8 G.I.’s Die in Baghdad, Most in a Day Since ’05
Eight United States soldiers were killed Monday in Baghdad, the United States military said, the most in the capital in a day since July 2005.
Four of the soldiers died in a roadside bomb attack; the four others were killed by small-arms fire in separate incidents.
Monday’s loss also represented one of the highest nationwide death
tolls for American troops in the past year. In late August, nine
soldiers and a marine were killed in a day. But before that, the last
time eight or more soldiers were killed in hostile action was last
November.
"Stay the course", they say.
It scares the crap out of me every time I read about this. I have three cousins all in various stages of deployment: one now back at Fort Benning after a tour in Anbar province, one flying recon right now and one in preparation for departure into the theater in Afghanistan. They are all great kids and I hope to see them all back home in one piece.
My heart goes out to those families whose sons and daughters won’t be coming home.
You’re either with the GOP wankers, or you’re with the terrorists.
Bin Laden certainly wants us to stay the course. Bush’s incompetence has been Bin Laden’s greatest asset.
Does anyone ever think that maybe bin Laden is hiding somewhere watching American TV and laughing at us?
Honestly, were I a crackpot bent on the demise of the US I probably would be rolling around on the floor in fits of giggles over the incompitence displayed by our current administration.
I feel horrible for our troops. It makes me physically sick to think about the precarious situation thousands of our bravest men and women are in because of these people.
Honestly. This is idiotic. if you are a pacifist and oppose ALL wars, fine. Otherwise, if you selectively oppose this war because of the death rate and not others, you are a moral and intelelctual idiot. Keep in mind, the overall death rate was higher under Saddam. Keep in mind the US casualty rate is much, much lower than Vietnam, Korea etc.
Keep in mind progressives use each announced US death as a domestic political weapon.
And, yeah, stay the frappin’ course. You got it, bozo.
Dugger, At Your Service
“Otherwise, if you selectively oppose this war because of the death rate and not others, you are a moral and intelelctual idiot.”
No. If a war is justified and sold to the people honestly we can handle the casualties as a necessary evil. So again, no. No. No. Why do you have to be told this? Why do you not think of these things on your own? It’s so elementary it hurts. These are the things that should be assumed and accepted by both sides in a debate so that serious questions can be addressed and time not wasted on correcting 3rd grade-level errors in logic and comprehension. Why is it so hard for conservatives to make distinctions? Why do you set up straw men? Why? Don’t you get sick of your own simplistic way of thinking. Don’t you get sick of having to embarass yourself (like I’m sure you will when you respond to this comment) trying to justify your simplistic way of thinking with nonsensical or irrelevant bullshit? At what point does humility enter the discussion and at what point to you just f-ing give up?
Dugger,
I won’t disagree with you, but I have lost track of things in my absence. Are we supposed to compare this to Vietnam, or are we supposed to NOT compare this to Vietnam…sorry to sound like a smart aleck, but it seems that this meme changes depending on how someone wants to develop their argument for or against the war.
Hey, Smith! Long time! How you?
Dugger, if you could point to any sign of progress in Iraq over the last year you might have a point. ‘Holding our own’ against an insurgency while the social fabric of Iraq is torn to shreds does not breed confidence that we are accomplishing anything over there while more Americans die everyday.
1) Leaving gives the terrorists a victory.
2) Staying gives the terrorists a victory.
QED?
Dugger’s revealed the GOP’s new slogan!
Iraq: a less sticky tarbaby than Vietnam!
“Keep in mind progressives use each announced US death as a domestic political weapon.”
As opposed to the use of them by Republicans (and Lieberman)to support their war by framing opposition to the war as not supporting the soldiers. Just shut up.
Death rate in iraq was higher under saddam?
This is not true. The guy who said that is a malicious liar.
Facts never matter to Dugger and his ilk.
Wonder if bin Laden will issue a new video a week before the election to bolster the GOP again?
