a barbaric region, AND racking up a significantly less death toll is bad.

        Lesson learned: War = bad, death by starvation = good.
  • gypsi, on 03/14/2008, -16/+28probably the most conservative estimate you'll ever find
    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
    • overtoke, on 03/14/2008, -2/+10That is beyond conservative, as it only reports deaths due to actual violence, and only reports deaths actually reported by news media. We kill, indirectly, far more.
    • cygnus2112, on 03/14/2008, -13/+3Yeah! Iraqis never died before the invasion .. thus it's all attributed to war! Which Bush started because Saddam was like Mother Theresa and loved all his little Iraqi children. He'd give them flower hats and lollipops.
      • gummih, on 03/14/2008, -1/+7What you are trying to do is very easy. But you fail.
    • barthook, on 03/14/2008, -3/+5Silly group coming up with the totals by using facts and records.
  • AMACTASTIC, on 03/14/2008, -8/+33There's a house that I walk by almost every day that has the number of military deaths in Iraq in their window.
    I wasn't sure what it was for the longest time =-/
    Figured it out about 50 deaths ago.
  • DurtyJ, on 03/14/2008, -19/+11I concur with the point of this message, but come on, these stats are stupid and obviously not polled properly.

    28% are able to approximate that 4000 deaths correctly now. But half a year ago, 54% were able to correctly approximate 3500? That's not a giant leap. Did 26% of America just forget what they said 6 months ago?
    • stevenb486, on 03/14/2008, -2/+3they probably think its still around 3500.
      or they forgot what they said 6 months ago which is not hard to believe
    • Smurph0404, on 03/14/2008, -3/+4good point. People who answered incorrectly may have answered too high. HuffPo doesn't want to mention that though.
    • 5urr3al5am, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3You got dugg down because you a) used logic b) made a comment/question they didn't agree with c) you didn't bash President George W Bush
  • Dumbledorito, on 03/14/2008, -14/+167They should also toss in the 1,123 contractors that have died, as well:

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5528613. ...

    The Pentagon doesn't like mentioning them, either.
    • savethehobos, on 03/14/2008, -0/+7Thats because they actaully have to pay them well for the work they do. When I was in Qatar for my deployment, the bus drivers there make about 80k tax-free income a year.
    • havokdu, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3They are still victims of a worthless war
    • gummih, on 03/14/2008, -0/+5Yes the contractors are always left out of the numbers. One thing though, mercenaries, are they considered contractors? I know Blackwater probably is but 'm mainly thinking of the mercenaries from Africa and S-America.
      • Dumbledorito, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2I believe they are, since they operate under security contract. Hasn't Blackwater been sued by the families of some of their deceased employees? I seem to recall a big hoo-hah over Blackwater claiming the circumstances of the deaths was classified or something equally ridiculous...
    • mrblister, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4Ya, sorry, I don't consider profiteers in the same category as soldiers and veterans.
      • masonreloaded, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Most of these "profiteers" are former military AKA veterans.
      • Dumbledorito, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1My point wasn't to elevate them to the same status as soldiers, at least, not in the terms one ascribes to honorable military service. My point was that if one is counting casualties, you should count them all.

        Not to mention that deaths among contractors has seen an increase of late.
    • diskit, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Independent contractors on the second Death Star.
    • aimhelix, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4Contractors choose to go to Iraq - they really are mercenaries, so they are not in the same category as US Troops. They are there for the money.
      • apocalyps333, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1oh please, why do you think most grunts join the military? For the glory and honor of being a soldier? Or for the signing bonus and lack of other options?

