home

3,000th Soldier Killed in Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 04:02:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


Bump and Update: The AP is now reporting there have been 3,000 deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

*******
Original Post
2,999th Soldier Killed in Iraq

Another soldier was killed in Iraq today, bringing the total number of troop deaths to 2,999.

The soldier was also the 110th to die so far in December, the deadliest month for the U.S. forces in more than two years.

....A toll of 3,000 U.S. dead is likely to be an emotive one for Americans but it is less than the number of Iraqi civilians killed in a typical single month in the latter part of 2006, according to the most recent statistics from the
United Nations.

< WAPO on Prosecutiorial Indiscretion | Team Hillary Moving into High Gear >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    3,000th Soldier Killed in Iraq | 73 comments (73 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Accusations will fly (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Zeno on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 01:50:16 PM EST
    The moment the 3000th death occurs and this grim milestone is reported in the news, the warmongers will accuse those of us who oppose the war for "celebrating" the occasion.

    They said: We must attack Iraq and destroy Saddam's WMDs.

    We said: The UN inspectors haven't found any yet. Give them more time.

    They said: No, the danger is imminent. And we must avenge 9/11.

    We said: We were avenging 9/11 -- in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda is holed up. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

    They said: You just don't understand! [And the invasion began]

    We said: See? You guys screwed up and our soldiers are paying the price for your stupidity.

    They said: You hate the soldiers. You want them dead!

    We said: There is no joy in having unhappy predictions borne out.

    They said: Traitors! America haters!

    Damn, but I despise those people. This blood is on their hands. And the blood of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqis whom we have now "saved".

    Actually, no. (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    They said: No, the danger is imminent. And we must avenge 9/11.

    I don't know who said the danger is imminent. Here's how Bush put it.

    Link


    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)


    Parent
    actually YES! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    Here is how bush, his spokesliars and bushco said it:
    and "This is about imminent threat."
    * White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

    "Well, of course he is."
    * White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03

    "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
    * President Bush, 11/23/02

    "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
    * President Bush, 10/2/02

    "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
    * Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

    "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
    * Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02



    Parent
    Preemptive strke (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 09:57:05 AM EST
    Bush said what Bush said.

    The point in all of these was simple... We cannot wait for an imminent threat.

    If we do, it is too late.

    That was the basis for a preemptive strike.

    Parent

    Is was pre-emptive because (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    it pre-empted the inspectors from concluding there were no WMDs. Everyone knew they weren't there to be found.

    Parent
    Something rotten this way comes. (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 08:17:11 PM EST
    If there were no weapons and no attempts to build weapons, Then why this? Let me see. I'm not guilty, but I'm gonna bribe the police to find nothing? SD there is something rotten here. Why can't you do just a little logical thinking? Let me guess. Because you  hate Bush and can't bear to think of us winning.

    Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction.

    Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, said that the offer came from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister and deputy




    Parent
    We've been through this before (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 08:39:52 PM EST
    Saddam's on in law was head of the weapons program. He fled to the west in 1995 and was debriefed by MI5 and the cia and provided evidence that the weapons program was destroyed in 1991. Even Clinton knew they didn't have a weapons program.

    Parent
    Can you tell me why??? (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:18:41 AM EST
    SD - You and most of the Left keep arguing that the weapons program was destroyed. You seem to think that it is not possible to get back in.

    David Kay, after his search and in his reports, said no WMD's, but that Saddam was getting back into the program. I have linked to this repeatedly.

    Can you tell me why you think Kay is incorrect?

    Parent

    because (none / 0) (#53)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:57:43 AM EST
    the inspectors on the ground just prior to the invasion didn't find anything

    What Saddam wanted was the sanctions lifted. he knew it would never happen if he had a weap0ons program.

    You, Bush and Cheny will be in your bunker in 2 years still repeating this nonsense propaganda still thinking its true. Its pretty sad when you start believing your own nonsense.


    Parent

    SD, don't be obtuse (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 06:58:31 PM EST
    They found no WMD's. No one is arguing that.

    What Kay said was that they were trying to get back in the game.

    Don't be obtuse and keep repeating a point we all agree on as if it was special, and ignore the point that made Saddam dangerous.

    Parent

    dont be an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:19:21 PM EST
    what kay said was irrelevant in light of the inspectors on the ground finding no evidence of any program.

