Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 4,000
msnbc.msn.com — The grim milestone was reached less than a week after the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion to topple former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and coincided with a spate of violence across Iraq on Sunday that left at least 61 people dead.
DavidStagno- 1871 diggs
- digg it
- PHILLIPSpatrick, on 03/24/2008, -57/+4i digg it
- bobangitanov2, on 03/24/2008, -6/+5It's simple really... just leave and let the Iraqis kill themselves. If they threaten U.S. interests bomb them from some warship or something. This all results to no American casualties. WTF is wrong with the military/political commanders? How much money do they want to make on Iraq still? Cheney?
- JanYpe, on 03/24/2008, -6/+5"just leave and let the Iraqis kill themselves."
And you try to claim there is something wrong with others?
- JanYpe, on 03/24/2008, -6/+5"just leave and let the Iraqis kill themselves."
- JointVenture, on 03/24/2008, -13/+1You must be an obama supporter.
- ejhdigdug, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Oh, then that's okay then. The fact that it's now 4,000 doesn't matter any more just as long as that's less then Clinton. I mean thank God Bush didn't dip his wick in an intern. Think what would have happened then.
- ejhdigdug, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Oh, then that's okay then. The fact that it's now 4,000 doesn't matter any more just as long as that's less then Clinton. I mean thank God Bush didn't dip his wick in an intern. Think what would have happened then.
- CCoe, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5Shut up.
- mcm020, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2You're a piece of *****.
- KDyneria, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1:(
- bobangitanov2, on 03/24/2008, -6/+5It's simple really... just leave and let the Iraqis kill themselves. If they threaten U.S. interests bomb them from some warship or something. This all results to no American casualties. WTF is wrong with the military/political commanders? How much money do they want to make on Iraq still? Cheney?
- DavidStagno, on 03/24/2008, -32/+119We went in there to Defend Americans after losing 2,000 lives....But we really just added another 4,000
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -12/+83How did invading Iraq "defend" anything? ?
America went there because they were lied to by their president(And his clan). The only question is when is America going to want payback for that real attack on your nation?
Much love to all those serving, but ask yourself Who are you serving? It doesn't appear to be either America or Americans.- chanop, on 03/24/2008, -14/+5The president is in a clan? Is it a cod4 clan? What server does he play on?
- ralphthemagi, on 03/24/2008, -12/+6No. We went in their because America wanted to. Because Afghanistan wasn't enough, and majority of the American people were still ***** off. Did the administration lie? Maybe. Probably. Was there a lot of bad intelligence from all over (not just the CIA, mind you) in order to promote individual agendas? Yes. But the reality is that didn't *really* matter. You could have come up with just about any reason, to invade any country, and the majority of Americans would have gone along with it with a, "***** yeah!" attitude.
It's fun and easy to blame President Bush for all our problems, and for accelerating and executing this thing, but it was also completely in-line with what the vast majority wanted. The Iraq War is a great example of what happens when democracy fails. When the majority can, by their own accord, convince themselves that something, that's a bad idea, is a good idea. Had we had an administration that was against invading Iraq, but piles of bad intelligence kept flowing in and making it to the mainstream media headlines, because it's sensationalist and interesting, people would have been screaming that we should go in because of blah, blah, and blah.
Most people saw the invasion of Iraq as "defending our freedom," and now that's not just because they were spoon-fed. Sure, it helped, but that was the conclusion they had come to, in their ultimate ignorance, on their own.
"Oh but Ralph, your just defending x, y, and z and your apathetic attitude doesn't get us anywhere." Am I defending anyone here? No. Just the opposite. "Most people" were wrong. What I'm saying is that the idea that it's all Bush's fault is just a bunch of *****. I'd be more ***** off at my neighbors who supported this ***** from day one. Or, you know, you could be ***** off at yourself for being a moron and believing it was a good idea even if Iraq DID have WMDs and links to whoever.- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -6/+3I blame everyone who had the power to order the US military onto Iraqi soil in 2003.
- ralphthemagi, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7Well then you don't really understand the US political system at all.
Everyone was the on the same page going into this thing. The President, the Congress, and the American people. Everyone played their role, and since there isn't really any accountability in Washington, everyone is to blame. The Congress could have never authorized it. The American people could have never supported it. - chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -5/+8"Everyone was the on the same page going into this thing"
How do you explain the fact that a majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the illegal invasion? How do you explain the millions of us who marched in protest before the illegal invasion? This mess is squarely on the American right wing, the Republican Congress and George Bush. Those of us on the left told you it was wrong then. - ralphthemagi, on 03/24/2008, -3/+6"How do you explain the fact that a majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the illegal invasion?"
Because the majority of Democrats is still an overall minority. That's what I mean by the failure of democracy. It passed by 77% in the Senate and over 68% in the House. The majority got what they wanted.
"How do you explain the millions of us who marched in protest before the illegal invasion?"
First, it wasn't "illegal" if the Congress authorized it. That's what made it legal. They wrote it... *into law*. I'm not sure why people still call it an illegal invasion. Maybe they just like to pretend like the Congress doesn't exist, I don't know. And those protests? They were the minority. There are 300m people in the United States. Most polls show that it has the support similar to that of how things were voted on in Congress, around 70-80%. And judging from polls, that means that close to half of those who would identify themselves as Democrats also supported the war.
So what about the 20%-30% who were always against it? Well, that just goes to show you that there's only a very small percentage of people who even thought it through. - chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -6/+4"it wasn't "illegal" if the Congress authorized it"
Congress can't make a war of aggression legal. Ask the Reichstag. Try Wikipedia for the Nuremberg trials that occurred after WW2 for further reference or use Google.
As I said, the American right wing, Republicans and George Bush are responsible for the illegal invasion.
- ralphthemagi, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7Well then you don't really understand the US political system at all.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -2/+6Ralph - IMO you bring up good points. I would add something though - why did Americans go with it when everyone outside of America see it for what it was?
Merely revenge? Senseless lashing out at anything and anyone? Maybe, but I would argue that it was designed to hit Iraq. It is that design that, to me, is the tip off of "premeditative" actions.
Americans had their emotions used and abused. Their fears were heightened to manufacture consent against anyone doing harm to America. At that time all you needed was nice presentations about mobile weapons labs. America was sold something that everyone outside America knew was wrong - that demonstrates the propaganda system. The design demonstrates it was planned long before it being presented to the public.
The public is/was ill prepared for the propaganda and, if the media chose, the anger could just as easily aim it at Santa, and there still would enough people that would want that fat ***** dead because he eats children - that is how he got so fat with that blood stained suit of death.- ralphthemagi, on 03/24/2008, -5/+4Because Americans think they are better than everyone else. Most of them have never been outside this country. They just assume that everything outside of the US is some kind of 3rd world country. Basically, they are ***** retarded. Even our pristine college graduates.
Revenge plays a big role too. Possible even the biggest role. Afghanistan just wasn't enough. There wasn't enough stuff to destroy. Iraq though... we ***** that country up good.
Americans didn't even have to be "sold" on the war by the government. They manufactured it themselves, then sold it to their friends.
- ralphthemagi, on 03/24/2008, -5/+4Because Americans think they are better than everyone else. Most of them have never been outside this country. They just assume that everything outside of the US is some kind of 3rd world country. Basically, they are ***** retarded. Even our pristine college graduates.
- keltin, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4My belief is that what was 'true' in Iraq is just a little too complicated for the simple-minded set who say, "Bush lied, people died." That group has no standing whatsoever.
Did Bush and his Admin lie? You say, yes, maybe, but you don't really have anything other than highly partisan reports from those who don't like the neocons (and generally, the conservative side). Hardly impeccable sources. At least you did mention there were other intell sources.
Your group usually leaves out the eyewitness accounts of Saddam's guys shipping out hundreds of tons of WMD chemicals to other 'safe' havens in Syria and Iran. Your myopic look at the Left's Cause and Effect is laughable, ralph, to the point of excreable organics creeping up over your boot tops.- ralphthemagi, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2My group? What group do I belong to?
And if you actually knew what you were talking about, most of the "eyewitness accounts" were from Iraqis. Iraqis who hated the regime and wanted change. People who had their own agendas. They said what needed to be said in order for us to act in the way that we did. The reality is that there were no *active* WMD programs in Iraq. So this is where the question of what is and isn't a lie comes in. Did Iraq have WMDs? Sure. I guess. I mean, we sold them chemical weapons and materials years ago, and much of that was never document as being used, so it may have existed somewhere. So from that perspective you can say, without a doubt, that Iraq had WMDs. But the idea that they had some kind of weapons program was simply false. - keltin, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Thank you for replying, ralphthemaqi. You help me keep my thoughts focused.
Here's a quote from an article in 2006: "Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started."
Here is an article that was from a different source, but ties things together much more simply, so that it's easy to follow. Remember after you read it, though, try not to leap to wrong conclusions like the 'I Hate George Bush' crowd usually does. http://www.nysun.com/article/26514 - ralphthemagi, on 03/24/2008, -2/+0Ummm, I don't belong to the "I Hate George Bush" crowd, but that's hardly evidence that aligns with what was publicly said.