        Besides which, a large portion of the contractors are former military.
        • aimhelix, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1lol you're missing my point here. What I'm saying is the differenc ein choice in being sent to war, and going to war. Soldier don't have a choice - its their duty. Contractors choose it, for the opportunity.
  • nico623, on 03/14/2008, -12/+4Oh what you did to me....Know one Knows.
    • VaporBro, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3It is "No One Knows". Don't like to be a grammar nazi so I came up with this rhyme to make you feel better:
      Everyone knows
      Queens of the Stone Age blow.
      Thank you.
  • Hoodwinker, on 03/14/2008, -21/+11Any bets if 4000 will be hit before the 5 year anniversary of the invasion (5 days)?
    • PocchieTheMan, on 03/14/2008, -0/+15Not a great thing to gamble on.
    • JulyZerg, on 03/14/2008, -1/+7Some people have no ethics...
      • gummih, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Guy A) Decides to invade a country on false pretenses - leads to the death of 5000 of his countrymen and hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq
        Guy B) Bets on the number of dead in said war.
        Guy C) is outraged by guy B having no ethics.
        Which guy has no ethics: A) B) C) or all of the above?
        • gameforge, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Oh, is guy A actually here? I want to talk to him in private, if he wouldn't mind.
    • potisreallygood, on 03/14/2008, -4/+2Maybe if al-sadr didn't agree to a cease fire. By the end of the month definitely.
    • DrVoltron, on 03/14/2008, -0/+8Obviously everyone hopes that no additional deaths will happen; but, probability wise, it will.
    • TBoneFever, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2Yea, I'll throw in $5
    • lhbaker, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Dinner at Red Lobster? With drinks?
  • RPHeadquarters, on 03/14/2008, -26/+5Please read this message from Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & James Madison:
    http://bp3.blogger.com/_thRZs8DWIZY/Rxas-EDHEHI/AA ...
    • lhbaker, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Nobody wants to hear the truth. I'm 4 O'Bama, but I agree with a lot of Ron Paul's opinions.
  • RPHeadquarters, on 03/14/2008, -34/+4READ THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT OUR MONEY SYSTEM. THE GOVERNMENT (AND PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK) DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ANY OF THIS, BUT IT'S CRITICAL THAT YOU DO:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/2210638/The-Great-Americ ...
    • Asianwaste, on 03/14/2008, -2/+3Yea, because, this article will definitely save the world, right?
    • Asianwaste, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Sigh.. So I was bored enough to read this link... I'll call myself an idiot for doing so. This is the biggest piece of sensationalist tripe I've ever read. If you so believe in what you spew, take the plunge. Don't pay your taxes because it's the constitutional thing to do. Go ahead. Put your money where your mouth is (literally). Let's see how long you go.
      • gameforge, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2I'm not reading it, but my guess is it says something about the 16th Amendment not actually being ratified and Americans don't have to pay taxes after all? Yeah, they changed that; today it has been ratified by more than the requisite fraction of states, although the dates the US government shows that they ratified it are totally bogus.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_t ...

        It's a real law. Unapportioned income tax is genuinely legal in the US.
        • Asianwaste, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Do yourself a favor and don't let curiosity dumb the mind. For the love of god, stay smart and rational.
  • Ljiljani, on 03/14/2008, -6/+114Not to mention how many soldiers have lost limbs and had other unrepairable damage.
    • CaptainTater, on 03/14/2008, -1/+12What about the thousands that come back and kill themselves? Doesn't it like double the number of casualties or something?
    • beerncheese, on 03/14/2008, -0/+7Roughly 20,000 injured seriously enough to require air transport.
      http://icasualties.org/oif/

      Also, of course, PTSD: it is not an "injury" per se, it just ruins the rest of your life.
      • hurt911gen, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Correction, nearly everyone who comes back has some form of PTSD, the only difference being the severity. I was diagnosed with minor PTSD when I admitted that I was afraid of stopping at stop signs and red lights for a period of 2-3 weeks after I came back from Ramadi in nov. 07
    • dukeochutney, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3be nice if we could use technology like stem cells or nano to help with that now or in the near future...but those are evil
      • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1You can use stem cells gov't banned their FUNDING. so put up or shut up.
        If you can fund good research you can make lots of evil $$$, and I'll give you a cookie.
  • SHv2, on 03/14/2008, -6/+16is the price of such an insanely stupid war such a surprise to people?
    • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2I think so, because wars are supposed be glorious, just, and dichotomously good *sarcasm*.
      But I think this mainly gives them a chance to grandstand against Bush, because he seems like a douche bag on TV.
  • Goodbyeworld, on 03/14/2008, -7/+48Our world is in chaos right now. People die every day from lack of water, the AIDS crisis is out of control, the Iraq conflict has displaced and killed countless amounts of people in the Middle East, and the biggest thing in the news? (at least on MSN) "Woman gets stuck to toilet seat for 2 years"

