home

U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 09:24:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The death toll for U.S. soldiers in Iraq has reached 1,500.

Freeway Blogger should be on the move soon. Background here.

< House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill | Real ID Act: A Bad Bill for Human Rights >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 | 73 comments (73 topical)
    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 09:59:02 AM EST
    Only the dead have seen the end of the war. Plato

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    I think of the question "was all this worth it"...and I think only 1500 or so families are qualified to answer that question on this side of the ocean, and thousands more on the other side.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    "Since May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 1,362 U.S. military members have died, according to AP's count..."
    more died in the ensuing occupation than the acutal war(sic). a more telling number is the total wounded and/or maimed. the cost of spreading democracy steadily rising.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:42:27 AM EST
    Put in perspective, more than twice that many WW2 vets die EVERY DAY. More Americans die in car wrecks every two days. Twice that many American babies are aborted every day. Personally, I cannot believe the number is so low. I predicted 150,000 deaths when we started this war. It ain't over yet.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    kdog - Good point. Shall I go ask one of my aunt's if WWII was worth it? She lost a husband. How about the old guy down the road, he lost his father. How about an uncle? He was wounded, had a plate in his skull, and had severe chronic headaches. You know, I have never heard them complain. aNOn_n - The purpose is not to "spread democracy." The purpose is to spread democracy in the belief that spreading democracy will halt terrorism, and the attacks on the US that escalated up and until 9/11, and our response at that point. That's the purpose. Pre-emptive war. We know what happens when you do nothing.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    That's the purpose. Pre-emptive war. We know what happens when you do nothing.
    engaging you further would be futile; you have been assimilated!

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:36:50 AM EST
    I'm not surprised Jim...WWII was a just war for a just cause. My grandfathers never complained either. The highest sacrifice has and will be taken willingly when the reasons are right. But Iraq ain't it babe.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:37:48 AM EST
    it is the lowest casualty by an major war standard
    Since May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended...
    what war are you referencing? the 1,362 deaths have occured in the ensuing occupation. a more accurate comparison would be how many died in the ensuing occupation of germany/japan etc., further were talking @ 1.5/2 yrs, when this occupation drags out 5/10 yrs the human cost will be staggering. least we forget the civilians dead, 100,000+ and counting. oh, that's not your concern. my bad.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:46:31 AM EST
    Only when the people in the military and their families decide that enough is enough will this war end. For now...they support Bush, his cause and his actions and they are willing to sacrifice themselves and loved ones to that end. Who are we to tell them they are wrong? The liberals (and I am one), look foolish feeling sorry for the soldiers when the soldiers themselves want to be there (see Election Results). I am sorry for the 1500 dead but this is a war the military support overwhelmingly and I would rather use my protest energiies elsewhere. The soldiers do not want OUR support.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:48:27 AM EST
    The highest sacrifice has and will be taken willingly when the reasons are right.
    hear, hear. and reemphasize sacrifice willingly. btw: you reps here may be all willing to send your sons/daughters off to fight perpetual war, but they aint buying it.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:59:08 AM EST
    aNOn_n, Let me give you a little bit of perspective. Between May and Nov of 1918 we lost 100,000 boys in France - Averaged out at over 14,000 per month. Between 1942 & 1945 we lost 300,000 or over 7,000 per month. Our actions in Irak, are nothing but another campaign in The Global War on Terror; or have we all forgotten the President's speech of Sept 16th, 2001. Last thing I heard, this war is still ongoing. I guess that you'd prefer for us to unilaterally, give up and call it a day. In my book, that is called unilateral surrender.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    Let me give you a little bit of perspective.
    more accurate: Let me give you a little bit of my perspective.
    President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended...
    i did not say the war (combat operations) ended!!! i guess most(some, whatever) people, i included, naively equate the end of combat operations with the end of killing/bloodshed. that would seem the message the president was conveying/implying. i kinda equate the whole landing on the destroyer with the surrender of japan (on a ship) and all that.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:18:55 PM EST
    aNOn_n Yes in deed, your perspective needs a little bit of education.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:23:35 PM EST
    Bush will go down as one of the most brilliant foreign policy Presidents ever. His legacy will be celebrated in Middle Eastern countries for years to come.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#16)
    by Patrick on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    Hard to argue with a person who quotes Star Trek.... "you have been assimilated!" Wow, that's what too much TV will do to you.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:26:31 PM EST
    but your perspective would be of no use to me. more inclined to free/open thought, not party dogma/rhetoric as your frequent post display. exercise your brain free of any predispositions and you may garner an understanding of the concerns the left have with the current admins policies and procedures. your blind trust is misplaced and misguided. to engage you further would be futile, you have been assimilated!

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    Patrick at March 3, 2005 01:23 PM
    and the chorus chimes in.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    And what exactly is this weeks reason why these brave kids/men have died? WMDs, nukes, kill muslims, stamp out radical Islam, avenge 9/11, promote democracy,...????