Murder rates are far lower in Amish country than in Baghdad. By Dugger’s logic, Bush should go down to that schoolhouse and declare victory.
Its gotta be hard on Dugger when the headlines intrude on his fantasyland like that.
I’m a pacifist and oppose all wars. Especially this one because it falls into a category with Vietnam and WWI as especially pointless.
DK, Depends on what you are talking about. Here the topic was US casualties, so obviously any other war, major combat operation serves as a comparator – as far as casualties are concerned.
Outer space (MJB), You are wrong. If you take all the deaths under Saddam – gernocide of the Kurds, Iran/Iraq war, executions, etc- and factor them out to a per-year rate and then use a middlin’ estimate of total Iraq casualties (IBC) since the war, then Saddam was worse. My advice is do your research before you call names – but then not everyone is so intellectually and morally certain as you.
frame, No problema, amigo. The vote on the constitution – Oct 15 last year.
Now, who’s next?
Nimrod,
Your history is 50% IMO.
Dugger, I never said anything about your asinine comparison b/w saddam and now. I said you were simple minded for making specious arguments which you know are foolish merely to take the focus off the real issue. That real issue? Why some oppose this war, but not necessarily all wars. I suppose you’re standing by your genius analysis that the only morally correct position is either to oppose all wars or support all wars.
“Now, who’s next?”
Nothing more irritating than an arrogant ignoramus. Acting like he adequately addressed all comers and showed them to be fools. I’m begging you to explain to me why I’m wrong, but I guess since you threw my tag inside some parens while addressing someone else’s criticism means you dealt with it. I will admit, I am not emotionally mature enough to suffer you gladly, and I hope I never am.
There has never been a word in the English language for a person who is both a morally bankrupt idiot and has delusions of grandeur. Now there is. It’s a “DUGGER.”
MJB, Perhaps its the timing of the posts. Outer space said the death rate was not higher under Saddam, engaging in some juvenile name calling while doing so. You chimed in next post that “facts never matter” to me. Well, we can pretty much document that Saddam was more murderous. Is it my fault that you chose to “me too” a hot headed, uninformed poster?
As to wars in general, I did not say/do not believe that one must oppose all or support all wars. Merely (in effect) that opposition to this war (and all other wars)on broad pacifistic principals is at least intellectually/morally consistent whereas opposition to this war on the basis of the level of carnage (for wars and major military operations) is idiotic. I stick by that. This war, is much less deadly than Vietnam, Korea etc. To say nothing of WWI or WWII. Don’t you hate logic?
Its amusing to see that the best anyone can do around here (few exceptions) is just catcall when confronted with ideas. They must be frightened. Maybe chanting OWs 57 posts on the RPS will make you feel more secure.
Count Dugger: OOOOH Kids! Its a big scary world out there with different ideas and thoughts to confront. Better close your minds and stay indoors.
Dugger | Oct 5, 2006 10:22:56 AM
“Count Dugger: OOOOH Kids! Its a big scary world out there with different ideas and thoughts to confront. Better close your minds and stay indoors.”
Where we wait with Dugger for years before deeming death and lack of progress as a possible strategic failure of invasion.
George Bush must be the worst president against terrorism according to Dugger, because each year of his administration, more Americans die through terrorism than any other president. 1000+ Americans lost each year to the war on terrorism. And he likes to argue Americans are safer.
As a matter of fact, Bush is the only president with an average body count that reaches 100+ a year.
Incidently, there have been about 7500 security coalition deaths in Iraq.
Some additional points for Dugger. People are upset at the deaths of our troops because we have made little or no progress and it is a war we have no business fighting in the first place. In other words it’s a complete Bush clusterfuck.
Second additional point Dugger, if you are pointing to the Iraqi constitution that sets the groundwork for Iraq to become an Iran-style Islamic republic we have to go back to what the fuck are we doing there in the first place.