    For the first time in my life, I feel that my moniker might be true.
    • spookyttws, on 03/14/2008, -2/+10Really? You think this is the worst time in history? Look around, read a history book. The world ***** itself every 50 years, then we go through a 20 year span where our generation grows up and remembers a better time when we were young, and then things get ***** again. Nothing new, go back 4,000 years you'll see a trend..and a much worse world.
      • Goodbyeworld, on 03/14/2008, -2/+3Yes, the world ***** itself over, but with globalization, you would think that we might be able to change that. And how can you define what is worse?
        • peestandingup, on 03/14/2008, -0/+7I'd say the Black Plague was a pretty tuff time, eh?
        • TBoneFever, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Yea...4000 yeas ago it may have been worse to us, but think of how much shorter their life spans were. They didn't have to deal with the ***** for 70+ years like us. So while we don't have a huge plagues that wipes everyone out, we have tons of little ***** that happens over a longer life span. I'd say it about balances out. We're *****, and we've always been *****. There's nothing we can do about it.
        • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Lately I'm a fan of Tiananmen Square. It's always funny when government drops the pretense of actual being for / or caring about people. Then they show people why standing armies are really necessary. But that's the Chinese they're evil, communist, and nothing like our noble western culture *EXTREME SARCASM* throughout.
      • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1quibble about some of the nuances, but yeah.
        Pretty much everything is always the worst ever the hyperbole is rampant and misses the point. War is remembered as being just, good, and necessary in hind-sight, but people either forget or don't want to remember the real horror of it.
        Not that I know what I'm talking about, but from what I understand I really don't want to either.
    • MarkKezner, on 03/14/2008, -3/+6Link to the toilet seat story (for those curious)
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23595533/
    • chuckDontSurf, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6But we NEED detailed information about Spitzer's hooker! I need a link to her myspace page on the front page of CNN!!
      • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Dude, I didn't make the soldiers go over there to kill babies and get maimed. I want to hear about Spitzer's hooker. Am I supposed to feel doom and gloom about something I can't control / had nothing to do with me?
        • chuckDontSurf, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2Are you an adult US citizen? If so, then sorry to tell you, but what's going on in Iraq has something to do with you, whether you want it or not. You can't wash your hands of it simply because you don't like it.
          • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Something to do with me, sure. Probably if there's a plane crash in Guam, it has something to do with me... that doesn't mean I caused it, could stop it, or can significantly affect it one way or another. We pay taxes, but if we don't them it'll be war on us. Beyond that you're gonna have to give me more "insight".
    • FecalHurler, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Ah humans are humans. There will always be suffering, and there will always being stories of that caliber making the headlines. That's the way it's always been... This is nothing new.
    • CharlesDance, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4Holy *****! 2 years?
    • userperson, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2It's always the end of the world.
      For many people in Iraq and soldiers it was. It will be for you one day, and the U.S. too. Though don't get too far ahead, besides there is little you can do about it, so be happy as is possible.
  • Uhave2laff, on 03/14/2008, -7/+14It's no wonder that so many Americans can't give an accurate number. With the Bush administration prohibiting media photos or print on the dead coming home, the horrific realities of war cannot be adequately communicated to the average Joe. With the true story of this war not accurately depicted, the average citizen is left to guess about what the real cost is in terms of human lives - on both sides of the battlefield.
    • spookyttws, on 03/14/2008, -2/+4Yeah, Bush sucks, and the media censors a lot. But come on, if the American's wanted to be informed, we search this stuff out. Most people don't care. Which is probably worse than these statistics.
    • jakkyl, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2With Pundits and blogs out there able to put their resources on any international website they see fit........you still want to try to pass off this 'conspiracy theory' garbage?
  • ryanhayn, on 03/14/2008, -8/+71Thousands of Americans dead, thousands of Iraqis dead. All for what? Someone remind me.
    • blurrie, on 03/14/2008, -5/+26oil. halliburton. g.e... etc.
      • jakkyl, on 03/14/2008, -6/+5yeah....American's stole all kinds of oil. You can tell by the awesome fuel prices......
        • DrVoltron, on 03/14/2008, -1/+7You can tell by skyrocketing Haliburton stocks. No one claims we stole it....we claim the Invasion of Iraq was motivated by US oil companies who wanted easier access to oil.
          Alan Greenspan "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
          • jakkyl, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2"Skyrocketing" doesn't quite accurately describe what has happen even in the past year.
          • makkaveli19, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1hah jakkyl. you think after they get the oil they are going to sell it for cheaper? why would they when they can sell it for a higher price
        • rilus, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Let's be glad that oil companies are hitting record profits! Hooray!
      • blurrie, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2sheeple.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple
    • TheOtherGuy, on 03/14/2008, -2/+11Cheap petrol!