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    It is hard to keep track soc. It seems many conservatives take the "we can trust Uncle Sam" approach, which I find odd since they have misled us since the very beginning of this war.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    This week's reason, and every week's reason, Soccerdad, is keeping you and your soccerkids asses alive, today, and for years to come. Your soccerkids should thank their lucky stars someone with enough vision and guts was President during their most dangerous childhood. The Middle East is becoming one giant lovefest, and it's all due to Bush. So please, spare me with your "what was this week's reason" nonsense, and just say, thank you President Bush.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    The ME is a bloodbath, you liar. What a day for the $Republican Party. You've killed 100,000 civilians, 1,500 of our best GIs, thousands of GIs have had their arms and legs blown off -- AND NOT ONE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NOT ONE SHELL, NOT ONE GRAM Give yourselves a round of applause. You set out to betray your country and our troops: Mission Accomplished.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    Jim: "We know what happens when you do nothing." Yeah, we do. Planes can be hijacked and flown into buildings. $500 BILLION annual military budget, but on 911 only TWO fighter jets fielded by our entire military machine. TWO. That's hard work. And while the POTUS cowers in a Florida elementary school, from his guilt, he hatches a plan to profit from their deaths.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:38:23 PM EST
    The Middle East is becoming one giant lovefest
    You can't make this stuff up!! Unintentional Comedy Rating 9.2. Unless that post was satire...then great job.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    anon at 2:07 WOW.... Where do you get this stuff from? Or is kdog right... it was meant as satire... in which case I second his "great job"

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 02:53:09 PM EST
    Democratic (to some degree) elections currently: Afganistan Iraq Lebanon Egypt Saudi Arabia Palestine Pre-Bush. None of the above. The guy's a freakin hero. He's Regan all over again. And if you had your way, none of the above would have occurred. You can recognize it now, or just sound more stupid as days go on. Even the f'in NY Times is starting to ackowledge his brillance.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#27)
    by john horse on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:07:24 PM EST
    If a war is being fought for light and transient reasons even the loss of one life is too many. It was wrong to send our young men and women to die for lies. It is wrong to occupy a country against the wishes of its citizens. It is wrong to impose any system of government on other people. It is wrong to use police state tactics, including torture, against people. We should honor the 1500 Americans killed in Iraq by cutting the bs. Bush's real goal in Iraq is not the dog and pony show about creating democracy. Its about getting out without being perceived as losing the war.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#28)
    by soccerdad on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:08:26 PM EST
    The Middle East is becoming one giant lovefest,
    My vote for the funniest line of the year. Let me give the wingbats a clue. Saddam had elections. If the ME were to have truly open and free elections, there would be Islamic states from Iran to SA, all united about their religion controlling a large portion of the earth's oil and hating our guts. So in one sense you better hope the elections were not open and free, most of which were not. But its ok because Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about democracy see Ubekestan and Ven. And by the way we don't have a democracy either because if we did we would have a vote on the war and the troops would be leaving the next day. God it must be wonderful to be completely ignorant as to the world around you. That way you can just wave the flag and go rah rah rah and not understand whats coming.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    MB is full of BS

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#30)
    by soccerdad on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:20:30 PM EST
    I think that all the wing nuts who are waving the flag should be forced to clean bed pans at a VA hospital for a year as well as visit 100 families of those who have died. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Every life is extremely precious. You do not just throw them away for no good reason. If the soldier's life is not precious then none of our lives are. These men have died believing in their country, but they were lied to as to why they had to fight. To people like Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz and Bush soldiers are just like pieces on a big geopolitical game board. But to a lot of other people they were dads, moms, brothers and sisters, frieends,.... What did they die for? Did they have to die? Was there any other way? I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. -- Dwight David Eisenhower some times war is a necessary evil. This wasn't one of those times.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:36:47 PM EST
    That is what you get when you follow the leader, think out of the box, think a new nation with ideas. sad for all the people who have been killed for bush and business and for all the families and kids, don't be fooled a new saddam is being made right now, and our nation is being killed by our real enemy. Long live the real American ideals.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    Being a veteran of the first Gulf War myself and if I were still in the military, I would not hesitate a minute to go back if I was called upon. So why don't all you whiney cowards like, Soccermom and some clown in L.A. refer to Deannas post and stop your crying.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#33)
    by roy on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    It is wrong to occupy a country against the wishes of its citizens.
    Were the Taliban and Saddam's government in place with the people's wishes? If the "insurgents" get their way and take control of Iraq, will it be with the people's wishes?
    It is wrong to impose any system of government on other people.
    The Taliban imposed its government in Afghanistan. Saddam did the same in Iraq. Now Iraqis are getting to pick their system of government, and the "insurgents" would rather murder them than let them pick. We're letting the people pick.
    It is wrong to use police state tactics, including torture, against people.
    The Taliban and Saddam's government used this tactics. Now the "insurgents" are, a lot. They directed them against the people on the streets, the Abdul Six Packs of the region. We direct them against people we at least think are murderers. We're not perfect in this respect, but we're far less vile than what we kicked out.
    I think that all the wing nuts who are waving the flag should be forced to clean bed pans at a VA hospital for a year as well as visit 100 families of those who have died.
    Should those who say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq spend a year living under Saddam's old rules? Should they visit 100 famlies of Kurds who were gassed?
    Some times war is a necessary evil. This wasn't one of those times.
    True. There weren't any WMD in Iraq. The preemptive war probably didn't preempt anything at all. But our troops are over there, and the result so far is a thing worth doing, so let's finish. We're spending other people's lives to do it, and that's hypocritical, but ask the soldiers if they think it's worth it.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 04:09:25 PM EST
    but ask the soldiers if they think it's worth it.
    you presume the answer will support your rantings. don't take the poll with cnn cameras identifying individuals. have you talked to any soldiers home for leave or such from iraq, i have, what you presume is not what i'm hearing. your most likely response: rep dogma/rhetoric: oh, they're disgruntled, lefties anyway, just in the army to make a living, didn’t really expect a war/conflict, and didn’t they know that’s what soldiers do.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 05:54:11 PM EST
    Narius, ...why aren't we going after N Korea. One Word: China The Chinese, have made it VERY clear that it requires a buffer between themselves and us. That's the reason why they intevened in Korea in '50-'53, and gave its full support to North Vietnam during the 60's.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 05:54:48 PM EST
    The above was mine