They did not have a weapons program of their own. Like I said, any weapons that may have existed where simply left over stock that we had sold to them during the Iran-Iraq war. And we sold them A LOT. We know exactly what was sold, and in what quantities... because we have receipts. Hell, you can find most of this information on Wikipedia nowadays. But that was nothing new, and it never posed a threat to us. I guess it wouldn't have been popular to say, "Iraq is harboring the WMDs that we manufactured and sold to them 15 years ago. We are going to spend billions of dollars to go in and see if they are still there somewhere, because we don't think they used them."
And then, of course, there was the fact that there were no, absolutely no, links to Al-Qaeda. Zero. And there never would be, because anyone who actually knew anything about Iraq, knew that Saddam's secularist regime was probably more hated by religious fundamentalists than we are. - keltin, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2OMG Ralphthemagi, Wikipedia has been consigned to the lowest level in Purgatory for all of the wrong information stored there. Once there was a study completed (~8 months ago) that showed the overwhelming bias towards the Left by the incorrect information left there, it is considered to be quite a bit lower in reliability than the Enquirer. Let's not use that source.
Glad to hear you're not of the knee-jerk IHGB group. I wasn't spectacularly happy with the approach we took to Saddam, but all in all, I would put forward that it is a much better world we live in now without that psycopath and his two worse sons and cronies creating human mulch of their enemies and those they had no use for.
Al-Qaeda links. Iraq was used for a number of things by al-Qaeda and their other minions. Before I get into it, though, remember, some of the sources for this information is pretty much out there, but hard to Digg into it. Some sources have even been impeached, such as a whole bevy of mid-level intell types from the CIA(and other agencies) who were holdovers from Clinton and were trying to cover their Butts. Mr. Clarke is the easiest that comes to mind. I'm not using any of that, but what it does is create the perfect fall-back for people who don't really do the digging into sources, just parrot the MSM, the DNC, CNN and other highly suspect sources.
Things al-Qaeda (and other terrorist groups) used Iraq for:
1. Training ground. In one of their training films showing al-Qaeda jihadii training in a mockup of a large jetliner body, showing how to set off explosives for max yield/effect, control airline crew, and where in the floor plan one should 'make an example' of a person to enhance control of the captives.
2. Transhipment. Primary outlet for travel to supporting (as in $$, materiel and political) entities. Secondary during most of this time was through Pakistan, because Musharraf let some trickle through, but it was heavily scrutinized. Connections with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Russia. This last was very tenuous, depending on what was happening in the world of Chechnya and the latest outrage perpetrated on Russia (as per the Russian Prez at the time).
3. Weapons and Money. As stated before most of the money did not come from Saddam, but he did contribute to their source. Iraq was the main corridor for money raised in a bevy of Islamic charities around the world, as well as sources from governments or governmental individuals such as Saudi Arabian princes and businessmen, Indonesia, Emirates and other sources.
A thing about who hates who and won't work with each other. The primary groups we're talking about are Arabs. In the Arabic culture the family is of first importance, then the clan/tribe. After this group most Westerners think the main loyalty is to the state. In fact it is a sliding scale of sorts with Islam and a state-like entity. These two are usually merged somewhat within Islam, and is exemplified in the Shiia and Sunni groups (a few smaller groups but they usually are wiped out before too long by their Muslim 'brothers'). Somewhere in there the allegiances change depending on where they think the infidels are putting most of their arrogance and power towards. So at times they attack on a very religious aspect, but that could fade away if one group sees it would be more beneficial from a practical standpoint (usually measured in who's going to get more power), so one group could pull back or even actively fight against each other, e.g., Fatah and Hamas, Iraq-Iran, etc.
Summary - There is an amazing amount of information showing that we DID, in fact, come across materials that could be weaponized or used as WMD's, but weren't assigned in that category, for a number of complex reasons.
No more boredom. - novaculus, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3There is no dispute that Saddam's Iraq manufactured and USED poison gas. There is no dispute that Saddam's Iraq was attempting to develop other WMD, including biological and nuclear weapons.
Assume for the sake of argument that Saddam's Iraq had largely ceased WMD development programs. Assume for the sake of argument that no substantial stockpiles of such weapons remained in Iraq. Saddam said, before his death, that the reason he refused to permit WMD inspections and took other steps to make it appear as if he did have WMD, was to maintain the belief on the part of his enemies that he still had WMD. Given the history of development, production, AND USE of WMD, and the intelligence environment, it was would have been absolutely foolhardy to assume that Saddam's Iraq did not have WMD.
Saddam could have resolved the issue and prevented the war simply by permitting inspections. He chose not to do so.
Saddam's Iraq was engaged with al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations, despite popular myth on the left to the contrary:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169 ... - ralphthemagi, on 03/24/2008, -3/+0@keltin
You really have no understanding whatsoever about, "Arabic culture."
If you actually believe that Saddam's regime supported Al-Qaeda in any meaningful way, then you do not understand Middle Eastern politics at all. At all. Just stop. Stop reading whatever it is you are reading, because either it's wrong or you don't understand it.
I don't know what else to tell you. Spitting out links from the WSJ doesn't add to your creditability. It just means there are people out there who understand even less than you do, but get paid to write about it because it's sensationalist garbage.
It's unfortunate to see that there are still people who believe what they want to believe, instead of reality. You'd think after all these years some people would bother to actually learn something. - novaculus, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3ralph - You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me, boy?
You say: “You really have no understanding whatsoever about, "Arabic culture."
If you actually believe that Saddam's regime supported Al-Qaeda in any meaningful way, then you do not understand Middle Eastern politics at all. At all. Just stop. Stop reading whatever it is you are reading, because either it's wrong or you don't understand it.”
Bold statement for someone who doesn’t know me from Adam.
Let me ‘splain it to you Lucy.
We think differently. You think in terms of political “beliefs”, which is a fundamentally irrational process. I think in terms of probabilities, which is a fundamentally rational process. In the assessment of threats of international terrorism reliance on probabilities assessments is preferable.
Whatever you think you know about Islamic and Middle Eastern culture the cooperation between Islamist terrorist organizations and supporters of different sects is well established. (Feel free to fill us in on your qualifications and “beliefs“.) Will fanatical Sunni terrorists kill Shia? Surely. Will fanatical Shia terrorists kill Sunni? You bet. They will also kill members of smaller sects, members of other religions, and each other on occasion when they are not busy trying to kill Americans and other infidels. Will they cooperate when their short term interests coincide? Absolutely. The discovery of Shia Iranian-made weapons and IEDs in the hands of Sunni al Qaeda and Hamas and terrorists is only the latest proof. Combining forces against a common enemy makes sense, and not all Islamist terrorists are stupid, nor are all their state sponsors. The fact that they all understand that today’s ally will be tomorrow’s foe doesn’t prevent cooperation. Saddam was himself Sunni but relatively secular and tribal; his turn in later years to more Islamist postures coincided with his increasing associations with terrorist organizations.
The probability that Saddam’s WMD technology, if not actual weapons themselves, would be transferred to a terrorist organization, resulting in a WMD attack, was too great to ignore. The threshold was necessarily low. What risk of a terrorist WMD attack using Saddam’s technology resulting in hundreds or thousands of causalities would be acceptable? A twenty per cent likelihood in the next five years? Ten per cent? Or is any such risk unacceptable?
You say: “I don't know what else to tell you. Spitting out links from the WSJ doesn't add to your creditability. It just means there are people out there who understand even less than you do, but get paid to write about it because it's sensationalist garbage.”
I didn’t just spit out a link, I made reference to a credible source whose evidence is at odds with your version of the facts. That does in fact add to my credibility. The last sentence is a non sequitur and I therefore ignore it. By the way, did you read the article?
FTA:
“...the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of "exploitable" documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam's willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.”
In other words, the report is based on Saddam’s own records, and details links to terrorist organizations that support contemporaneous intelligence reports of those links. I urge everyone interested to go to the Wall Street Journal article and assess its credibility for themselves.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169 ...
You say: “It's unfortunate to see that there are still people who believe what they want to believe, instead of reality. You'd think after all these years some people would bother to actually learn something.”
Finally, a point of agreement. - keltin, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3That was good!! icon, I don't think you left a stone standing.
I guess my living in two different Arabic nations once for four years while young, and three more after college, must mean I'm a complete dolt when it comes to Arab cultures.
Ralph, remember not to eat with your left hand. Go ahead and cover your mouth with it, but don't touch the communal food.
Idiocy. - novaculus, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2keltin, I do agree with icon frequently, but we are not one and the same!
I didn't know you had lived in the Middle East. You are correct about the depth and breadth of ignorance regarding Arab culture. The significance of chopping off the right hand, as opposed to the left, is lost on these people. - ralphthemagi, on 03/25/2008, -1/+0*sigh*
Have either of you ever been to the Middle East? - novaculus, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2C'mon Ralphie boy! Fill us in on those qualifications and beliefs.
In a nutshell, the pervasive nature of shifting allegiances based on the opponent in the Arab world described:
"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel." -- Leon Uris, "The Haj" - ralphthemagi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0Shifting allegiances are one thing. Understanding the difference between secular countries and like Iraq and Turkey, and those who abide by Sharia law like Saudia Arabia and Afghanistan, is something different entirely.
The "Arab world" is not a singular entity. There exists no such thing as "Arab culture," unless you want to use that to describe Saudi Arabia specifically. The way you use it is akin to saying "American culture" and having that include the US, Mexico, Cuba and Canada and a single entity, simply because they are close together.
- ralphthemagi, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2My group? What group do I belong to?