      wait a minute.......
    • Micktion, on 03/14/2008, -3/+7Try hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

      This figure is obviously a lot less known than the American fatalities. And really the number of Iraqis dead is really the most imporant figure. Troops sign up for war, civilians do not. When a soldier dies in combat, I don't think it is half as tragic as when a civillian dies, who might be someone's mother or child.

      I think when the success of these campaigns gets measured in non-combatant civillian deaths and not the number of deaths in western military forces, then maybe terrorism (insurrection/rebellion) won't be such a problem on this planet and till that day comes I really can't blame the ordinary people of these countries we play with who become radicals and part take in terrorist activity.
    • rrasco, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Freedom! Oh wait, we already had that.
    • solid12345, on 03/14/2008, -6/+1People speak like fighting for oil is a bad thing.

      Consistent oil supplies are the security of America, Europe, and even the Arab world. The Gulf states wanted Saddam gone just as much as we did privately, they are making money off oil and do not need a fanatical general dictator upsetting oil prices with threats of war.

      Why do you think Saudi Arabia, the most militant Islamic state in the mideast has never sent troops to fight against Israel since 1948? Because they know there is more money to be made having a secure and stable mideast selling oil than trying a new hair brain scheme every week to destroy the Zionist entity.

      Why do you think the Gulf states let us keep bases over there? Is it because we force ourselves there? Or is it because they legitimately want our security so they can do business without threats of Iranian or Iraqi invasion. Iraq under Saddam was a rogue state, and with him gone, perhaps in 10-20 years Iraq will be as well off as Dubai, isn't this worth it for the whole region? An Arab country that spends its oil wealth on its people and not on weapons and mujahadeen soldiers?
    • Apokalyps2547, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3"WMDs!"
      Wait... there weren't any.
      "Connections to Al-Qaeda!"
      Nope. Pentagon says none.
      "Regime Change"
      There's now a Parlament. Can we leave now?
      "To protect the Kurds"
      Yeah, we're doing a bang-up job. We're letting TURKEY kill them instead.
      "Stability"
      In the middle-east? Aaahahahahaha!
  • usgovterrorists, on 03/14/2008, -32/+10The real terrorists are in the Whitehouse!