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:03:06 PM EST
    "Posted by at March 3, 2005 06:54 PM Narius, "...why aren't we going after N Korea." Because it is the only justification for the billion(s) dollar Starwars boondoggle. "The Chinese, have made it VERY clear that it requires a buffer between themselves and us. That's the reason why they intevened in Korea in '50-'53, and gave its full support to North Vietnam during the 60's." The Chinese intervened in Korea when MacArthur violated his orders and invaded N. Korea, with the intention of continuing into Manchuria. China supported N. Vietnam because the US and France had made clear their intentions of invading S. China. And the historical revisionist with no name gets an F.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:06:38 PM EST
    "AND NOT ONE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NOT ONE SHELL, NOT ONE GRAM" Ironic that while GWB adapts to the evolving situation, Paul remains a rigid idealogue. An intriguing role reversal from the leftist stereotype. "our nation is being killed by our real enemy." Sorry, Fred. Fifth column though your crowd is, methinks thou flatters thyself overmuch. "but your perspective would be of no use to me.." That is very evident. Anon, Raab and Soc seem to prefer the recieved orthodoxy. You leftists are a laughable lot, wearing your stubborn ignorance like a crown.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:07:05 PM EST
    "Posted by Narius: "No one knows for sure that there are no WMDs." No one knows for sure there aren't nukes under your bed. Shall we bomb your house, just to be 'safe'? " There are indications that there are." There are NO indications that Hussein had any kind of a nuclear program. "Would you like to take the chance of a mushroom cloud over a major US city?" What makes you think that won't happen? Attacking countries that have no nuclear program doesn't make us safer from nuclear weapons. "I am glad the President did not." Then you are a racist. Shall we nuke Israel? They might decide to use their nukes at any moment. How about nuking Pakistan? After all, they nearly started a nuclear war with India last year, and their scientists gave nuclear secrets and materials to BOTH N. Korea and Iran.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:07:54 PM EST
    Mer 3, 7:06pm ast post mine, as if the regulars didn't know.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:08:53 PM EST
    This time FOR SURE! Last 2 posts mine.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    "Posted by (Bos...?): "AND NOT ONE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NOT ONE SHELL, NOT ONE GRAM" "Ironic that while GWB adapts to the evolving situation, Paul remains a rigid idealogue." Stating facts is not rigidity nor ideology. "You leftists are a laughable lot, wearing your stubborn ignorance like a crown." "AND NOT ONE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NOT ONE SHELL, NOT ONE GRAM" Facts, not war for profit. Facts, like the 1,502 dead GIs, killed by Bush for a $300 Billion slushfund.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#44)
    by roy on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:18:08 PM EST
    "I am glad the President did not." Then you are a racist.
    That's it, thread's over. Everybody go home. Let's try again when we hit 1600.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:30:50 PM EST
    kdog - Do you think it makes any difference to those in the fight? Let me tell you, it doesn't. That's why you can't say you support the troops, but not the war. They are one and the same. aNO_on - No argument, eh? Figures. All you can do is repeat what you're told. BTW - "a more accurate comparison would be how many died in the ensuing occupation of germany/japan etc.," Actually, you forget that in Germany and Japan, we had totally destroyed the infrastructure, to the point that even two years later there was real fear of mass starvation. And we made a point to quickly kill anyone who resisted, and we had killed every possible military person prior to surrender. We did not do that in Iraq. Makes a huge difference. Read some history before blathering about things you obviously know almost nothing about. SD - You know, I would guess that you have never done anything more dangerous than drive to work in heavy traffic. So spare me the hysterics. And yes, changing bedpans would be about your qualifications when it comes to things military. roy writes - "True. There weren't any WMD in Iraq. The preemptive war probably didn't preempt anything at all." roy, Read the David Kay's Report to Congress. It details a huge amount of "pre-emption." Specifically, it details Saddam's attempts to re-start WMD programs, especially long range missles. Paul In LA - And let's assume we scrambled a 100 jets.... and that we did it quick enough.. At what point would you shoot them down? And given that they were over heavily populared area between Boston and NYC, who would decide, kill the folks in CT or NYC? And you keep on using that 100,000 figure. If I remember some group made a claim that we had killed betwee 8,000 and 194,000. Perhaps you can link us to it. That way we can get a chuckle while figuring out their study was full of BS.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    PaulieLooLoo, How's your lithium this evening? May wanna pop another one to calm you down a wee bit. China did cross the Yellow River, once it saw that North Korea was just about wiped out of the map. For all his bluster, McArthur's Logistical Train made it impossible for him to cross into Manchuria. He was in no position to advance from the Yellow River Forward. A few of the UN's Forces did reach the River, and promptly dug in defensive positions. Their attack posture was done and over with. On Vietnam, we could have easily crossed the DMZ and rolled our armor straight into Hanoi. Yet we did not dare because China made it VERY clear that under no circumstances were we to venture north from the DMZ; otherwise they would march their PLA straight from Guangdong into Saigon. With this historical lesson in mind, and unless the Chinese accede to this, we are not to invade North Korea again.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:43:26 PM EST
    How many people on this thread are military? If the poor soldiers are paying such a terrible price as victims in all this, then why are they so overwhelmingly behind it? The flag wavers ARE paying the price. They're getting shot at while they're waving that flag, but they keep waving it nevertheless. They do it because they believe in our country. On 16 Feb, 40 GIs from Bagram AB, Afghanistan, volunteered to go 30 miles into the mountains socked in with snow to deliver enough food, blankets, clothes, and medical supplies for 2,700 people. Afghanistan is suffering its hardest winter in 10 years. People are dying up there from their homes collapsing under the snow. Parents are feeding their kids opium to help control the coughing. It's George W. Bush's military that's helping these people. It's Bush's military hospitals that are dealing with kids blown apart by Russian landmines. Go up into the mountains of Afghanistan, and you'll find kids running around in winter coats donated by American families and sent over to soldiers to distribute. The military is so solidly behind the war because it IS just. It's justified in the eyes of Afghans and Iraqis who are unbelievably grateful for what we're doing. I don't know if you've ever looked in the eyes of someone who's teared up because of the fact that what you're doing has turned his life around. It's humbling. But that doesn't make the news, because it's not sensational enough for the media. It would've been easy to look at Japan or Germany in 1946 and complain about conditions. These things take time.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:47:57 PM EST
    Ace: "You leftists are a laughable lot, wearing your stubborn ignorance like a crown." No-name: "Facts, not war for profit. Facts, like the 1,502 dead GIs, killed by Bush for a $300 Billion slushfund." Shall I put that down as a "small"?