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -6/+3I blame everyone who had the power to order the US military onto Iraqi soil in 2003.
- heypetray, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2It defended Cheney's portfolio.
- dukeeeey, on 03/24/2008, -8/+23thousands of lives are being lost because the EPA lied about the air quality in new york
"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm
Wheres the war on that ?- DoTheFandango, on 03/24/2008, -1/+7Thousands? Really? Check some facts there buddy.
- plagiats, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3at MissTatum : no one prevents you from calling Obama using his middle name. Go on, have fun. It's just unfair to assume that because his middle name is by coincidence "Hussein" as the last name of "Saddam Hussein" this should come as an argument against him. So, feel free to call him that way, just don't assume this middle name is wrong. Oops, you're doing the exact opposite.
So, about those numbers. First, do you have a source we may check, please ? Second, 1 trillion to Africa. Do you really think this is wasted money ? Don't you think Africa needs this and that if used wisely (that is "Not to finance corrupted governments") this investment should payback in time ? No ? Not at all ? 100% sure about this position ? Ahhh, that's the 1 trillion thing. With a T. Guess what, that useless war ? 3 trillions. With T's. And 4000 US deaths (not counting meaningless civil deaths).
That money on healthcare plan. On jobs in construction (remember new orlean's katrina? remember USA are subjects to wild storms ?). Do you REALLY thing that's money wasted ?
"New government spending", you make it sounds like Obama woke up and said "Hey, let's grant ourselves 287billions uselessly!". He is not talking about raising his salary by 168% here (hi, nicolas sarkozy!).- keltin, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Lots of graft everywhere in the world. Sub Saharan Africa (target of most of LaBamba's largesse) is so corrupt that Chicago's Daley family would pretty much be considered straight shooting Elliot Ness untouchable-types. The money won't do squat for Africa because of the general, overall approach of 'giving' money from the sources of money, be they governmental, individual, or worst of all, from the UN (Put a trillion in, about 100Billion comes out the other side for use - darn those sticky fingers!).
Teach them to fish, to farm, to mine, and do so with incentives so that the workers want to do the right thing (like the previous generation of farmers in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe did, the most productive farmers on the continent, until Mugabe forced them of the land and gave it to undeserving people, who have promptly ruined the farms). Part of the aid or training you have to give to the managers and government, is to show how it is better, overall, to be in a partnership with the workers to get the best results. Obviously, this doesn't mean the extreme set of union/ball-buster kind of orgs that are, again, out for their own power, not the good of the people or the country.
Less than that, and the money is like so much flatulence in a gale.
- keltin, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Lots of graft everywhere in the world. Sub Saharan Africa (target of most of LaBamba's largesse) is so corrupt that Chicago's Daley family would pretty much be considered straight shooting Elliot Ness untouchable-types. The money won't do squat for Africa because of the general, overall approach of 'giving' money from the sources of money, be they governmental, individual, or worst of all, from the UN (Put a trillion in, about 100Billion comes out the other side for use - darn those sticky fingers!).
- plagiats, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3at MissTatum : no one prevents you from calling Obama using his middle name. Go on, have fun. It's just unfair to assume that because his middle name is by coincidence "Hussein" as the last name of "Saddam Hussein" this should come as an argument against him. So, feel free to call him that way, just don't assume this middle name is wrong. Oops, you're doing the exact opposite.
- DoTheFandango, on 03/24/2008, -1/+7Thousands? Really? Check some facts there buddy.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -11/+51I don't think the 4,000 dead invaders are as sad as the one million dead, innocent, Iraqi civilians.
But at least Iraq won't use their WMD on America.- dOOBiEx213, on 03/24/2008, -3/+8Oh wait..
- cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1WMD's = Wealth Massively Disintegrates?
- cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1WMD's = Wealth Massively Disintegrates?
- dOOBiEx213, on 03/24/2008, -3/+8Oh wait..
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -11/+28"We went in there to Defend Americans after losing 2,000 lives" ???? Who has been feeding you that stuff and nonsense?
- m0tbaillie, on 03/24/2008, -5/+15Without googling, I wonder how many people in this thread could tell me where the 9/11 hijackers were from. We were not and are not defending outselves in Iraq. Anybody who thinks otherwise is an uniformed tool.
- IIAmusedII, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3David Stagno is an idiot.
- whiterice0, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1Why?
- sam10685, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3You guys ever heard of The American Civil War? I don't want to hear any bitching.
- PixelMagic, on 03/24/2008, -2/+54,001 if you count the puppy.
- bananasplit1586, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2yea, right, the puppy. how about the Iraqi civilians?!
- thundacracka, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2It's BIIIIIG and ROUNNNND
- MrThirsty, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Where did you get 2000 lives? If you are talking about 9/11 that was almost 3,000.......but still I see your point.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -12/+83How did invading Iraq "defend" anything? ?
- scairborn, on 03/24/2008, -10/+804000 Lives, 800 Brothers and Sisters a year for 5 years. Its just sad to realize that. To honestly sit, and think thats 4000 REAL people. Not just a number, but people who touched countless others.
- humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -2/+45And if you believe the controversial theory that non-Americans might also be people, it's even worse
- rudy23, on 03/24/2008, -3/+13anyone counting how many civilians?
- commernie, on 03/24/2008, -14/+4They are people, sure. But they are also murderers and war criminals. As far as I'm concerned, they got what was coming to them. It's the Iraqi civilians who had no say in the matter, and there is a whole lot more of them dead. They're the only ones we should be feeling sorry for.
- razorc03, on 03/24/2008, -10/+330,000-40,000 people die a PER YEAR in the US due to fatal car accidents and it costs us $160 BILLION PER YEAR.
*****, let's stop driving too, for ***** sakes....- humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1You're right! Driving cars is EXACTLY like invading a country! If we stop one we have to stop the other!
- BESTenemy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6Can't wait for the kids whose parents we've murdered during this war to grow up and come after our kids.
- carnag3aus, on 03/24/2008, -4/+3Yer... only Americans are REAL people. your an ass.
- BrianSaysHi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Its amazing. You're comment gets buried if yo say what people dont want to hear.
None so blind as those who do not want to see
- BrianSaysHi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Its amazing. You're comment gets buried if yo say what people dont want to hear.
- kolobcreek, on 03/24/2008, -5/+3You're making some pretty big assumptions there fella.
1. We're in Iraq because of 9/11 (I vaguely remember something about a UN Sanctioned International effort to liberate a sovereign nation and something about an unconditional surrender)
2. We aren't doing well there. (Though it is sad that 4000 US soldiers have died we are doing way better than Vietnam or Korea or WWII)
3. We can solve the problems in Iraq or the middle east (I think steven colbert put it best "Tune in after the commercial break to find out how President Bush is going to solve 2000yrs of religious strife before midterm elections")- bentrinh, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Do your research, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
- chicofaraby, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3" (I vaguely remember something about a UN Sanctioned International effort to liberate a sovereign nation and something about an unconditional surrender)"
I remember that happened in 1991. It ended with UNSCR 687 on April 3, 1991. George Bush started his illegal invasion in 2003. The UN was against it. Remember? I can post some links if you forgot.
"we are doing way better than Vietnam or Korea or WWII"
I remember that we lost in Vietnam after killing millions of civilians, so since we've murdered fewer Iraqis, you may be right there. We are still in Korea without a decision or a real reason. We were done fighting two REAL armies in less time than this in WW2, so I think you are dead wrong on that one.
Lastly, do you understand that Colbert is satire?
- yosserhughes, on 03/24/2008, -21/+127Great day for all you war-mongering whores out there.
I try to imagine 4000 people, I don't even know 4000 people, what does that many people look like? I think of all the people I've known, went to school with, worked with or just met in my life and would be hard pressed to list 4000. I've been to the war graves in Belgium and seen the crosses, row on row, with many more dead than that, but even so; 4000, that's pretty good going guys.
How, how on Earth can these blood sucking filth stalking the corridors of power sleep at night? How can Cheney, Bush , Perle, Wolfowitz, Powel, Rice, Rumsfeld, Boot, Krauthammer, Fieth, Luti, Hadley, and dozens more who we don't even know their names look at themselves in the mirror.
Now, I'm not a religious person, but there are times I hope that there is a god, because if there is then there's a Hell, and there is a special place reserved for the scum that engineered this war. Beelzebub has a special demon set aside for these guys.
Unfortunately I don't believe there is, so they'll get off again scott free to start another war, sending other peoples children to do their killing and dying for them.
I guess its always been like this, but I wish that just once we would get it right.- pershingdriver, on 03/24/2008, -20/+17Interesting where is the outrage over the 200,000+ americans killed on the highways over the past 5 years or the 1,500,000+ smoking related deaths over the same time frame.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -10/+12Try to focus and stay on topic.
- thcobbs, on 03/24/2008, -11/+8Its a cogent point. Crying foul over 4000 deaths because it supports your agenda and ignoring Hundreds of Thousands because it doesn't is just as bad as sending troops over to Iraq in the first place. Don't aggendize these people who fought and DIED for their country.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -5/+10How did they fight and die for their country?
America was never threatened. To say otherwise is a bold faced lie - like the lies that brought them to that hell hole - like the lies that are ultimately responsible for their deaths. - chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -7/+9No it isn't. Auto accidents and smoking are public health issues. George Bush's illegal attack on Iraq is a criminal issue.
Get real. - thcobbs, on 03/24/2008, -5/+7Their commander in chief ordered them into battle with congress's approval. So, they fought for their country.
And to call it bad intelligence... yeah, I'll buy that... but to call it a lie is also pushing an agenda.... Unless you have proof that is. - Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -7/+6thcobbs - Proof comes out in courts. All we need is evidence, and the reality is we have put people in jail for life on less evidence.
They had the means, the motive and they benefited from it. Did I mention they also refused to be placed under oath?
So are you OK with at least a trail to see what they knew and when? If only we could get those emails but the hard drives have been erased....errr...deleted......errr..thrown out...
I don't understand why you are still behind these crooks. You strike me as a very proud American and these people have most assuredly lied to get into Iraq which has killed Americans. I have such a hard time consolidated those two aspects of you. You of all people should be most *****, because they have made people like you look like grunts unable to think, merely breed to die. - RuffRidr, on 03/24/2008, -4/+8"All we need is evidence"
Ahh, there's the sticky wicket. - Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -4/+4RUFF - not at all. that is everywhere, unfortunately it is all circumstantial until documentation comes out - which even though they are under court orders to release it the Admin hasn't.
Not guilty behaviour at all is it? Why is there such a hard time to get an investigation to one of the biggest blunders in human history ? I would have figured everyone would want to know what happened if for no other reason than not to do it again - but yet - some people just don't want to know. - thcobbs, on 03/24/2008, -3/+5So much for innocent until proven guilty?
Or, does the constitution only apply for those with which you agree? - Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5ThCobbs - yet again you don't seem to get it. Innocent until proven guilty - and where do these things get proven? In court.!!
See how easy that is. Maybe it goes to trial and he gets cleared - but it is the court that decides.
Why do you hate justice? - thcobbs, on 03/24/2008, -3/+3I don't hate justice... but you have to have enough EVIDENCE to get an INDICTMENT(Impeachment in this case) BEFORE it can go to trial. And then its the COURT (the senate, in this case) that decides innocence or guilt.
Otherwise you're just an annoying blowhard playing monday-morning quarterback. - Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2Your actions betray your words. How much evidence is needed? Between the issues surrounding 911 and what they knew and when - to the lead up to the Iraq war, to the PNAC, to well - you name it. If there is one thing that is not missing is a plethora of evidence(albeit circumstantial).
What is lacking is the will of the politicians - in spite the majority of the people's wills. Worse - you seem fine with that. (Thus my justice statement - which your response shows was true - you still think this is an American issue)
BTW - What we are talking about here goes beyond your borders. These are war crimes, international court buddy. American politicians have demonstrated themselves to be untrustworthy towards the world in general and the American people in particular. Besides - where do all war crimes trails take place? - thcobbs, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3Then GET AN INDICTMENT, don't convict in the court of public opinion. I'm not supporting or defending ANYTHING except the right for someone to not be considered GUILTY of something until it is proven.
- cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1
More arguments over choice versus force...I don't get it.
Sure, go ahead and ban cars / trucks...then see how many people die because food can't be distributed and people riot...idiot.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -5/+10How did they fight and die for their country?
- thcobbs, on 03/24/2008, -11/+8Its a cogent point. Crying foul over 4000 deaths because it supports your agenda and ignoring Hundreds of Thousands because it doesn't is just as bad as sending troops over to Iraq in the first place. Don't aggendize these people who fought and DIED for their country.
- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -9/+4so the 3000 who died on 9/11 were no big deal either?
- ecualung, on 03/24/2008, -2/+8No, those people are a HUGE deal. But, unfortunately, Bush and Cheney have given Al-Qaeda EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED. No, they've given them more, really. 9-11 was designed to provoke a response--the best situation for a group like Al-Qaeda is US boots on the ground in a Muslim nation, so that they can paint the US as having invaded and defiled that nation, and therefore win more followers. Our invasion of Afghanistan accomplished this for them. But I think our invasion of Iraq was beyond the wildest wet dreams of Bin Laden and his lieutenants.
- lacronicus, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3And how does the loss of 3000 lives in any way make the loss of 4000 more any less tragic? This war has done absolutely nothing to give meaning to their deaths, and if the events so far are any indication, then that's not going to change.
- BrianSaysHi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+13000 is tiny compared to 1,700,000. It minuscule compared to the 42,573600 people who died of hunger in the same time. But who cares about that, after all they weren't American.
- MindTrigger, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6This guy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
- BrianSaysHi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Why? Because he puts it into perspestive and writes something people dont want to here?
- FluffyWolf, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3Different problems and different populations.
That is 200k dead out of a population of 300 million of all ages and health conditions while the 4000 deaths are out of a population of about 130k generally sound and fit soldiers. One in 32 of the soldier population have died, while one in 1500 have died in a traffic accident in USA during the period. - dsiv, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4Outrage is not the appropriate word for those types of deaths. Modern life is dangerous, and people make unhealthy decisions - I'm sad about that, but at the same time I realize that to be an inevitable part of life. That's not to say we can't make our cities and highways safer; that's not to say that we can't help people make smarter health choices. Still, at the end of the day a certain number of unfortunate or preventable deaths are inevitable.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -10/+12Try to focus and stay on topic.
- arcangelgabriel, on 03/24/2008, -5/+4Amen brother. Amen.
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -10/+5pershingdriver's comment sounds like Cheney. 4000 dead "so?"
- gypsylavole, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3god help us if another republican like bush gets in for office
- pershingdriver, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1I agree what we need is another republican like Reagan
- chicofaraby, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3George Bush is just like Reagan; both ruined the economy and killed thousands of innocent people. Mission accomplished!
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Reagan is best remembered for his terrorist wars against the people of Nicaragua, his pillage of the Savings and Loans ( sound familiar? ), his removal of Saddam Hussein from the list of terrorist nations so that he could sell him weapons of all kinds, his selling of arms to Iran, the Iran/Contra scandal, getting 240+ marines killed in Beirut, oh yes, and his valiant conquest of the mighty Granada evil island empire.
- pershingdriver, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0Lets not forget the destruction of the USSR, Cutting Taxes top marginal rate from 70% to 28/33% , getting inflation under control after Peanut Man.
- pershingdriver, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1I agree what we need is another republican like Reagan
- stoanhart, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1"there are times I hope that there is a god, because if there is then there's a Hell"
How does god existing mean that there is a Hell? Hell is a creation of organized religion; there is absolutely no logical reason why god would have to create a Hell if he existed. - kolobcreek, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4@yosserhughes
I would say you are a fool. But I'm not sure if you do it intentionally.
You didn't bother to mention the kinds of people that burn little children because his father helped their enemies. Nor did you mention the death squads that capture 50 policemen then take them out to a river and execute them repeat the process on a weekly basis. Nor the kind of people that bomb an open market where mother and fathers are getting food for their families. How about the dictator that lets his son rape his way through college. Must be nice to have your body guard pick up women for you to rape. Makes it much easier. how about the kinds of people that murder their own daughters because they are ashamed of them. Now those are some quality people. I'm glad we have you here to point that out for us.
Seriously get a grip on reality.- yellowcakewalk, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Did you mention death squads? The USA is famous for arming and supporting death squads. Remember the term "Salvador Option" that the war criminals that started this thing were tossing around? Do you know what that means?
- muse09, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0september 11th was 2,998 people dead.. my highschool has about 2,500 students.. i can't even imagine my whole highschool dying at once.. it's horrible enough when one person dies.. but 4,000?
- pershingdriver, on 03/24/2008, -20/+17Interesting where is the outrage over the 200,000+ americans killed on the highways over the past 5 years or the 1,500,000+ smoking related deaths over the same time frame.
- moolaismyfriend, on 03/24/2008, -10/+172Dick Cheney responds; "So!"
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 03/24/2008, -23/+6And moola responds: "YAY!"
- CCoe, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3Did he? Nope.
- littlewing82, on 03/24/2008, -2/+12What a douche!
I think he is truly despicable!!! - Dylson, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5The man is pure ***** evil. Just hearing his voice makes me cringe with fear.
- paradexes, on 03/24/2008, -5/+1Not to underestimate by any means what is going on out there, but people need to get this into perspective. In WW2 hundreds of thousands soldiers lost their lives, then there were 6 million or so Jews on top of that. WW1 had even more military losses. But in the interest of keeping it somewhat modern, Vietnam and Korea both still had much higher death tolls than what we are dealing with here over a similar time period.
That all said that does not excuse our leaders for plunging us into this mess, all for the little boy to get revenge against his daddy's nemesis (Bush Sr almost got assasinated by some dude Hussein hired). We are there for oil and for Bush Jr.s revenge. But people are getting off track on focusing on the soldiers death tolls, when really it should be the Iraqi civilian death toll they should be looking at. That is the one that is staggering. Make no mistake, I support the troops. This is not their fault, but the bureaucrats who lead them, the fault of the war and all the atrocities committed falls squarely on the heads of our Government who promotes and continues to be stubborn about pulling out of a lost cause.- screwfanboys1, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5WW2 was also a war WORTH FIGHTING. Iraq...notsomuch
- ikarimaru, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1I'd hate to bring up the fact that these are entirely different wars with entirely different tactics and weapons, but then again, that would make sense. Invading a beach is a far cry from urban (guerrilla) warfare.The death tolls are naturally going to be different. I pray for the day when people are outraged over 10 deaths, then finally any at all.