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!
  • stupidStan, on 03/14/2008, -3/+10This is due more to ignorance than anything else.
  • deadbaby, on 03/14/2008, -10/+5I'm glad we stayed the course and now the surge is working. It's working so well the great and respectable President of Iran visited the glorious capital of Baghdad last month. We're making some real progress.
  • luke374, on 03/14/2008, -5/+145Heath Ledger = National Tragedy
    Iraq Body Count = Statistics
    • BobEwell, on 03/14/2008, -0/+18The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic. -Stalin
      • Lythium, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Gods help me for posting from Cracked.com on a completely serious subject, but it actually made a lot of sense to me: http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysp ...
        Human brains have evolved to handle a very limited number of "close" relationships at any given time. We are neurologically incapable of deeply and personally mourning even 500 deaths, let alone 600,000.
    • bonk2k, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Is it possible to 'favorite' comments?
    • omegaredIX, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Wasn't Heath Australian?
    • lhbaker, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Don't forget the flying puppy!
  • Asianwaste, on 03/14/2008, -8/+5To be honest... I thought it was at least twice the amount. Not to sound numb, but I was relieved more than shocked.
    • otero1, on 03/14/2008, -3/+2One death is too many you *****.
      • Asianwaste, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1Whatever you say philanthropist.
        • Eastcoastsurfer, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2You're an *****.
          • Asianwaste, on 03/14/2008, -1/+5I'm a ***** and an *****? That's almost awesome
    • Micktion, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2It's actually half when you take out the number in that figure that were killed, slipping in the shower, choking on a big mac, crashing a car etc etc. Half the soldiers that have died in this campaign died from non-hostile causes.

      You are right this is nothing compared to the whole sale slaughter that has occurred in terms of Iraqis killed and wounded.
      • HenvY, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Why do the cars crash? Because they have to drive at 100mph, any slower they die.
  • bruenig, on 03/14/2008, -28/+27Yawn. These are ***** volunteer mercenaries, who cares? Of far greater concern are the dead iraqi civilians, the truly innocent.
    • stupidStan, on 03/14/2008, -14/+11***** you
    • smotpoker, on 03/14/2008, -2/+12I fully concur. People should morn the civilians who had little/no choice in their positions more than those who volunteered to do something stupid and immoral. It isn't Iraq's fault or ours they cannot distinguish reality from fairy tales of American "patriotism" their cornfed parents and rating-crazed media seem to report
      • wrs123, on 03/14/2008, -5/+4You ungrateful piece of *****. I challenge you to find ONE soldier, marine, airman, or seaman who joined the military because of Iraq or because they wanted to be "mercenaries." We join because we believe in our Constitution, and that Constitution cannot work without a military to protect the people that live under it. We join because we believe in the system, and the system doesn't work if everyone gives up on it because of a bad (ok, not bad, terrible) administration. I ***** dare you to tell a soldier working to track down the people responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan that he is immoral. Better yet, say that to a 9/11 victim's father, mother, or child. So the military is immoral and stupid? Easy fix, get rid of the military! Because that will end terrorism, right? Of course. Just like getting rid of the police will stop crime. Wake up douche bag; the world isn't all daisies and tulips, and as long as there will be ***** heads out there who want to KILL YOU just because you're from the West, there will be a need for men and women with MORAL COURAGE and a sense of SELFLESSNESS that you obviously don't possess.
        • mdcarso, on 03/14/2008, -2/+4Boy! You've really taken to the 'patriotic' kool-aid. Iraq was never a threat, just an opportunity for big oil. You believed the lies and cheered on stupid young adults who joined because they believe the lies too.
          • wrs123, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2I never said I supported our reasons for invading. In fact, I was quite opposed. You're right, I do consider myself patriotic, but its not because of Iraq. Its because I have read and understand our Constitution, and believe in the system which calls for men and women to join the military that supports that Constitution, whether the administration in power at the time is right or wrong, because if it is wrong the people will replace it.
        • Thunderchiken, on 03/14/2008, -1/+4I don't agree with everything you said there, but I definitely don't see how these people are bashing the soldiers in Iraq.
        • smotpoker, on 03/14/2008, -3/+3Funny, I thought the constitution was supposed to be based on the beliefs as the Declaration of Independence which states "All men are created equal", not "All Americans are created equal". We should treat EVERYONE constitutionally and not let moron officials and conservatives run around determining which men deserve equal treatment.
          You aren't protecting the constitution, you are DESECRATING CORE AMERICAN VALUES BY CHOOSING TO PARTICIPATE IN AN UNJUST AND CORRUPT WAR. THIS MAKES YOU TREASONOUS AND ANTI-AMERICAN BECAUSE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY BEING PROTECTED ARE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AND YOU ARE ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO BE EVEN MORE OF A THREAT YOU STUPID *****.
          Half of my family are or were military and I grew up on military bases half of my life, don't tell me I don't know ***** about military enlistment and the stupid misguided losers who join out of some perverted sense of patriotism. BRING ME ANY SOLDIER OR GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WHO ENDORSES OUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT POSITION AND I WILL TELL THEM TO THEIR ***** FACE HOW I FEEL AND IF THEY START ACTING ILL HOW MUCH THEY DISGUST ME AS WELL.
          Don't sit there and act all high and mighty just because you are too stupid to see the corruption you are propagating and the enemies you are creating. You talk about courage and selflessness yet you are TOO MUCH OF A LITTLE BITCH to stand against the government who is perverting our rights and freedoms and killing thousands. If you were a real ***** hero you would be fighting to STOP these atrocities rather than support them
          • wrs123, on 03/14/2008, -3/+3So by your logic, the best option is for people to stop joining the military. Assuming this goes to plan, the military becomes weak and can no longer provide for a proper defense. What then is stopping the extremists from coming here and attacking again? They didn't attack us before because of our military, they attacked us because they hate everything about us. They don't know anything about you, but they want to kill you simply because you are not like them. And given the chance, they wouldn't hesitate to do just that. What does this have to do with Iraq? At first, nothing. We had ***** reasons to go there and I won't deny that. But now that we are there, those extremists who breed hate and preach it to the uneducated are waging war against us there. Your everyday Iraqi civilian doesn't pick up a rifle to shoot at American troops because he hates us. He does it because he needs money. He does it because he was never allowed to go to school, and the only people around to teach him were ridiculous extremists. I'm not saying this is the case with every insurgent; I'm sure the poor judgment of a US soldier or marine has pissed off quite a few of them, but the majority of the civilians there want us there. I know this for a fact because I know people (military and civilian, pro and anti war) who have been over there, and I know a guy who is from western baghdad.
            If we leave Iraq, the extremists win. That would be a huge PR victory for them and would only fan the flames of their enlistment. More terrorists=more attacks on Western society (not necessarily the US. train bombings in Spain and UK anyone? remember that?) To say that joining the military to prevent that "desecrate[s] core American values" is bass ackwards, because if those ***** had it their way, you'd be under their thumb, and saying ***** like that would get you beheaded.
            I don't support the current administration, and I'm not the only one in the military who feels that way. I do, however, support our Constitution, which lays the frame for the political action you speak of that "real ***** hero[es]" would undertake. Change the administration, fix our broken Congress, replace our corrupt Senators, vote for policy to pull out of Iraq (even though I think thats not the best choice). That entire process that is detailed and encouraged in our Constitution is immensely important. But if no one is there to protect that system of government and the people that live under it, then whats the use...
            I'm sorry you hate the military because daddy was in the military and you had to move every two years when you were young, or whatever has your panties in a bunch. Just try to keep in mind that not everyone is out to get you, even the big bad scary government, and that this fantasy land where no one joins the military, and the rest of the world goes "Aww, cute" and then cups our balls while we all play who's-in-my-mouth with the UN is never going to happen.
          • bruenig, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3@wrs

            Insofar as I don't have the time to read what is certainly a very eloquent rant. I noticed something at the top that you mentioned earlier: the idea if we end the military, we all die. First, protecting borders from invasion is perfectly legitimate. No one is advocating dismantling. Second it is the military that is causing terrorism. It is our foreign policy that causes the hatred. You can't be an imperialist and then when someone gets pissed and attacks you for it just say that it indicates you need to be more imperialist. It is our occupation of the middle east that al qaeda is protesting. To occupy it even more is stupid.