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#49)
    by john horse on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 07:39:47 PM EST
    roy, Don't the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have the right to deal with their own problems in their own way? They may make mistakes and end of with despotic governments like Saddam or the Taliban. They may end up fighting a bloody civil war. They may not run their country as well as we can run their country. However, we should remember this point. It is their country, not ours. The occupation of another country is a violation of our values. The use of police state tactics is a violation of our values. The fact that other countries have done it is not an excuse. As they say in the South, just because everyone else has gone to the devil doesn't mean that you have to follow.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#50)
    by Adept Havelock on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    Boquisucio- I'm guessing you may not have run across it before, but another one of the main reasons China invaded Korea was the fact that in (I believe, don't have the ref. at my fingertips) fall 1950 (about the time Pyongyang fell), Douglas McArthur requested and received the deployment to Guam of one of the only nuclear-capable bomber squadrons that SAC could field. As I recall he had publicly stated (after the deployment) that he would use them to support a Manchurian Offensive if HE believed it became necessary. Thank providence that Harry had the codes. I believe China would have come across the border even without him running his mouth, but it still had to be a strategic factor in the Chinese decision. Correct. The troops were in a defensive posture at the Yalu. The offensive would have come in the Late Spring if Dougie had got his way. He was as nuts as Patton wanting to take on the Russians in 1945 (outnumbered 20-1, and at the time w/out knowing of the atom bomb). Crazy SOB's! The Crazy SOB's we needed and were lucky to have help carry us through WW2, though. You speak Truth. China wants N. Korea as a buffer. Especially a buffer that paranoid and repressive. I also believe they make a good "captive market" for certain elements of the Chinese economy.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 08:11:14 PM EST
    Whoa, John. Male life expectancy in Afghanistan is 43 years. They're some of the poorest people I've ever seen. Let me tell you a true story: Recently a 2 year-old girl came into an Army hospital in Afghanistan because she'd fallen into the family fire and badly burned her legs. The Afghan doctor had limited resources and bandaged her up badly. By the time she came into the Army hospital, her legs were so badly infected they had to be amputated above the knee. As the family sat with their newly legless daughter, the doctor complained to an American present that the situation was heartbreaking. Why? Because daughters are typically regarded as little use except to marry off -- and no one would want to marry a legless woman. She'd be unable to help at home, too. So most likely the family would quit feeding her and let her starve to death in order to preserve resources for the rest of the family. Don't tell me we should just walk away and let these people take care of their own problems. They can't do it on their own.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#52)
    by BigTex on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:06:01 PM EST
    Soc - yer in rare flawed form tonight, Let me give the wingbats a clue. Saddam had elections. So does Castro, does that mean it was a real election. Saddam got 100% of the vote, which should tell you enough. I think that all the wing nuts who are waving the flag should be forced to clean bed pans at a VA hospital for a year as well as visit 100 families of those who have died. Well I watched my granfdather struggle with injuries from WWII all his life, and am watchin' an uncle waste away from God knows what was sprayed on him in th' hell called Vietnam. Will that work for you? Paul in LA - Of course we found WMDs. They were holdovers from earlier, but were present. That's not the type o' WMD that th' Sherrif feared and claimed was there, but th' Sherrif also did claim that not all o' th' old WMDs had been destroyed, which was correct. Also, Saddam did have a nuclear program, it was dormant, but th' pieces were still in place. Even if they were bein' used in a peacable dual use manner, that doesn't mean that they couldn't have been transferred over at a moment's notice. How about th' other violations? Th' missels that exceeded th' range limitation? We still havent accounted fer all o' th POWs from th' first Gulf War - which is inexcusable on th' part o' th' Sherrif too since we are in there now. It's unfortinuate that all th' deaths have occurred. However Saddam could o' prevented this war by adherin' t' th' cease fire agreement. Instead he engaged in a scheme o' deception. Even if it was t' protect th' other violations o' th' ceasefire, if transparancy had been practices there would not be any troops in Iraq right now. MB - Here! Here! The list o' coutries was a beautiful post.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:57:18 PM EST
    Not to retread the WMD issue, Paul, but it's become apparent that we haven't found WMD in Iraq. But the question remains -- there's solid documentation that he had significant stockpiles at one time. Where did they go? The "no WMD found" argument implies that they didn't exist. They did in fact exist in the past and that part has never been disproven. If Saddam had in fact destroyed them, then he could've provided proof of that destruction and would still be in power and Iraq would still be the paradise portrayed by Sean Penn and Michael Moore. But no evidence of that destruction has ever surfaced. Stuff like that doesn't just magically vanish. Its existence has been proven. Its destruction has never been proven. Therefore, it's more reasonable to assume it still exists than to assume it doesn't. This is starting to sound philosophical. The simple way of saying it is to say that just because I haven't caught a rabbit in my garden doesn't mean they're not eating my plants. Not that I'm advocating attacking other countries in a continuing search. But I won't believe the stockpiles no longer exist (somewhere) until evidence shows otherwise. Nevertheless, I don't know if we'll ever really know for sure, and it's too far back in the rearview mirror to pursue anymore.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#54)
    by john horse on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 04:23:43 AM EST
    trueblue, re:"Don't tell me we should just walk away and let these people take care of their own problems. They can't do it on their own." I am not against humanitarian aid and I am not against military intervention in some cases, such as to prevent genocide. However, what we are talking about is an occupation of a foreign country against the wishes of its people. We don't have to right to rule other countries. By the way, the crocodile tears that Republicans shed over the poor people of Afghanistan dry up awful quickly when it comes to the victims of genocide and tyranny in Sudan and other countries. Finally, if you believe that these people can't take care of their own problems, then you must also believe that the recent elections were nothing but a dog and pony show. Regarding what happened to the WMDs, read Scott Ritter. There was a reason that the UN's Chief Weapons Inspector opposed the invasion of Iraq and why the Bush administration opposed the extension of the UN weapons inspection program.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#55)
    by soccerdad on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 05:00:08 AM EST
    True blue, Saddam's son in law told the CIA and MI6 in 1995 that he gave the order to destroy them shortly after GW1. Plus, The inspectors where not finding them.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 05:52:14 AM EST
    No, it wasn't published in NEJM, but in the Lancet. Same difference. The destruction of Fallujah rates as a major war crime all by itself. The study was completed after Fallujah was destroyed, but the authors specifically excluded it, to avoid skewing the data. What was their crime? Iraq didn't attack the US; Iraq was in fact disarmed (at a cost of 1/2 million children dead); Bush sr. SPECIFICALLY did not invade Iraq because he said the death toll in US soldiers would be too high. Well, he was right. But not for you. For you, no death toll is too high to further Bush's slushfund. For $Rs, Profit without Work is God, and illegal profit is Grace.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 06:04:46 AM EST
    Whoops, the doily is on the wrong 'hole' -- it's bullsh*t. Oh well, screaming soldiers don't get to use cusswords anyhow, on Sanitized TV. 40,000 GIs sent to war without any Kevlar. 2% of the vehicles armored. The wingers say that WWII was far worse. Yeah, and the shot back. How dare they? Hitler invaded Poland because he said the Poles were castrating Germans. Bush invaded Iraq because he said that Hussein was brewing nukes. Neither lie was true; both dictators knew it; both are terrorists who go down in history destroying their countries for to gratify their insane egomania.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 06:34:56 AM EST
    PaulieLooLoo Time to adjust your lithium. Your delusional rants simply do not make any sense.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:23:10 AM EST
    1,500 young men murdered by republicans