Pay attention Midder.
frame aid
“Dugger, if you could point to any sign of progress in Iraq”
which is what I did.
And I don’t vouch for your statistics, but to be complete, I argue we are safer since 9-11 and Bush, who tricked a whole bunch of evidently dumber Democrats in supporting a war they really didn’t want to support, gets the credit – like it or not.
And yes S, life and the ever-changing situation in the world is complex and very few of us can predict, relaibly, what will happen in Iraq, the mideast and the world five years now. If you have a way and can definitely prove the neocon’s projections wrong, would like to know about it. I need help on some horse races. Otherwise the arrogance and juvenile certainty seems a little misplaced. But if you can foretell the future and can prove it, I will apologize.
I am using your standard of statistics which is a lump sum averaged for the term. It should therefore be conclusive to YOU that Bush is the worst president against terrorism.
When we asked for a sign of progress, we meant one favorable to us and our troops, not signs of progress favorable to Iran.
Dugger apparently forgets what congress was told by Bush. That he needed the authorization to go to war to force Hussein into inspections and compliance, all of which Bush got before he invaded anyway. In other words, most of those Democrats that you say supported the war, did so conditionally (conditions that were met so war was unnecessary) and never supported the war as Bush prosecuted it.
Have the Neocons been right in any aspects of the Iraq occupation? No. Met with flowers? no. Pay for itself? No. 6 months? No. Mission Accomplished? No. Milestone after Milestone? No. Their record speaks for itself. If you do horse races Dugger, do you bet on the horse that loses every race, who is going up against horses that have beaten it time and time again? Your wallet must be empty.
There few reasons to oppose a war other than the carnage. As some point the carnage can become too much for someone to justify. You are essentially saying that the costs can never outweight the benefits. By not recognizing that, you are saying one can only support or oppose war, per se. Again, when a war is justified and sold honestly, it is easier to support it and accept the consequences. I love logic.
Yes, MJB, there are plenty of reasons to oppose wars, including carnage. And I am not saying that costs cannot outweigh benefits. Each needs to be assessed individually. I’m merely injecting historical realism into the carnage-centrist argument here. I remind you that a majority of Dems and Repubs voted for war and I’m betting they knew that war entails carnage. Then, since this war/military action has much less carnage than other major conflicts, carnage, per se, should not be a unique or even central point against this war. Thus the whole shtick here of taking every loss of life in Iraq and making it a political point against Bush is -well- not very smart or very moral – unless it is applied to all wars/military actions.
Hey Midder, talk to progressive John Edwards. He doesn’t call it a ‘compliance vote’. he doesn’t call it an ‘inspection vote’. He calls it a ‘war vote’. Wonder why???
And the military surely “accomplished their mission.”
There you go lying again Dugger. The majority of Republicans and Democrats did not vote for this war. Bush himself said numerous times both before that vote and after that the decision to go to war hadn’t been made yet. Of course, he was lying too. Anyway you look at it, it was Bush’s responsibility, Bush’s failures and Bush’s inability to adapt that is killing our troops.
Now Bush is stuck on some ineffective course, unwilling to change it as our soldiers die, and each time one dies, it just points out exactly how incompetent Bush’s strategy (or lack of) is and how dishonest and unnecessary the invasion was in the first place.
John Edwards:
“Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told — and what many of us believed and argued — was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda…
The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president — and that I was being given by our intelligence community — wasn’t the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war…
George Bush won’t accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.”
Why is it, using your standards, statistics and sources we usually end up with the opposite of what you argue?
And thank you for coming around and admitting the military should be brought home, Dugger.
“Thus the whole shtick here of taking every loss of life in Iraq and making it a political point against Bush is -well- not very smart or very moral – unless it is applied to all wars/military actions.”
No. Even one death in the furtherance of this immoral war would be too many. Why does there have to 59,000 american deaths before we can say they are dying in vain for a lie? You keep wanting to combine two separate issues and I won’t let you.