            An analogy: Let's say you occupy my house and I punch you in the face and tell you to get out. Then as a response, you just bring your buddies over and occupy it even more. Where do you think that leads? Does that lead to me not punching you in the face anymore? Surely it doesn't, it makes me want to do it more. On the other hand, let's say you leave my house after being punched in the face, I am likely to be happy with that.
          • smotpoker, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1@wrs -
            This stupid petty competitiveness/group-mentality/us-vs-them is the biggest problem in the entire world. Something "patriots" and radical muslims cannot seem to get over and is the root of all evil. You don't give a ***** who you hurt as long as you "win".
            Well there is no winning as long as you believe this stupid retarded and flawed logic. The longer you keep fighting and justifying evil actions, the more onlookers get pissed and feel the need to join in. I never said the military is currently unnecessary, only our occupation their and en masse disregard of innocent life they seem to maintain.
            I fail to see how you are able to currently defend our country when you are 10000 miles away attacking another and creating more enemies. If your true intent is defense, you should be trying to convince people we are not a threat rather than the opposite. Everyone knows their main recruitment tool they have is proving how evil and threatening we are.
            I am not responding to you further and I am dismissing the rest of your statement because I have said my piece and this is SECOND time you proceeded to put words in my mouth. You, like most "patriots", seem incapable of keeping facts in perspective and interpreting them objectively which is the sole reason this sort war cannot be won without utter annihilation which I cannot and will not condone. It is impossible to effectively solve a problem you don't understand and this ***** "they might try to attack us so they must die first" stupidity isn't comprehension of the true problems in the slightest.
        • bruenig, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3First off, I am not ungrateful as there is nothing to be grateful for. This is something a lot of the kool-aid drinking patriots seem to misunderstand. When you are fighting an aggressive war of choice that has nothing to do with protecting my rights or safety, that is not good for me. In fact, by doing so you piss off more people who then want to kill me which makes me less safe. And so if anything, I should dislike you for what you are doing.

          Second, you say you join because of the constitution and the declaration of independence and flowers and puppies and rainbows and all of that good stuff. I realize why you probably joined, you are probably not assholes enough to join in order to fight wars of imperialism and hegemony. But all this indicates is that you are stupid and misguided. That you have bought into something ridiculous and fully consumed that government kool-aid, doesn't excuse your actions.

          Lastly, even if we were to buy all of your stuff about how awesome the troops are (which we obviously don't), that still leaves the question of which death is more tragic. It is obvious that the death of someone who had no agency in the matter (the iraqi civilians) is more tragic than the death of an american soldier who, even if motivated by some amount of red white and blue delusion, at the end of the day is a volunteer.
        • repmekevets, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1@ wrs123
          i would first like to say, i agree with your sentiments on our military. although i don't like the idea of war, it is a reality of the world we live in and i greatly appreciate the sacrifice our service men and women make for their country.

          @smotpoker
          you're an *****, you know that? for a 'smot poker' you sure have a lot of agression.. hmm i wonder if that emotion leads people to fight and kill...
          with that said, i think our current administration is one of the most evil and corrupt this country has ever seen. they made the decision to go to war in iraq, not the soldiers (who signed up to PROTECT this country from attack). you should appreciate their sacrifice, because without a military we would be proper *****.
          • smotpoker, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I do not retract any of my comments. Mourning innocent loss of life is a lot more justified than mourning those who are the aggressors who consciously decided to put themselves in a position where they might have to take innocent lives or who choose to risk them day-to-day without remorse.
            When someone calls me an ungrateful piece of ***** for stating this fact, and then started espousing all sorts of BS lies and rhetoric to attack me, then yes I will defend my position and specify flaws in theirs when applicable.
          • bruenig, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Same stuff again. It doesn't matter what grand delusions were going through their head when they signed up. They still are doing what they are doing. Their stupidity in the matter doesn't bring back lives.
          • </