    Your argument has no weight. They had no program everyone knew that. Go crawl back in your bunker with your koolaid

    Parent

    yes, bush said what bush said (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    and bush said it was an an imminent threat. No amount of parsing or twisting can obscure that he said exactly what you said he didn't say. As did his spokesliars and cabinet folks. Just because they later lied and denied they said it, it was caught on tape and in print.

    BTW, preemptive war is outlawed specifically. Now you admit bush is a war criminal.

    BTW2, bush & bushco repeatedly said that saddam had the weapons. Not programs, not program related activities, had the WMDs and knew where they were.

    Only after they didn't find the weapons did they move the goal posts, and ppj, continued to swallow their increasingly desperate lies.

    Parent

    Sailor this is from the 2003 SOTU (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:33:15 PM EST
    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
    If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
    Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

    Link

    Now let us go to the dictionary.

    imminent -  ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over>
    - im·mi·nent·ly adverb

    Note that Busg says "IF this threat is permitted..."

    That obviously means that it is NOT "ready to take place."

    So by defintion it is not imminent.

    And yes, Bush was establishing his strategy of preemptive war. Perhaps you weren't paying attention.

    And yes, Bush Daddy, Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Hillary, etc and et al said that Saddam had WMD's. I can give you the exact quotes if you will contribute $10.00 to TL to pay for the bandwidth.

    So did every intelligence agency.

    Were they wrong??? So far it appears they were, and I make no claims that Saddam had WMD/s.

    But. If you are going to believe Kay that he had none, then you surely must believe Kay when he says Iraq had forbidden weapons, delivery systems, and was trying to get back in the WMD business.

    Even Joe Wilson reported to the CIA that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake from Nigeria.

    You would believe Joe, wouldn't you?

    The so called war crimes is nonsense, and based on the attacks of Germany prior to WWII.

    As Bush said:

    If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

    The world has change, sailor. Come into the future with me and recognize that to wait until your enemy attacks with WMD's is both foolish and deadly.

    Parent

    dont you ever (none / 0) (#66)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:59:42 PM EST
    get tired of pushing the same old hald truths and attempted hair splitting. obviously not. Truly pathetic you are on of the last people in this coutry to to be pushing this nonsense. You and the lunatics at WorldNutdaily.com


    Parent
    bush said what bush said (none / 0) (#76)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
    * President Bush, 11/23/02

    "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
    * President Bush, 10/2/02

    I don't care if he lied a different way a different day, he said it.

    just like a person who calls for the deaths of American politicians to completely deny the facts.

    Parent

    Hair-splitting (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Zeno on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    How about Rumsfeld in September 2002?

    "No terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

    Does that not qualify because he didn't use the word "imminent"?

    In October, Bush said Iraq was "a threat of unique urgency".

    If that's not enough for you excuse-makers, there's plenty more here.


    Parent

    Yes it is (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 10:05:17 AM EST
    But I quoted Bush in the SOTU, which carries a bit more wait that off the cuff statements by spokespeople, Rumsfeld, etc.

    I also could have picked on the old inaccurate claim that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 when he obviously did.

    Read Fitzgerald's comments and note his comment.

    We did understand from people, including al-Fadl -- and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can't tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago -- that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn't work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.



    Parent
    No splitting (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:39:53 PM EST
    In October?

    The SOTU is in January.

    My point is and was that Bush was establishing his preemptive strategy. Look at his last sentence.

     

    Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.


    Parent
    Impeachment (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by proudleftists on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:05:01 PM EST
    Impeachment is the only answer to the Bush - Cheney madness !

    3,000 (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    bush has killed another soldier for lies.

    Re: 3,000 (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Kitt on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 08:55:01 PM EST
    Oh - but I'm sure he 'mourns' this young man's death don't ya think.

    Faces of the Dead

    Parent

    Anyone see Sen McCain's PSA to "help" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by bx58 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    the troops? Meanwhile he's pushing for more soldiers to bolster our strngth for the up-coming war with Iran.

    This traitor will probably be our next President..it's obscene.

    You know that's the main reason we haven't (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by bx58 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    left? Oh, the money being made by the war-mongers is good but that's only half the plan.

    You  wonder if the people spending their loot made from this disaster give a second thought to any of the dead in Iraq.

    We need a change.

    Some very good posts, bx58. It's nice to... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 03:20:03 PM EST
    ...reach some common ground isn't it?

    I hope we continue to see this side of you as you DO make some very good points here and state them well.

    'Fore long you'll be a card carryin' librel. Dat alright wit you?

    And no, I don't think the people making the loot from this disaster, being totally amoral as well as immoral, give a second thought to anything but making more blood money.