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    ricky1756, Either you have a short attention span, or you were asleep during the evening of Sept 16th, 2001. On that evening, our President clearly stated the scope, breadth and manner on which the Global War on Terrorism was going to be waged. Those 2,000 servicemen killed since 2001, have been murdered by the same enemy which murdered 3,000 of our citizens on 09/11/01.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    Read some history before blathering about things you obviously know almost nothing about.
    i would humbly suggest that you partake of your own advice. again that would be your perspective, of which i have no use for, they killed all the military personnel, sounds harsh, even though you and i know it didn't happen. It's George W. Bush's military that's helping these people. that demonstrates the ever-deepening fog, which envelops your existence. it's americas military, stu___.
    The military is so solidly behind the war because it IS just.
    that would be your opinion, i otoh am of the opposite, as i speak to military personnel returning i don't see all this flag waving and support you suggest is apparent, again the exact opposite.
    ...if transparancy had been practices there would not be any troops in Iraq right now.
    not true, the desire to remove sadam was fervent, and was going to be done one way or the other. it's questionable as to why the reasons keep changing for the invasion of iraq.
    Those 2,000 servicemen killed since 2001, have been murdered by the same enemy which murdered 3,000 of our citizens on 09/11/01.
    some of the shi^ you reps believe is astounding.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 03:08:44 PM EST
    Posted by Boquisucio: "Time to adjust your lithium. Your delusional rants simply do not make any sense." Because you can't read what you won't understand. "It's George W. Bush's military that's helping these people." It ISN'T Bush's military. That's our military he is F*CKING up. They aren't helping people. They are KILLING people. More than 100,000 dead, not one WMD, no nukes, nothing but lies. Bush's invasion is genocide. USPNAC looted the national museum, burned down the national library, destroyed the Koran/Torah repository (burned to the ground, an incredible loss to scholarship and human culture), and has committed grave crimes against the Iraqi population. Electricity is STILL less than it was before the invasion. There is less potable water than before the invasion. Genocide is not 'helping these people,' you racist.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 03:36:02 PM EST
    Like I said, 'tis time to adjust your lithium intake