- dannytehmanny, on 03/24/2008, -1/+7Mission Accomplished.
-George Bush
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 03/24/2008, -23/+6And moola responds: "YAY!"
- Inuyasha24, on 03/24/2008, -12/+24The overall goal of a war is for one nation to remove the others government. When that happens the war is over. We are now in a continues state of occupation where we are not welcome and are considered a foreign enemy. The best way to honor the brave soldiers that gave their lives to protect us is to bring the rest of the troops home from an unavoidable civil war. Just remember.....If China (example) were to have troops outside your house, job, school, store how long would you wait before you took up arms and defended what was and still is yours. End 5 years of lie after lie!
- Ajscott123, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2Not to bring up a sore subject or anything of course, but Ron Paul used that "in their shoes" comparison many times and it is clear and common sense. This is why I've concluded that Inuyasha24 is actually Ron Paul's Digg account. Here here Ronny, bring home our friends. I hope yosserhughes's suggested demon exists to mangle this entire administration in the fiery rotting pits of hell.
- archer75, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3If chineese soliders were here to liberate us and provide security I would welcome them.
- CourtesyFlush, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2So....in this fantasy scenario we would have to assume:
- That there are killing fields in Detroit.
- The US Government invaded Mexico only to be driven back by a UN force led by China.
- The US Government spent the last decade firing at Chinese airmen protecting parts of the country so humanitarian aid could finally get to the children.
- CourtesyFlush, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2So....in this fantasy scenario we would have to assume:
- TexMurphy, on 03/24/2008, -17/+77If you vote for McCain, you should be drafted into the military.
We need you.
McCain "Make it a hundred...That would be fine with me."
4,000 deaths
No end in sight
Three Trillion Dollar War- diggrnumber1, on 03/24/2008, -12/+27i agree. mccain supporters are total hypocrites - they will vote for war, but they are unwilling to fight themselves. many find comfort in the fact that they are too old to ever be drafted if needed.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 03/24/2008, -17/+15I sure hope you're a volunteer fireman, EMT, trauma surgeon and policeman! Surely you aren't a hypocrite by supporting those critical services without performing them yourself?
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -4/+15He isn't running around starting fires is he? Like these goofs have been starting wars?
- ventralnet, on 03/24/2008, -2/+9don't use reason you son of a bitch!
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -4/+15He isn't running around starting fires is he? Like these goofs have been starting wars?
- sub1, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4Look up McCains bio, he was a prisoner of war and refused early release unless his whole squadron were freed also. He is a war hero.
- diggrnumber1, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1you're right, but i don't see how that has anything to do with my comment
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 03/24/2008, -17/+15I sure hope you're a volunteer fireman, EMT, trauma surgeon and policeman! Surely you aren't a hypocrite by supporting those critical services without performing them yourself?
- TexMurphy, on 03/24/2008, -20/+9@diggrnumber1
Im am a 29 yr Iraq Vet.
So go ***** your self!- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -10/+10 If Karma is real - you have ***** yourself for not critically thinking about why you were going off to kill people.
It wasn't because they threatened you - So why did you feel the need to kill and maimed those that did NOTHING to you or your country? - pershingdriver, on 03/24/2008, -7/+10@TexMurphy - Thank you for your service to your country
- JanYpe, on 03/24/2008, -5/+9This man getting dugg down shows just how stupid Digg can be.
- fakekevinrose, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2serious business
- myotive, on 03/24/2008, -6/+9You've been in Iraq for 29 years?
/sarcasm...or perhaps future revelation?- dn11, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2possible time traveler?
- dxgg, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -10/+10 If Karma is real - you have ***** yourself for not critically thinking about why you were going off to kill people.
- ZeRux, on 03/24/2008, -14/+5We don't want for more of our precious patrios to die...it's the far-left lunatics who should be sent to Iraq since they don't love our country anyway...if they return, maybe they will start appreciating it.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -1/+16You really should spend more time studying independantly. No American hates America - that you have that idea in your head should tell you how far you have been programed. Think of what you just said about your fellow Americans and then tell me who is the enemy of America?
Those that have different opinions - or those that have facilitated the idea that the other side "hates America". Please your country needs you to grow up. Divide and rule? - IIAmusedII, on 03/24/2008, -2/+8We liberals don't hate America. We just hate stupd rednecks like you.
- Mardala, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3well if it were up to the progressives we wouldn't be in Iraq fighting an illegal war nor 3 trillion in debt.
- dxgg, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2If I saw you in person right now, I'd just laugh in your face for being so absurd.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -1/+16You really should spend more time studying independantly. No American hates America - that you have that idea in your head should tell you how far you have been programed. Think of what you just said about your fellow Americans and then tell me who is the enemy of America?
- cnorris1, on 03/24/2008, -6/+13I’m convinced that McCain is just another mindless puppet like Bush
- dxgg, on 03/24/2008, -7/+4No end in sight? Not if Obama becomes president. I realize it won't be easy, but at least he's committed himself to the task of ending it sooner than later.
And TexMurphy, thank you for serving our country, and I applaud your stand now in wanting to end it. - x252, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Thank you for your service afar.
We'll try and keep the bleeding heart liberals in check here. - LembasBread, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1To be fair, McCain did say "as long as Americans are not being harmed."
- diggrnumber1, on 03/24/2008, -12/+27i agree. mccain supporters are total hypocrites - they will vote for war, but they are unwilling to fight themselves. many find comfort in the fact that they are too old to ever be drafted if needed.
- littlejoe, on 03/24/2008, -12/+88I'm sure 4,000 dead sons and daughters of America might sound awful to you...
yet we overlook the ~85,000 non-Americans that have lost their lives in Iraq since this mess started in 2003.
We've surpassed Nagasaki (80,000)... onwards to Hiroshima (140,000).- Pissoff, on 03/24/2008, -15/+4Think we could have just dropped a nuke, hit a 100,000 - 200,000 number in 1 day, and lost 0 coalition lives?
Nah, instead we're still a few years and several thousand deaths away from leaving now. And it's costing trillions.
I'm not really advocating the use of nukes.- FluffyWolf, on 03/24/2008, -6/+2Good that you are not advocating the use of nukes, it is illegal to nuke the president.
- iticu, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2You're such a ***** dumbass, you think a nuke would do anything?
Seriously, all you'd do is ***** over a city, make the world hate America even more, maybe start a nuclear war - and for what? So you can chant in the streets; "America! ***** yeah!"?
God damn. Though, hopefully you were joking.- Pissoff, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3It was a question, followed by "I'm not really advocating the use of nukes". I don't think a nuke would do anything, besides kill a lot of people really fast and incite more hatred for the U.S.
God damn indeed.- iticu, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Oh sorry, thought you were implying you wanted to nuke the middle east..
/me walks off in shame.
- iticu, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Oh sorry, thought you were implying you wanted to nuke the middle east..
- Pissoff, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3It was a question, followed by "I'm not really advocating the use of nukes". I don't think a nuke would do anything, besides kill a lot of people really fast and incite more hatred for the U.S.
- FluffyWolf, on 03/24/2008, -6/+2Good that you are not advocating the use of nukes, it is illegal to nuke the president.
- tucsonsun13, on 03/24/2008, -6/+20What the hell do you mean, 85,000!?!?!? More like 500,000 + (add 50 a day)! Wake up
- littlejoe, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1My numbers came from the Iraq Body Count site, that only lists "confirmed" deaths based on military, news and government reports, not just speculation and assumption.
- hurt911gen, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2More civvies and US military would die if we didn't drop the bombs. You wanted an Okinawa shore to shore in Japan? No, so STFU.
- littlejoe, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1You cant truly be defending that can you? An act of war against a massive group of civilians?? Something our own country has formally apologized for? Typical military mentality... "It had to be done!"
- Pissoff, on 03/24/2008, -15/+4Think we could have just dropped a nuke, hit a 100,000 - 200,000 number in 1 day, and lost 0 coalition lives?
- biotch, on 03/24/2008, -6/+32A sad day indeed. And to think we have resorted to paying these insurgents to keep them from killing each other and our troops and bombs are STILL going off killing people just makes me sick. What an incredible waste of lives and resources this has become. People talk about staying in Iraq so these lives arent lost in vain.
No WMDs, No 9/11 link, No Osama or Al Qaeda link...
Our troops' honor was lost the second Bush and his administration embellished the truth about going in there. Our troops have been forced to fight in vain. Not the other way around.- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -3/+9Well said. A very sad situation, but there is something that can be done to make sure it doesn't happen again.
War Crime / Crimes against Humanity charges leveled at all of them. Extradited to Hague and, if found guilty, hung by the neck until they are dead, dead, dead.
Without that, the question becomes "when" is the next time a president leads your country into destruction, not "if". - cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1But, but, but...the surge is working...the surge of dollars...not troops.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -3/+9Well said. A very sad situation, but there is something that can be done to make sure it doesn't happen again.
- ChristPissed, on 03/24/2008, -15/+39This is American blood that is on Bush, Cheney, and Condi's hands (and every chickenhawk neocon warmonger that cheerleaded this war). This is Treason.
- foxhaze, on 03/24/2008, -10/+5THIS IS SPARTA!!!
- slvrbullet87, on 03/24/2008, -6/+9look up treason
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3It's treason alright. Lying to commit America to a conflict is treason. I pity you if you can't see why.
- slvrbullet87, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3From dictionary.com
trea - son
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.- cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2since you are agreeing here...why say look up the definition?
- slvrbullet87, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3From dictionary.com
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3It's treason alright. Lying to commit America to a conflict is treason. I pity you if you can't see why.
- archer75, on 03/24/2008, -4/+6We liberated a nation from a dictator who has and would continue to kill far more. I call that a good thing.
- ergobliss, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4right...a dictator we put there ourselves, so why are we still there, again?
- cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1and this is just one example of many...
- ergobliss, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4right...a dictator we put there ourselves, so why are we still there, again?
- jonnyboy1544, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2It's funny that you people get so upset when a solder dies, but you're the first ones to throw red paint on a military recruiters office. GFY!
- RagdollOp, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Exactly!
- 0rion16, on 03/24/2008, -9/+201111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 4,000 people, every one precious. When will it end?
- ZeRux, on 03/24/2008, -15/+4It'll never end, you asshole. In case you aren't aware of it, people die all the time.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -2/+7Sure do, which is why it is surprising that so many seem so willing to rush on to more death - even if they have to lie to do it.
- CCoe, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4"People die all the time" as an excuse for killing people. That's one of the most retarded things I've read on digg to date.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -2/+7Sure do, which is why it is surprising that so many seem so willing to rush on to more death - even if they have to lie to do it.
- ZeRux, on 03/24/2008, -15/+4It'll never end, you asshole. In case you aren't aware of it, people die all the time.
- khail250, on 03/24/2008, -14/+47Veteran against Terrorists. Those terrorists live in a big white house. not in a cave.
- TheRealToma, on 03/24/2008, -3/+12Every death is tragic. I investigated this today and found 15 people had committed suicide while over there. Its really eye opening to see all the causes of death.
http://icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx- slvrbullet87, on 03/24/2008, -5/+6So considerably lower than the normal population, Wiki shows 11 people per 100,000 commit suicide every year, we have 160,000 over there for 5 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rate- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -1/+7Army Suicides Highest in 26 Years
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
"The suicide rate for the Army has fluctuated over the past 26 years, from last year's high of 17.3 per 100,000 to a low of 9.1 per 100,000 in 2001." - overtoke, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5The problem is that Torna quoted a number and said "over there." The true number of suicides is around 150. It's sorta like saying "4000 deaths in Iraq" they exclude very many deaths (1000s of private contractor deaths for example). Part of that being an "over there" excuse. 250,000 people have filed for disability. Over 100k have brain damage. 4000 is a stupid number quote.
- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -1/+7Army Suicides Highest in 26 Years
- bananasplit1586, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1I think you guys missed the original point:
"Every death is tragic."
- slvrbullet87, on 03/24/2008, -5/+6So considerably lower than the normal population, Wiki shows 11 people per 100,000 commit suicide every year, we have 160,000 over there for 5 years.
- diggstown, on 03/24/2008, -26/+28Has anyone stopped to think about how amazing it is that it's ONLY 4000 after 5 years? Sorry to crash your protest here, but what number of lives lost would have been easier to accept? If you do some historical research, 4000 lives in 5 years is AMAZINGLY LOW. Historically, US battles have had that many lives lost in an hour!
I do not mean to devalue the lives of those lost; as individuals they should absolutely be honored.
My point is only to shed some light on what 4000 really means once placed in emotion free context.- nblsavage, on 03/24/2008, -9/+32How about the FACT that those lives should not have been lost in the first place.
- diggstown, on 03/24/2008, -15/+5Not living in reality, are we? You stated an opinion. Reality just might not fit into your idealistic perspective.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -5/+12The fact is though that those poeple that died in Iraq were senseless because there was NO reason to go there. America was lied too to go over there, if the truth was told America wouldn't have sent their sons and daughters to die - they would be alive today(Assuming nothing else happened to them).
Unless you can tell me the justified reason for going into Iraq - every single death and injury could and should have been avoided. - diggstown, on 03/24/2008, -8/+4@Waiting2awake: You want a reason? As much as you may not like it, here goes. By bringing the battle to Iraq, the focus of the entire region's anger towards America is brought to a battlefield which is not on American soil. They have very effectively kept all kinds of Islamic terrorists focused in the Middle East. Don't assume that I'm making a connection between Iraq and 9/11 here, but the result is that the number of Islamic terrorists focused to US soil is currently manageable by the government. It took the battle away from US soil.
The proof is in the number of attacks on US soil during this time.- nblsavage, on 03/24/2008, -4/+8I give full credit to my anti-terrorist rock. It must work - I don't see any terrorists.
***** simpleton. - Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5OK - and, with due respect, what was the proof of the time period between the WTC attacks in the 90's until the one in 01? No war was done there - no illegal invasion - no nothing, including attacks. So how can you say that this invasion is stopping attacks, when the last time, without an invasion also produced no attacks?
Are you really floating as a legitimate idea that America was being threatened by Islamic terrorists. Which were either on their way to America or already there, but upon the Iraqi invasion they changed plans and went to Iraq instead? Seriously?
Isn't it much more likely that upon the invasion it became obvious to all Iraqi's that America wasn't going to be leaving and that made everyone instantly a freedom fighter - bringing in other local renegades for the obvious thrill in killing. But all those people do not have the funds, or if America left would they have the urge, to travel and try and hurt the US.
It is like, I can sit here and yell and scream and slander you. Do any number of things that, if I were living across the street you'd come across and punch me out - but seeing as I probably live in another country it really isn't worth your effort as you have other issues to deal with like TV, computers, the tubes, etc. Same thing with them(those that do dislike America - which isn't everyone either) only they are concerned with feeding themselves.
The "we are fighting them there" ignores both history and rationality. But I do thank you for responding and being polite. I hope I have responded in kind.
Cheers. - diggstown, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5@Waiting2awake: The world was a different place in the 90's. The comparison should be done to Islamic terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world in the 00's.
Like it or not, I believe that fighting there limits attacks here is a sound argument to make. I'm clearly not the only one who has this opinion although I may be in the severe minority on Digg. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
- nblsavage, on 03/24/2008, -4/+8I give full credit to my anti-terrorist rock. It must work - I don't see any terrorists.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -5/+12The fact is though that those poeple that died in Iraq were senseless because there was NO reason to go there. America was lied too to go over there, if the truth was told America wouldn't have sent their sons and daughters to die - they would be alive today(Assuming nothing else happened to them).
- diggstown, on 03/24/2008, -15/+5Not living in reality, are we? You stated an opinion. Reality just might not fit into your idealistic perspective.
- colonelbuckshot, on 03/24/2008, -4/+17Consider also the non-military personnel that have been killed, as well as the tens of thousands of Americans who were injured and maimed. Then consider the Iraqi casualties on a much bigger scale.
- diggstown, on 03/24/2008, -12/+5Give us those numbers and compare them against history.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -7/+16So because it isn't as bad as other places/times? If you got mugged and had your legs broken - is it a good thing that that happened, because historically people die in muggings? That is essentially your argument there - and yes, it sounds just as silly when you say it.
- archiesteel, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5Vietnam War (approx. figures)
Dead: 60,000
Wounded: 300,000
Average Troop Strength: 500,000
Duration: 15 years
Ratio of Dead to Troop Strength: 0.8% per year
Ratio of Wounded to Troop Strength: 4% per year
Iraq War
Dead: 4,000
Wounded: 30,000
Average Troop Strength: 180,000
Duration: 5 years
Ratio of Dead to Troop Strength: 0.4% per year
Ratio of Wounded to Troop Strength: 3.3% per year
The death rate is about half of what it was in Vietnam, which is notable, but the Wounded rate is very close (3.3 to 4%). All in all it's not that remarkable, given the advance in field medical technology since 1975.
Another telling statistic:
Cost per enemy casualty in the Vietnam War: about 1,000,000$US (adjusted)
Cost per enemy casualty in the Iraq War: about 16,000,000$US
It's costing the US 16x more to kill insurgents in Iraq than it did VCs in Vietnam. Your tax dollars at work!!- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3"It's costing the US 16x more to kill insurgents in Iraq than it did VCs in Vietnam"
I predict we will receive the same benefit that we got from killing millions of Vietnamese for decades. - diggstown, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2Good comparison, but there are 2 problems with your statements:
1) Metical advances have nothing to do with whether or not someone got wounded in the first place, perhaps you meant military technology.
2) Talking about the cost of the war is changing the discussion entirely. - archiesteel, on 03/24/2008, -1/+51) Medical advances will not determine if someone is wounded in the first place, but it does mean that more potential fatalities become "wounded" instead. That was my point. Of course, the use of body armor and the fact that the US has better technology also helps, though in this case the enemy has also access to better resources (allegedly).
2) True, however that is a pretty damning statistic on the total cost of the war. I merely provided it as additional food for thought.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3"It's costing the US 16x more to kill insurgents in Iraq than it did VCs in Vietnam"
- diggstown, on 03/24/2008, -12/+5Give us those numbers and compare them against history.
- jeremyduffy, on 03/24/2008, -2/+13Had it been necessary and justifiable, no, I wouldn't complain. Seeing lives lost needlessly and for little to no benefit, well that on the other hand I have a problem with.
- tucsonsun13, on 03/24/2008, -5/+8This war was OPTIONAL - remember that. Saddam used to take out terrorists, and could've been more of an aide in the war on terror than anything else. The man that rises to power and replaces Hussein will be more of a menace; believe that.