    After all, they still have Iran to attack. Anybody else think that the attack MAY come BEFORE the 110th Congress convenes so that bush won't have to worry about obtaining another AUMF?

    Parent

    Not any longer (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by David at Kmareka on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    3,000 Dead!  How Many More?

    In A Unjustified War 1 Casualty is 1 Too Many (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by john horse on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 07:46:09 AM EST
    Throughout this war there have been attempts by those on the Right to minimize the sacrifice of our soldiers or the loss of lives of Iraqi civilians.  This includes making comparisons to other wars or battles (you can always find one bloodier than the one you are in) or to the murder rates in some of our large cities.  They reduce humans to numbers or statistics.  If the number dying from situation A is less than situation B, then situation A can't be that bad.

    Those who are dying in Iraq are not numbers or statistics.  The 3,000th soldier lost could have been your son or daughter or my son or daughter.  I am not a pacifist.  There are some wars that I think are justified.  This one is not.  Noone should ever be sent to die for light and transient reasons.  In an unjustified war even one life lost is one too many.

    And if the modern Right had been in charge, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by roy on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    the Allies would have invaded Thailand.

    Anyone still wondering how the public... (4.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    ...could rate GWB a GREATER threat than Saddam and Osama COMBINED?

    It takes a truly evil mind to want to continue seeing our soldiers die in an effort that the entire world sees as futile just to try and salvage a "legacy".

    God bless our military men and women.

    It does, Bill (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by aw on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    it does take an evil mind.

    Parent
    Left unstated... (1.00 / 3) (#5)
    by jarober on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    Is the fact that 2005 was a bloodier year in Iraq for the US military than 2006.  Nice way to cherry pick the data though, in order to keep that storyline alive.
    Yeah, you must be so proud ... (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    ... that bush has managed to kill 26 fewer Americans this year than last year. BTW,pointing out that December was the deadliest month of the last 2 years isn't cherry picking, it's a valid trend that shows bush's continuing inability to face reality.

    Elections in iraq didn't help.
    A constitution didn't help.
    Training iraqis didn't help.
    Killing saddam didn't help.

    You guys have been wrong about everything ... but by golly impeaching a guy for lying about a BJ is just a-ok in the sick twisted minds of rethuglicans.

    Parent

    Look who's talking (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Zeno on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    It's the right-wingers who have resorted to heroic cherry-picking measures to buttress their lame arguments. Last fall Melanie Morgan wrote a column declaring that the U.S. was winning in Iraq because fewer American troops were dying each month. She pulled off that stunt by truncating the final month by over a week. The final count showed that there was no downward trend.

    See here and here for the details of Morgan's duplicity.

    Parent

    Re: Look who's talking (none / 0) (#14)
    by bx58 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    "It's the right-wingers who have resorted to heroic cherry-picking measures to buttress their lame arguments."

    Is the Washington Post and the NY Times rightwingers? They supported this fiasco.

    The Iraq War resolution received 29 yeas from democrats. They were all rightwingers?

    Clinton,Kerry,Edwards and Reid. That's a pack of rabid rightwingers if you ever saw one.

    Parent

    More propaganda (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Zeno on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 05:03:14 PM EST
    When Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and Reid voted to authorize the president to take action, that was not the same thing as supporting war. (Go ahead and track down where any one of them said, "We must have war now!") Those Democrats thought the president would use his authority wisely instead of yanking out the UN inspectors and invading as quickly as he could. Now we know they were wrong. They know it, too. Bush knew it all along.

    Parent
    NYT& WaPo (none / 0) (#16)
    by soccerdad on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 03:27:02 PM EST
    are Bush boot lickers and yes they are predominately right wing, although corporatist might be a better term

    Parent
    Jarober (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 08:07:05 PM EST
    Hmmm, just off the top of my head I would say that 1943 was deadlier than '42 and '44 than '43.. And probably '45 was deadliest of all.

    So what's your point??

    We didn't lose WWII and shouldn't lose in Iraq, unless the Left gets its wishes.

    Parent

    All ready with the childish excuses (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 01:57:03 PM EST
    It will all be "the left's" fault.  And I'm certain it was "the left" who invaded a country that posed absolutely no threat, and did so without a scintilla of strategy beyond the best-case-scenario fantasies: No plan for post-war, no plan for winning the peace, no plan for mass employment of Iraqis, no plan for the Iraqi Army, no plan for keeping the power running, no plan for enough interpreters, no plan for an insurgency...

    And the list could go on for days.