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    PaulieLooLoo, Genocide: n. (From Greek Genos - race and Cide - kill) The systematic killing or extermination of a whole people or nation. I would counsel you not to debase our language and throw carelessly words like this to the wind.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:08:24 PM EST
    "It's unfortinuate that all th' deaths have occurred. However Saddam could o' prevented this war by adherin' t' th' cease fire agreement. Instead he engaged in a scheme o' deception. Even if it was t' protect th' other violations o' th' ceasefire, if transparancy had been practices there would not be any troops in Iraq right now." The talk doesn't get ant straighter than this. This is the gold nuigget of this thread. VERY well said, Tex.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:12:13 PM EST
    John: Have you been to Afghanistan? I'll admit we're there against the wishes of SOME of the people there. The people that are complaining are the ones who were publicly executing burkha-clad women in the Kabul soccer stadium for adultery or fornication. Have you seen that footage? Have you ever seen an Afghan dancing to the music on the radio an realized how much it means to him because music used to be illegal? The people who don't like us there are the ones who want to shut that radio off. Those are the guys up in the hills fighting against US troops. If you think we should let them have their country back, I have to disagree. Soc: If the weapons were destroyed after GW1, why all the shell games during weapons inspections? UN inspectors told stories of being held up at the front gates of a facility while truckloads of material left out the back. Oh, and John -- before you go accusing someone of shedding "crocodile tears" about the people in Afghanistan from the comfort of your easy chair, you might consider that some of the people you're talking about are seeing it. Paul: If Saddam wasn't pursuing genocide, where did all those mass graves come from? Also, Paul, let's play out the 9/11 timeline. Word goes out that aircraft have been hijacked, and fighters scramble (by the way, it doesn't take a squadron of F-16s to shoot down an airliner). Avoid revisionist history for a moment and remember that at that moment no one could conceive that the intent was other than extortion. Even if you had time to get word of the hijack, get a jet in the air, and vector it to the airliner, do you shoot it down and kill a couple hundred people? What if you're wrong? It's unrealistic to think in the environment at the time that we would've scrambled and shot down the jets.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:01:02 PM EST
    "Posted by Boquisucio: "Genocide: n. (From Greek Genos - race and Cide - kill) The systematic killing or extermination of a whole people or nation." "I would counsel you not to debase our language and throw carelessly words like this to the wind." How stupid are you? The term 'genocide' was coined by a survivor of the Armenian genocide. It has a specific meaning in law, which differs from your dictionary. See if you can pick out where your dictionary lied to you (not least of which is the suggestion that the word came from Greek, rather than being COINED using Greek): "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: • (a) Killing members of the group; • (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; • (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; • (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; • (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Destroying cultural property is a part of genocide as well, and the illegal USPNAC invasion qualifies, as I listed (in brief). That property will not be coming back; it is destroyed. Iraq, Islam, scholarship, and the human race will never be the same. In my case, I rue the loss of kudurru stones from the national museum. Gone, smashed, delabeled, taken as souvenirs, these ancient property markers are PRICELESS clues about the past of the human race and its cultural development. USPNAC has also apparently trashed the archaeology of Ur, one of the oldest cities on the earth. You winger bigots rant on and on, but the destruction is real. Good thing you're anti-intellectual, and will never notice the loss. Turn up the polka music!!