- Micetro, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1WW1 was optional as well and we lost 100 times as many men in the same amount of time. the civil war was also optional but in 5 years we lost almost 700,000. so ur a complete retard saying it was optional almost every war is optional, even ww2. The reason we went to war in ww2 was because of Pearl Harbor and wat around 3,000 men died that day, wait, 3000 wasnt that the same amount during 911! wow amazing!!
- DemonWasp, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1You're not painting the whole picture here. Before Pearl Harbour, there were dozens of reasons to be in WW2 - the humanitarian tragedies perpetrated by the Nazi regime, the fact that every single American ally was waist-deep in *****, and the fact that it was pretty clear Hitler had little intention of just having Europe.
Further, as far as casualties go: 9/11 - 2998 civilians
Pearl Harbour: 5 battleships sunk; 2 destroyers sunk, 1 damaged; 1 other ship sunk, 3 damaged; 3 battleships damaged; 3 cruisers damaged; 188 aircraft destroyed, 155 aircraft damaged; 2,345 military and 57 civilians killed; 1,247 military and 35 civilians wounded
It's also worth recalling that in WW2, no excuses or lies (about WMDs, perhaps) were fed to the public.
WW1, of course, was optional for the United States (though notably not a lot of other countries, who were bound by agreements). Of course, the United States only joined WW1 long after it was already decided - the war was mostly over, but the United States did a fantastic job of cleaning up. - Akairenn, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0The Civil War was most definitely not optional. Before our country turned into a nation of whining Frenchmen, the only way possible to solve the question of state vs. Federal government rulership was by force of arms. To say nothing of the issue of slaver.
- DemonWasp, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1You're not painting the whole picture here. Before Pearl Harbour, there were dozens of reasons to be in WW2 - the humanitarian tragedies perpetrated by the Nazi regime, the fact that every single American ally was waist-deep in *****, and the fact that it was pretty clear Hitler had little intention of just having Europe.
- Micetro, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1WW1 was optional as well and we lost 100 times as many men in the same amount of time. the civil war was also optional but in 5 years we lost almost 700,000. so ur a complete retard saying it was optional almost every war is optional, even ww2. The reason we went to war in ww2 was because of Pearl Harbor and wat around 3,000 men died that day, wait, 3000 wasnt that the same amount during 911! wow amazing!!
- vertinox, on 03/24/2008, -1/+9Actually the low rate of death is due to improvements in medical technology. The casualty rate is much much higher. In fact those numbers they don't tell us are quite large for the soldiers who were injured so badly they cannot return to duty.
- biotch, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5Agreed, thankfully its lower than the death rate during Vietnam and Korea. Part of the reason the death toll is much lower is because of advances in protective gear. So instead of dying they might lose a limb or two but at least they stay alive.
"There have been about 15 soldiers wounded for every fatality in Iraq, compared with 2.6 per death in Vietnam and 2.8 in Korea."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23775470/
- nblsavage, on 03/24/2008, -9/+32How about the FACT that those lives should not have been lost in the first place.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -16/+32It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
- George S. Patton- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -16/+15To be used and betrayed for some other than nationalistic goal?
How many Americans that died in Iraq died protecting their country? In round numbers. Like a really, REALLY, round number. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -20/+13Given Saddam's proven links to terrorists, including Al Qaeda, and given his willingness to support any organization that would attack Americans, even the ones on the humanitarian mission to Somalia, I would say 100%.
http://digg.com/world_news/WSJ_com_Opinion_Saddam_ ...
"Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq's links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood."- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -10/+9Please, take your medications. You've been listening to government propaganda too long.
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -5/+5It's Bohica22. There's no mind there to medicate.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -7/+8Firstly - the only time Saddam was a force was when the US was funding him. He was, an AMerican made monster that had the audacity to not follow American rule. He was a prick, but he wasn't as much of a dangerous prick after having his machinery blown to *****. He wasn't capable of doing jack to America and everyone knows that - and the lies your masters have tried to serve, and you regurgitate, only demonstrate that he was innocent of these charges as he was innocent of the WMDs, the 9111 connections, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc and all the other charges laid prior to being discovered to be manufactured.
BTW - I am sure con men love you. Regardless on how many times a source has been caught lying, you'll still use it as a source. Stop paying attention to what people are saying and watch what they do - you and your elk have been sold a bad bill of goods a long time ago. - chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -5/+7NewsCorps' Wall Street Journal opinion page is "proof?"
Here's your sign....- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -5/+5How about reports based on 600,000 pages of documentation?
- cliffski, on 03/24/2008, -5/+5is that why donald rumsfeld went to baghdad to shake hands with saddam?
- biotch, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3sorry bud...
You havent been paying attention to the right sources. The 9/11 committee and now the PENTAGON has determined there was no such link. The only thing they could find was terror funding links aimed at targeting domestic threats dating from long before the 1991 invasion....(over 20 years ago).... and thats around the same time Reagan was caught selling weapons to Iran and using the proceeds to fund terrorists in Nicaragua in the Iran-Contra affair.
"The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
dated march 13, 2008
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -10/+9Please, take your medications. You've been listening to government propaganda too long.
- lasenorita, on 03/24/2008, -8/+8No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study
http://article.wn.com/view/2008/03/13/Pentagon_lim ...
"An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network."- ssn697, on 03/24/2008, -5/+4You didn't actually read the doc, did you? You just saved one sentence, and called it good.
I'll leave it to other to correct you. I am as ***** as the next guy that Bush ***** up this war so badly for the first four years, rather than letting military people run it. Pretending your one sentence tells the whole story is just plain stupid though. Shameful as well.- lasenorita, on 03/24/2008, -3/+3I apologize for not making my intentions more clear in the post. I was trying to point out the fact that there were no operational ties found between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's organization. Yes, Saddam did fund Palestinian terrorist groups, but he focused most of his energies on suppressing his own countrymen.
Contrary to what we were led to believe, there is no "bulletproof" evidence of close ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda — Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 —, nor is there proof that Saddam had WMDs. If you remember, those were the justifications that were used to go to war with Iraq which resulted in 4,000 of our men and women making the ultimate sacrifice.- ssn697, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2I don't recall Saddam being responsible for 9/11 EVER being one of the reasons we went in. I remember lots of UN resolutions being ignored, and the WMD claim.
Can you show me where we claimed he was responsible for 9/11, as justification for invasion? I missed that... - lasenorita, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Polls in the run-up to the war had about 45% of Americans believing that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the Sept. 11 attacks. While President Bush may not have outright said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, he and other members of his administration certainly tried their hardest to link the two. In fact, in his letter to Congress on March 18, 2003, President Bush stated the following:
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. - ssn697, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1"Polls in the run-up to the war had about 45% of Americans believing that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the Sept. 11 attacks."
Polls with people believing it, and it being something the Bush Administration actually CLAIMED (as you said) are two WAY different things. I never thought Saddam was involved with 9/11, and never heard anyone saying it. Yes, I heard people using the two together, to make people THINK about both, but that is still different than your first claim that it was used as justification.
What I head a WHOLE lot was how many UN sanctions Saddam was ignoring, AND a ton of people talking WMD's. No need to throw in a fallacious argument about Saddam being responsible for 9/11. - biotch, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3ssn697,
Some quick googling turned these up..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09 ...
"[Cheney] claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.i ...
""There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."
"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials.""
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic ...
"''There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there.""
FYI: Al Qaeda and Osama are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Linking Iraq to Al Qeada in the context of defending a decision to invade Iraq is only relevant because it connects Iraq to 9/11.
- ssn697, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2I don't recall Saddam being responsible for 9/11 EVER being one of the reasons we went in. I remember lots of UN resolutions being ignored, and the WMD claim.
- biotch, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4Do tell ssn697,
Are you referring to the Palestine funding dating back to over 20 years ago? Back when Reagan was caught funding terrorists in Nicaragua using proceeds from selling weapons to Iran? If we were justified to invade a country on that contention, then other countries are justified to do the same to us.
One sentence wont ever tell the whole story, however if the PENTAGON reports that there was no Osama or Al Qaeda link, its a major blow to Bush's credibility about going into Iraq.
- lasenorita, on 03/24/2008, -3/+3I apologize for not making my intentions more clear in the post. I was trying to point out the fact that there were no operational ties found between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's organization. Yes, Saddam did fund Palestinian terrorist groups, but he focused most of his energies on suppressing his own countrymen.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -5/+7that article is inaccurate. First off, the title was based on a single leaked paragraph of the report, not the actual report. Secondly, as you may have noticed, the report was publicly released.
- lasenorita, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3If you'd like a copy of the actual report, you'll have to ask for it. The U.S. Joint Forces Command will mail copies of the documents on a CD to interested individuals. They canceled their plans to make the report publicly available online, as well as plans to have officials discuss it. Apparently, the conclusions found in the study were too 'politically sensitive'.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5You mean this report?
http://digg.com/politics/PDF_The_Military_s_Iraq_A ...
I have it as one of my Favorites.- lasenorita, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4If you'd like all five volumes of the study, I suggest you also add the following to the your favorites:
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html
- lasenorita, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4If you'd like all five volumes of the study, I suggest you also add the following to the your favorites:
- biotch, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3inaccurate? The Pentagon flat out denies any connection and you think its somehow inaccurate to believe thats what they meant?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1You are being misled by the left leaning media. That article was written BEFORE the report was released so how the hell would they know what was in it? Maybe you should try reading the actual report.