You can make a case against this war, but I don’t see it as immorality – unless you think all wars are immoral. For starters: More would die under Saddam. Saddam was unarguably an evil man. Democracy is good. And not a single lie has been documented.
So Midder you are saying the war vote that Edwards speaks of, that Bush speaks of, that major news outlets spek of, was not a war vote and that any one who says it was a war vote is a big, bad liar. What a child!
WASHINGTON Nov 25, 2005 (AP)— “Three years ago, Massachusetts congressmen Martin Meehan, Stephen Lynch and Edward Markey bucked their state Democratic colleagues and cast votes to give President Bush a green light to go to war in Iraq. ”
Chuckle.
“Democracy is good. And not a single lie has been documented.”
At this point, there’s no use. Dozens of lies have been documented. You should know that. But stay willfully ignorant.
You finally, and predictably, fell back into “Why are you pro-terrorist?” mode. Game over. Pointless.
D*mn. ALone and victorious on the playing field again. I’m going to have to start charging Rove more for these posts. Or maybe I can finagle a second torture franchise.
Dugger, why don’t you start putting together that list of all the things the Bush administration claimed about Iraq that turned out to be true.
Dugger when you address points, you might be able to claim victory but :
“Dugger apparently forgets what congress was told by Bush. That he needed the authorization to go to war to force Hussein into inspections and compliance, all of which Bush got before he invaded anyway. In other words, most of those Democrats that you say supported the war, did so conditionally (conditions that were met so war was unnecessary) and never supported the war as Bush prosecuted it.”
No way around it, Bush & Co. lied to get a war resolution, and that is my point you keep failing to address. Read the resloution, WMDs WMDs, Need to remove the threat of WMDs. Whereas and etc, WMDs. What was that? No threat from Hussein, no valid reason for war.
He really thinks he “won”. And really thinks it about “winning”.
Besides which, no Democrat shares the responsibility for Bush completely failing to garner international support, for Bush not sending enough troops, for Bush failing to make any plans for the occupation, for Bush making the decision to go to war in the face of the lack of WMDs, for Bush failing to adapt for 3 years to the deteriorating situation on the ground.
So yes, every time a soldier dies, it falls on Bush. If he had sent enough troops to provide security for Iraq, our casualties would have been and would be far less. If he hadn’t gone to war, our casualties would be non-existent. The list goes on.
Bush’s Blunder.
If the mission is accomplished as you claim, why do you object to people wanting the soldier’s brought home?
“Bush completely failing to garner international support, ”
The increasingly obscene and shrill midder made this ridiculous assertion. I bet even his progressive buddies are embarrassed. Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, et al are really US states and their participation doesn’t count as international. Or maybe like “lying” (something Bush says that makes progressives feel uncomfotable ),
‘international’ has a special hate-Bush meaning.
You shouldn’t make it so easy for me. I suggest learning some stuff or getting a grown up to help you debate.
You gotta be kidding Dugger. Why don’t you dig up the numbers of the first Iraq war and compare the numbers to what Bush put together. What is it we shouldered 85%+ of both the cost and troops vs. what exactly.
Did the UN support the current war?
Did NATO?
that money must be rolling in, the war must be paying for itself. No?
If you really want to debate something Dugger you have to have a grounding in reality, little boy.
I forgot Poland.
Poland, H*ll! You forgot about the entire frappin’ coalition. And you seem to be conceding that Iraq is safer since Bush ‘Mission Accomplished’.
My work is done here.
Without looking it up, how many of the coalition members can you name? Anyone?
Let’s see how I do.
France
Afghanistan
Uzbekistan
Poland
South Korea
Australia
Britain
Germany
Micronesia
Costa Rica
South Africa
Luxembourg
Pakistan
I know there were 49 members but damn, I wonder what aid they provided?
US and Britain furnished 98% of the military with Australia and Poland furnishing the last 2% I think. Must have been money. Screw it let’s look it up.