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:10:43 PM EST
    "Paul: If Saddam wasn't pursuing genocide, where did all those mass graves come from?" Hussein's genocide, abetted by Reagan and the first Bush, was certainly real. We have 16 TONS of his gov't paperwork, with shoot-to-kill orders, lists of villages depopulated, and other juicy pieces of evidence. That has NOTHING to do with killing over 100,000 Iraqi civilians in order to put SIXTEEN US airbases on Iraqi soil, FOREVER. "Also, Paul, let's play out the 9/11 timeline. Word goes out that aircraft have been hijacked, and fighters scramble (by the way, it doesn't take a squadron of F-16s to shoot down an airliner)." TWO is apparently not enough. "Avoid revisionist history for a moment" What exactly is it you think you are up to on this blog, day after day? " and remember that at that moment no one could conceive that the intent was other than extortion." HILARIOUS. If you buy that lie, you really are stupid. Not only did Bush have 50 warnings, not only did he threaten the Taliban with invasion in October (and then go on a month-long vacation), not only did he have Tenet running around "with his hair on fire," ...but in Genoa, at the big economics conference, the Bush admin had their usual surface to air missiles installed on the top of the building -- JUST like the ones on the top of the White House now for a decade at least. I wonder what those are for? "Even if you had time to get word of the hijack, get a jet in the air, and vector it to the airliner, do you shoot it down and kill a couple hundred people?" Again a winger who thinks that this is such a weighty question. Here's a clue: 2,500 people dead on the ground. 500 on those planes. Do the math. "What if you're wrong? It's unrealistic to think in the environment at the time that we would've scrambled and shot down the jets." Again, HILARIOUS. That's what you get for $500 Billion? That's what you get with 40 years of NORAD, drilling and readying themselves to DO EXACTLY THAT, at any moment? Close the country, trueblue hasn't figured out how to use a flush toilet yet. Come back when your mommy gives you a piece of candy to get your blood sugar up.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:35:36 PM EST
    Paul, you're worrying me. You just backed your claim that Saddam wasn't practicing genocide by referencing 16 tons of paperwork documenting that very thing. Not a good job proving your point. What is your source documenting the US killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians? Saddam's Information Minister? As far as the 16 US airbases permanently on Iraqi soil, you'd better check your facts. You'll find that the number is significantly lower. As far as the shootdown argument goes, if you knew ahead of time that those airliners were going to crash into the buildings and kill 2,500 people, why didn't you call someone and let them know? You can't say that the pilot should've done the math and figured 500 was better than 2,500 when the 2,500 were still quite alive at the moment. And how many fighters do you believe this country has on alert? Did it occur to you that the ones we had were for external defense, and not for internal attacks? What about posse commitatus? NORAD was built to defend against external air attack, NOT hijackers from within. I believe you'll find the Clinton's security used to anticipate air threats, too. As far as the "50 warnings", you have no idea how much of a flood of intelligence info is gathered every day. It's easy to connect the dots in reverse, but not so easy to go the other way. Roosevelt faced the same scrutiny after Pearl Harbor. Anyone can predict the past -- the trick is to predict the future. And frankly, I don't know what any of this has to do with my ability to use modern plumbing or my mother. I can only hope that that last comment somehow made you feel better or perhaps proved some point you were unable to do otherwise.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 02:37:30 AM EST
    Also BTW, Paul -- it wasn't the US that looted the national museum. You seem awfully determined to blame the US for everything anyone does. Also, I don't necessarily disagree with the definition of genocide you quoted. However, just because people are in the same demographic doesn't make it genocide. If you're killing them because they're Muslim, that's genocide. But if you're killing them because they're shooting at you, shooting at someone else, or trying to blow something up, that's combat. By your interpretation of the definition, any form of combat involving two or more people sharing a demographic is genocide. That may be a convenient way to be able to throw the "G" word around, but it's abusing the term.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 05:23:46 AM EST
    Posted by trueblue "Paul, you're worrying me. You just backed your claim that Saddam wasn't practicing genocide by referencing 16 tons of paperwork documenting that very thing. Not a good job proving your point." Practicing is in the present tense. "What is your source documenting the US killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians?" Johns Hopkins University study, which gave that as the probable median of the data. But they didn't factor in Fallujah, which fits neatly right here: "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: • (a) Killing members of the group; • (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; • (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" "Saddam's Information Minister? As far as the 16 US airbases permanently on Iraqi soil, you'd better check your facts. You'll find that the number is significantly lower." The number is 16 or 15. Most of those are Hussein's bases, converted. The polymer concrete poured in the big four (Victory N W S E) is permanent, and for the C-5As (or equivalent) to land what will essentially be the entire US military on what's left after Iraq has been converted into THREE TERRITORIES, and H. F*cking Kissinger said a year and a half ago. You people don't get a decent news flow, that's why you believe so many lies. Aside from the fact that you don't care about the truth. "As far as the shootdown argument goes, if you knew ahead of time that those airliners were going to crash into the buildings and kill 2,500 people, why didn't you call someone and let them know?" Wow, is that pathetic. "You can't say that the pilot should've done the math and figured 500 was better than 2,500 when the 2,500 were still quite alive at the moment." The pilot DOES NOT make that decision. The C-in-C does. Are you really this under-educated? Rumsfeld, after two years of denying he had anything to do with 911, reportedly changed the NORAD COMMAND PROTOCOL in July 01. He apparently required NORAD to contact him personally before launching any flights. That's like having to call the Governor before the fire dept. can come to your house. "And how many fighters do you believe this country has on alert?" In the days after 911, Cheney said first that there were NO fighters on alert; then he said there were SIX. That's really a shocking piece of news, but then again this is one of the original felons who helped drop our pants for the PNAC conspiracy of which he was a signatory. "Did it occur to you that the ones we had were for external defense, and not for internal attacks? What about posse commitatus? NORAD was built to defend against external air attack, NOT hijackers from within." Again, completely and utterly wrong. But check it out! That's what $500 Billion a year buys. According to you, we didn't have a defense against hijacked jets. Are you F'ing kidding? "I believe you'll find the Clinton's security used to anticipate air threats, too. As far as the "50 warnings", you have no idea how much of a flood of intelligence info is gathered every day." Hilarious. Let's note that the Bushies fought ANY investigation into 911. Why wasn't the NTSB allowed to investigate ANY of the 911 crashes? "Also BTW, Paul -- it wasn't the US that looted the national museum. You seem awfully determined to blame the US for everything anyone does." Yes it was. It was a preplanned looting job, arranged by a cat named Ahmed Chalabi. There are reports on the ground that a US tank was used to breach the National Museum doors. It would have taken forklifts to get the big pieces out. "Also, I don't necessarily disagree with the definition of genocide you quoted." Well, that's nice, because it is US LAW. "However, just because people are in the same demographic doesn't make it genocide." Actually, it does. The Rape of Fallujah qualifies as an act of genocide, all by itself. "If you're killing them because they're Muslim, that's genocide. But if you're killing them because they're shooting at you, shooting at someone else, or trying to blow something up, that's combat." If you are shooting up civilians because you are illegally invading a country, that IS genocide. Of course, the legal meaning of genocide, the determination of genocide, these are matters still in their infancy. Bush's flailing around for excuses has actually moved the law forward, since he claims he attacked and invaded the country to free the people from genocide. "By your interpretation of the definition, any form of combat involving two or more people sharing a demographic is genocide. That may be a convenient way to be able to throw the "G" word around, but it's abusing the term." No, it isn't. The term was coined PRECISELY to condemn anti-cviilian, anti-cultural actions like Bush has committed. Those museums, those documents, those illuminated religious texts, those destroyed archeological sites...they aren't coming back. They are destroyed, and it is Bush's fault. Of course, he enjoyed doing it, so what's a little more fault for a traitor and a war criminal?