- ssn697, on 03/24/2008, -5/+4You didn't actually read the doc, did you? You just saved one sentence, and called it good.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -16/+15To be used and betrayed for some other than nationalistic goal?
- tarbaby10022, on 03/24/2008, -13/+40died for a lie
- RagdollOp, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Yeah to protect your stupid lie!
- Me1000, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Bush has already taken away my freedom, it is called the patriot act!
Bush said Iraq had WMDs and that is why we went in there! He lied, 4000 troops have died countless more civilians.
it is important that we NEVER forget the 'reason' we were told we went in there!
- Me1000, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Bush has already taken away my freedom, it is called the patriot act!
- RagdollOp, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Yeah to protect your stupid lie!
- jeremyduffy, on 03/24/2008, -7/+2As a community can we please be more aware of the picture that is selected for a post? Having a ditzy looking smirking guy on a story of 4000 dead soldiers seems a little out of place.
- WellDigga, on 03/24/2008, -17/+9Anyone forgot this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abeer_Qassim_Hamza
- saigumi, on 03/24/2008, -3/+6So, you are saying that every US soldier is a psychopath with a short fuse....
Quality. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -3/+5On November 15, 2006, Spc. Barker pleaded guilty to rape and murder as part of a plea agreement requiring him to give evidence against the other soldiers to avoid the death penalty. He was sentenced to 90 years in prison.
On January 22, 2007, Sgt. Cortez pleaded guilty to rape, conspiracy to rape, and four counts of murder as part of a plea deal to avoid the death penalty. Sgt. Cortez was sentenced to 100 years in prison
On August 3, 2007, Pfc. Spielman, 23, was sentenced to 110 years in prison.
PFC Steven Dale Green is currently still on trial. No plea bargain have been agreed to and he is facing the death penalty.- Typhoon2009, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1"On August 3, 2007, Pfc. Spielman, 23, was sentenced to 110 years in prison."
Ouch.
- Typhoon2009, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1"On August 3, 2007, Pfc. Spielman, 23, was sentenced to 110 years in prison."
- Micetro, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1it sounds like this surprises you?? In vietnam this happened alot to and i imagined it happened in almost every war, so theres no point to bring this up. if u brought up everthing that was bad during every war then every war would sound horrible and useless. STFU
- chicofaraby, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2"if u brought up everthing that was bad during every war then every war would sound horrible and useless"
Oh
My
God
- chicofaraby, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2"if u brought up everthing that was bad during every war then every war would sound horrible and useless"
- saigumi, on 03/24/2008, -3/+6So, you are saying that every US soldier is a psychopath with a short fuse....
- RealHyperX, on 03/24/2008, -16/+74000 lives sacrificed to make sure no terrorists attack us.
- phybere, on 03/24/2008, -6/+7Hardly sacrificed, they signed up for the military willingly.
The only ones we've sacrificed are the 100,000 Iraqi civilians that we've killed. - Waiting2awake, on 03/24/2008, -3/+9Could have just used my magic rock. Same difference, except for Americans being alive.
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -3/+124000 lives sacrificed to 1) steal Iraq's oil 2) serve our Israeli "ally" 3) enrich war profiteers 4) keep Americans in fear so that they will gladly give away their constitutional rights
- fuckinlogin, on 03/24/2008, -3/+9What the hell does Iraq have to do with terrorism?
What terrorists were there in Iraq BEFORE the invasion? - cliffski, on 03/24/2008, -5/+4you got the wrong country dude. the 9/11 bombers were saudis.
- diggstown, on 03/24/2008, -5/+2@f***inlogin and cliffski: You fail to make the leap in logic here. Just because 9/11 was not caused by terrorists associated with Iraq does not mean that making Iraq a front for the war doesn't cause terrorists to gravitate there instead of on US soil.
- phybere, on 03/24/2008, -6/+7Hardly sacrificed, they signed up for the military willingly.
- RationalXubrnce, on 03/24/2008, -4/+17 How many with life changing injuries?
- Onetrack, on 03/24/2008, -5/+13Nearly 30,000 injured
But don't worry, the Bush twins are fine. - tidu, on 03/24/2008, -4/+13How many committed suicide after their service?
How many died from their injuries in the hospital?
- Onetrack, on 03/24/2008, -5/+13Nearly 30,000 injured
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -11/+76Take it from an army combat medic, this number is a lie - the actual number is much higher.
The 4,000 are those who died before they got triage. If a soldier gets triage and then dies one minute later, he's listed with the wounded.
The army has been using FAST Stations (Forward Aid Stations) to triage soldiers as quickly as possible to keep the KIA count as low as possible. I'd be very curious to see how many of those listed as 'wounded' are living and breathing.
Stop this insane occupation NOW! There was never a victory condition, so this will be a toilet to flush American lives and dollars down until it ENDS.- JointVenture, on 03/24/2008, -18/+6***** ***** *****.
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -5/+15Nice argument, troll.
- jerger23, on 03/24/2008, -5/+9From your profile: "I like to play games, smoke herbs and explore the Internet."
You're just the kind of 'Doc' I'd want working on me...- GhostyBoy, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7That's ***** stupid that you try to discredit someone because they smoke weed or surf the internet.
- jerger23, on 03/24/2008, -5/+4Since you put it so eloquently; I will discredit someone who states their role as a combat medic who also 'smokes herbs' (he didn't say weed). I don't care if a combat medic surfs the web, but if I were in a unit with a combat medic smoking 'herbs', I'd pull him from his slot and bring him up under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) if any of those 'herbs' were in violation of civil or military codes, laws, or regulations.
- GhostyBoy, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7That's ***** stupid that you try to discredit someone because they smoke weed or surf the internet.
- biotch, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Why dont you go to the media with that info and publicize it?
- SwedishNinja, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Subtle troll is subtle.
- JointVenture, on 03/24/2008, -18/+6***** ***** *****.
- mrzack, on 03/24/2008, -12/+25Sheeple flying the flag like they lost they mind,
marines be recruiting at malls overtime.
High school grads get tricked fo' the ride,
fighting and bleeding for oil 'till they die.
Rich white men sit and sipping they wine,
military industrial complex profits over the line.
Bombshells from warhawks fly over the sky,
Iraqi women and babies cry and cry.
Depleted uranium now plaguing they lands,
Bush and Neocons got blood on they hands.
Blackwater private army killing in Iraq.
water boarding and rape be the new rules on the block,
The U.S. constitution is under attack!
What i gotta do to wake ya'll up,
that congress and George W are all corrupt.
We the ones that be paying fo' this war,
while elderly got no medicine they can afford
Give tax cuts to the rich and the big business',
the poor go hungry during Christmas's.
The U.S. dollar in free fall and collapsing,
just like how bombs were planted in the WTC buildings.
Corporate media be lying again and again,
next country we invading could be Iran.
Somebody better explain why no one will hire,
why I'll get no social security when I retire.- JointVenture, on 03/24/2008, -6/+3Lets see, high school kids are dumb enough to be tricked into the Armed services but smart enough to discuss economics and foreign policy on digg?
- GhostyBoy, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4It appears, good sir, that your post is made completely of win.
- hurt911gen, on 03/24/2008, -4/+8"The U.S. dollar in free fall and collapsing,
just like how bombs were planted in the WTC buildings."
People who dugg you must have missed those lines. - SwedishNinja, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3"why I'll get no social security when I retire."
Because more less people will be paying into the program than are taking benefits from it by the time you retire. It's quite simple, really.
- x1soundgarden1x, on 03/24/2008, -4/+17OK everybody! I'll see you all at the 5,000 milestone! Until then, let's all go back to 1) not caring about the war and 2) the media only spending 3% of its airtime for the month of February reporting on the war and 3) No one reporting on the 30,000 wounded US soldiers or 200,000+ Dead IRAQIS (everyone knows 4,000 US lives are worth reporting whereas hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis are not) 4) Republican and racist Democrat idiots choosing to support McCain despite it being against their economic interests and guaranteeing 100 years of more war! Whew yeah! We'll hit that 10,000 milestone in no time! USA USA!!!
- stevenbn, on 03/24/2008, -36/+8Meanwhile, there have been almost 10,000,000 (10 million) abortions in the US since the war started.
- lhbaker, on 03/24/2008, -4/+16Damn, the military could really use those babies.
- notzak, on 03/24/2008, -6/+7...and?
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -5/+20No one dies in an abortion.
Try to post on topic.- Syphon8, on 03/24/2008, -9/+1This.
- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -6/+19i've got 10 million babies in my used tissue. wanna save it?
- futebollounge, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5last night i killed about that many sperm cells.
- DemonWasp, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1I can only hope it's more like 100-200 million, or there won't be many kids for you.
- futebollounge, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5last night i killed about that many sperm cells.
- birdly, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2How will the human race survive without them??
- rdubya44, on 03/24/2008, -17/+7Only 2,740 people died on 9/11....
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -14/+8And they died at the hands of those who planted demolitions charges in the towers. Demons are real.
- hurt911gen, on 03/24/2008, -5/+3I hope you choke on something as you are reading this reply.
- overtoke, on 03/24/2008, -5/+5Those people were murdered, Victims of a corporate crime.
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -14/+8And they died at the hands of those who planted demolitions charges in the towers. Demons are real.