    Your guys, the architects of this fiasco, made these grievous errors.  They have been right about absolutely nothing.  Not a thing.

    And you react by assigning your delusional blame to those Americans who were right all along.

    That's laughable.  And a bit short of sane.

    Parent

    Casualties... (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jarober on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 03:55:25 PM EST
    What TL doesn't really grasp is the historically low casualty rate of this war.  Partly that's because Iraq is more of a battle in the ongoing war against jihadists than it is a war all by itself; this is also something TL misses, completely.  

    More men died at Cold Harbor in 20 minutes than have died yet in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The campaigns against Iwo Jima and Okinawa were each more costly than this entire conflict has been.  

    Which is not to denigrate the loss of each life; each soldier lost is a huge sacrifice.  However, the continual painting of the war as some kind of enormous maw into which casualties have been poured is just historical illiteracy.

    what you dont (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 04:28:38 PM EST
    understand is that the families of those dead soldiers dont care what the rate is.

    Yeah life is cheap to those who worship war and find any excuse for it.


    Parent

    We won both wars. Most Iraq and (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by JSN on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 04:37:00 PM EST
    Afghanistan casualties occurred during the occupation phase. You are comparing occupation casualty rates with those of a major battle at a time when most seriously wounded soldiers died.

    Parent
    Hysterically wrong (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    What TL doesn't really grasp is the historically low casualty rate of this war
    what this commenter doesn't understand is that more iraqi civilians have been killed in 3 years of bush's occupation than 24 years of saddam's reign.

    Here are some numbers to crunch:

    1.8 million Iraqi refugees
    654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilian deaths. It's hard to make an accurate estimate because "We don't do body counts")
    22,032 US wounded soldiers.


    Parent
    War is terrible (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 08:27:11 PM EST
    sailor - You have no idea, and neither do I, of the number of Iraqi civilians killed. And neither does your source.

    But, since you're guessing, how many have been killed by other Iraqi's and how many would have been killed by Saddam, and would have continued to been killed if we had not invaded?

    War is terrible, but you should blame those who caused the war rather than those who are trying to fix it.

    You know sailor, if the Left had been around in 1861 the South would have won and slaves would still be held in the CSA.

    If the Left had been around in 1942, Europe would be speaking German and the US would end somewhere around Denver.

    Sometimes you must fight or lose. That is the sad, sad, sad, truth.

    Parent

    Re: Historical illiteracy (none / 0) (#26)
    by bx58 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 05:47:06 PM EST
    You actually compare this junket to the Civil War or the Second World War? You see more and more comparisons to Iwo and D-Day and all the other bloodbaths from our past. Must be a new strategy.

    The Civil War was a war that had to be fought,even though it could've been avoided by bigger men. Same for the second World War.

    This is more like the Spanish American War, the press clamoring for it, the demogogues voting for it.

    The only problem today is the war has gone on too long and the demogogues try and hide from it while they run for higher office at the same time.

    Parent

    LOL, bx58 (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 08:28:33 PM EST
    I don't remember Spain decalring jihad on us.

    Parent
    A better comparison is (none / 0) (#27)
    by JSN on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 07:54:05 PM EST
    the occupation of Nicaragua by US Marines when Caesar Sandino was the leader of the insurgency. He was able to inflict enough marine casualties (he was losing about 100 to 1) so that the US voters decided the occupation was not worth the cost in marine blood (they could not have cared less about Nicaraguan blood).

    A good book about this little known period of our history (1898 to 1934) is "The Banana Wars" by Lester Langley

    Parent

    JSN surely... (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 08:30:12 PM EST
    Do you really think this is a Banana War? Surely you know better.

    Parent
    Oil not bananas (none / 0) (#45)
    by JSN on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 09:05:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Minimizing? (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jarober on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 09:01:06 AM EST
    Those of us who believe it's worth staying in Iraq aren't the ones who have been making stupid comparisons.  The Left jumped out with Vietnam comparisons almost immediately.  For most of the commenters here, I seriously doubt that there's any war that they would support, ever, for any reasons.    

    yet another (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 09:04:08 AM EST
    dumb a$$ strawman aegument but if thats all ya got ,...

    Parent
    Cowardice by any other name is not courage (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    Those of us who believe it's worth staying in Iraq aren't the ones who have been making stupid comparisons.

    Those of you who believe it's worth "staying in Iraq" don't seem to be there.  You seem to be blogging in comfort from your mom's rec room.