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 05:34:59 AM EST
    "According to officials, the entire US is defended by only 14 fighters (two planes each in seven military bases). [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01]" "they no longer included any bases close to two obvious terrorist targets—Washington, DC, and New York City." A defense official says: "I don't think any of us envisioned an internal air threat by big aircraft. I don't know of anybody that ever thought through that." [Newsday, 9/23/01]" That's what $500 Billion a year buys you, supposedly. Plenty of money for missile schemes which don't work; a handful of planes, if you are lucky and fly on a Tuesday morning BEFORE the Pentagon has its coffee break, to protect the busiest air corridors in the world. Don't fly on Thursday! That's NO PROTECTION AT ALL DAY. And not ONE resignation over the incompetence.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 06:10:14 AM EST
    Paul, you don' you make a good example of yourself and be the first...

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 06:11:21 AM EST
    I messed that up... Paul, why don't you make a good example of yourself and be the first.

    Re: U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 06:35:48 AM EST
    Paul, this is really getting tedious. If someone is PRACTICING genocide, then we can do something. But if he's stopped, we can't. Just how long does he have to be stopped before he's no longer considered a mass murderer? If you have a link to the Johns Hopkins study I'd like to see it. I might believe 100K casualties, but not 100K CIVILIAN casualties, which is what we discussed. And by the way, most of the people had left Fallujah before the assault. Show me in the 911 report where someone knew those jets were going to be flown into those buildings and cause 2,500 casualties -- and knew it with enough certainty to authorize a pilot to kill hundreds of passengers. As far as the status of our air defenses, if prior to 911 you had been asked to fund alert cells all over the US to be able to shoot down US airliners, whould you have supported it? I'll say it again, our military is built for external threats, and, frankly, there wasn't much of an external air threat since the fall of the Soviet Union. Canada and Mexico are benign, Cuba is unable and unwilling. Everyone else is far enough away that we'd have plenty of warning to get a fighter to it. And the $500 billion -- that buys a lot more than just air defense assets. Plan to carve Iraq into three territories? I guess we're doing a bad job at that -- nationwide elections don't foster that concept. I'm a little fuzzy about what in your mind constitutes an "illegal" invasion, since you can't even tell me when you think such a thing would be justified. Stop the blather -- demonstrate to me where the US military has deliberately targeted 100,000 civilians in Iraq. You haven't a clue about military doctrine, organization, application, theory, tactics, or capabilities. You apparently can't form an opinion of your own about when military force would be justified, either. What you do have a talent for, apparently, is swallowing every piece of unsubstantiated, conspiracy-laden, paranoid extremist garbage you can find on the internet and shooting it out of your a$$ at anyone passing by. I apologize to the others on this forum for losing my cool, as well as for wasting so much bandwidth attempting to reason with this individual. I've made every effort to be polite, cordial, and non-labeling, but I think there would be a point where even Ghandi would throw a punch or two. Hopefully you can see that I've gone to great lengths to keep things logical. If I take the gloves off with this guy from now on, please don't construe it as a slam against the rest of you, or an indication that I subscribe to the stereotype I've worked hard to avoid. At this point, I think he's just wasting a lot of our time.

    U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 | 73 comments (73 topical)