    Why aren't you in uniform?  I served in the '60s even though I was opposed to the Vietnam war, because it was considered something that every patriotic young man in good health was expected to do.

    You, on the other hand, feel that no sacrifice is too great for someone else to make, as long as you don't have to make it.

    Parent

    RePack and tired arguments. (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:42:00 AM EST
    You again return to the tired arguments that only those who have experienced, or are involved in, any activity can comment.

    Based on this illogical statement, you can't discuss education unless you are, or have been, a teacher.

    And etc.

    This, of course would mean that the Left can't comment on the war, unless they have served or are serving.

    Now, since you embrace this position, I trust you will contact squeaky, Edger, et al and inform them to switch off their trusty computers when this subject comes up.

    Parent

    No threat? (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 08:11:33 PM EST
    Kitt - Glad to see you defending Saddam. I guess all those people killed by the suicide bombers that he paid blood money to their families don't count.

    And why did he need the long range weapons? And why was he trying to get back into the WMD business, as David Kay said. And why was he trying to purchase yellow cake?

    No threat? How stupid do you think the American people are.

    That didn't take very long (none / 0) (#12)
    by Zeno on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    The 3000th death was just announced and the gentle folk at Free Republic are off and running (hold your nose!):

    To: ARealMothersSonForever
    They are pooping corks in the DNC media early today. What timing!

    2 posted on 12/31/2006 11:53:10 AM PST by cardinal4 (Ding Dong the Witch is Dead)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

    To: ARealMothersSonForever
    Something for the media to celebrate this holiday season!/sarcasm

    I only wish all the Saddam apologists and America-haters had joined him on the scaffold.

    3 posted on 12/31/2006 11:54:19 AM PST by pierrem15 (Charles Martel: past and future of France)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

    To: ARealMothersSonForever
    The traitors, the defeatists, and the cut and run are very happy. However their stupidity is incredible. In 45 months of war we lost 3,000 brave heroes, by far, far, and far, it is an extremely low number of casualties based on the duration of the war and puting thing in persepctibe to other long wars.

    God bless our brave troops. God bless America.

    4 posted on 12/31/2006 11:56:51 AM PST by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
    too bad (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 03:11:43 PM EST
    SUVs dont run on blood.

    Lets not forget the 100's of thousand Iraqis killed

    strawman of the day award (none / 0) (#20)
    by soccerdad on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 04:29:36 PM EST
    the continual painting of the war as some kind of enormous maw into which casualties have been poured is just historical illiteracy.



    The Faces of the Dead..... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Kitt on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 09:08:56 PM EST
    .....from the New York Times

    Sailor (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:30:28 AM EST
    You call me a liar, and ignore my 10:05AM
    comment made some 9 hours earlier. You don't want to debate, all you want to do is attack and insult.

    that's funny ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:03:44 AM EST
    ... coming from a person who has called for thee deaths of American politicians.

    And what else does one call a person who has repeatedly ignored the truth and said they do it deliberately?

    I've got the quotes if you want them.

    Parent

    Kitt - why he needed them? (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:31:19 AM EST
    Why he needed them? How old are you? Do you have no knowledge of the 80's? Do you remember the radicalization of Iran? Do you understand that it was Iraq, with no help from us, that started the

    Iraq-Iran war,     but after making huge inital gains, found themselves in danger of losing the war?

    So yes, we provided assistance because we couldn't afford to have a ME controlled by Iran.

    I took the time to do some research and came up this link to a National Archives piece that spells out in some detail about those activities.

    It doesn't say that we provided CW, but it leaves little doubt that we supported Iraq after it was apparent that Iran would win with it's massive attacks of human waves.

    Now, the question becomes, why do you think our support was bad?

    Do you think that it was bad that we used Iraq as our instrument to blunt the Iranian's plans to achieve control of the ME? How many people would have been killed?

    Or would you have preferred that we intervened directly and lost thousands of US lives?

    Or would you have preferred that we let Iran dominate the ME and sieze control of the world's oil supply.

    Kitt, your position is hypocritical and appears to be driven only by hatred of Bush.

    Why do I say this?

    Because you reject the real poltik actions of the mid 80's while rejecting the current efforts which is a strategy of establishing a secular democracy in place of Saddam's dictatorship.

    The current second option is to have done nothing and let Iraq come to terms with al-Qaeda.
    Remember that SP Fitzgerald said in his 9/11 Commission testimony that we had information that they had agreed to work together.

    Yes Kitt, like it or not, Iraq was coming to accept and work with Al-Qaeda, Iraq was trying to, and getting back into the WMD business as noted by David Kay, and even Scott Ritter said:

    I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this.

    Would you have wanted a resurgent Iraq in partnerhip with al-Qaeda?

    A secular democracy..... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Kitt on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 11:33:31 AM EST
    Do you understand that it was Iraq, with no help from us, that started the

    Well - there ya go....right there - THAT'S not true.  We've been 'helping' all along.

    Because you reject the real poltik actions of the mid 80's while rejecting the current efforts which is a strategy of establishing a secular democracy in place of Saddam's dictatorship.

    A secular democracy?! That's rich.


    Parent

    Please be accurate. (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:47:26 PM EST
    Thus, Iraq started the war believing that Sunnis of Iran would join the opposing forces. It seems that Saddam had not fully appreciated the power of nationalism over historically clan-centered differences, nor the power of the central state apparatus that controlled the press

    From the Link. The help came later.

    Parent

    I don't think I meant to refer (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kitt on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 10:47:08 PM EST
    who started the Iraq-Iran war. I don't really care; it had nor has anything to do with us EXCEPT we (the U.S.) had and continued to sell Saddam Hussein arms. Iran had arms previously from US. I don't know how well-kept they were. I went to college with a guy who was pilot who spent time in the middle east who said the Iranians did not take very good care of the armed things we had sold to them, specifically bombers, and other flying machines.

    You have such a knack for veering away from the topic of the thread, which is of course - the death of more of our troops for - what? Lies, and more lies.

    Parent

    Igonoramus, (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 10:13:19 AM EST
    Alot of "the Left" (which was more "around" then than it is now), volunteered to fight fascism - something chickenhawks never do - in Spain in the Thirties, and, volunteered for WWII.

    Try picking up a book and quit studying history with Prof. Hannity.

    Jondee, please keep up. (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:02:25 PM EST
    BX58 wrote:

    This is more like the Spanish American War, the press clamoring for it, the demogogues voting for it.

    I replied:

    I don't remember Spain decalring jihad on us.

    Jondee wrote:

    in Spain in the Thirties....Try picking up a book and quit studying history with Prof. Hannity.


    Well, speaking of being ignorant, The Spainsh American War was started in 1898.

    Way to go Jondee!!!

    A snarky remark based on a lack of knowledge.


    Parent

    You're right Jim. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:15:12 PM EST
    Your comment was A snarky remark based on a lack of knowledge.

    Perhaps a careful re-reading of jondee's comment will help you apologize for deliberately misrepresenting what he said:

    volunteered to fight fascism - something chickenhawks never do - in Spain in the Thirties


    Parent
    Actually Jim (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:39:24 PM EST
    It's me that owes you an apology.

    I doubt that you made your snarky remark based on lack of knowledge.

    Parent

    WWII (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 10:22:26 AM EST
    With James Robertson gone, ppj has taken it upon himself to bring WWII (another one he missed), into every Iraq discussion. And why not? Just look at all the paralells: Germany posessed of one of the most formidable war machines in history, while Iraq...well..Germany overrunning 2/3 of Europe and threatening Asia, while Iraq..
    You get the idea.

     

    Jondee you again display a lack of knowledge (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:17:19 PM EST
    When Germany made it's first move into the Ruir Valley his generals were told to immediately retreat if France offerred any resistance at all.

    Now, do you see why a bit of history can offer some huge advice on what to do??

    And if the isolationists Left had been around Roosevelt would never been able to supply the Soviets. And Germany might have taken Stalingrad and the history of the world would have changed.

    As it was, the isolationists Right almost prevented it.

    Isn't it funny how things have changed?? The modern Left has become the Right of the late 30's and early 40's??

    Parent

    document (none / 0) (#70)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:25:49 PM EST
    When Germany made it's first move into the Ruir Valley his generals were told to immediately retreat if France offerred any resistance at all.

    got a refernce?

    Parent

    Why not (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 11:10:37 AM EST
    If the Left had been around the Germans would have overrun Stalingrad..

    ppj (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:46:34 AM EST
    And Iraq was in any kind of position whatsoever to make a "first move" where? When?

    I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

    The Lincoln Brigade etc (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:53:37 AM EST
    Btw Einstein, I was refering to the Spanish Civil War.

    Knowledge..etc (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:56:24 AM EST
    Apparently Jim thinks the Spanish American war was fought in Spain. He probobly thinks there was a Franco-American war too.

    3,000th Soldier Killed in Iraq | 73 comments (73 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment