3,027 or is it 3,035 or maybe 3,050? Deaths of Americans

[Psychoblues]

None of these soldiers deserved to die for the ego of an American sitting (and I mean sitting) President.

Not ONE of these soldiers deserved to die in the name of the egotistical mannerisms of the present CIC, Commander In Chief.



At least 20 American service personnel were killed in military operations Saturday in one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since the Iraq war began, and authorities also announced two U.S. combat deaths from the previous day.

The day's worst loss came from the crash of a U.S. Army helicopter northeast of Baghdad that killed 13 service members. An attack Saturday night blamed on militiamen in the city of Karbala killed five soldiers. Roadside bombs killed another soldier in the capital and one in Nineveh province north of Baghdad.

The military gave little information on the crash of the Black Hawk during good weather in Diyala province, where U.S. and Iraqi forces have been battling Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias around the city of Baqouba for months.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


Psychoblues

 

[sitarro]

None of these soldiers deserved to die for the ego of an American sitting (and I mean sitting) President.

Not ONE of these soldiers deserved to die in the name of the egotistical mannerisms of the present CIC, Commander In Chief.



At least 20 American service personnel were killed in military operations Saturday in one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since the Iraq war began, and authorities also announced two U.S. combat deaths from the previous day.

The day's worst loss came from the crash of a U.S. Army helicopter northeast of Baghdad that killed 13 service members. An attack Saturday night blamed on militiamen in the city of Karbala killed five soldiers. Roadside bombs killed another soldier in the capital and one in Nineveh province north of Baghdad.

The military gave little information on the crash of the Black Hawk during good weather in Diyala province, where U.S. and Iraqi forces have been battling Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias around the city of Baqouba for months.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


Psychoblues

So I guess you're popping the champagne corks and releasing the baloons eh psychobull?

 

[Avatar4321]

They didnt die for the President's ego. They died because Islamic extremists want to wipe us off the face of the earth and they were willing to go stop it.

And they sure as heck didnt die so you could use them for your own petty political statements.

 

[Psychoblues]

They died in Iraq. Why? Never mind. I don't think you will ever understand the very genuine peaceful and industrious nature of the average Iraqi. We'll see milleniums come and go before we see this travesty of justice by an American sitting president forgotten.

They didnt die for the President's ego. They died because Islamic extremists want to wipe us off the face of the earth and they were willing to go stop it.

And they sure as heck didnt die so you could use them for your own petty political statements.

And, my political statements are not petty. You just don't like to hear them and that makes you petty.

Psychoblues

 

[Merlin]

They died in Iraq. Why? Never mind. I don't think you will ever understand the very genuine peaceful and industrious nature of the average Iraqi. We'll see milleniums come and go before we see this travesty of justice by an American sitting president forgotten.




And, my political statements are not petty. You just don't like to hear them and that makes you petty.

Psychoblues

Psychoblues, go tell your Mommy that is is time to change your diaper and this time put an extra one around your mouth. When you get old enough to start kindergarten, ask the teacher to teach you something about why we are fighting this war and try to find out the difference between greatness, bravery, and cowardice. Then come back and you may be able to post an intelligent statement.

 

[Avatar4321]

They died in Iraq. Why? Never mind. I don't think you will ever understand the very genuine peaceful and industrious nature of the average Iraqi. We'll see milleniums come and go before we see this travesty of justice by an American sitting president forgotten.




And, my political statements are not petty. You just don't like to hear them and that makes you petty.

Psychoblues

I know Im repeating myself, they died in Iraq because Islamic extremists want us dead and waging war against us.

I see very well the peaceful and industrious nature of the average Iraqi. Which is exactly why i supported liberating them from Saddam while you would have preferred they died as his hands. Which is why I want to see our troops defeat the Islamic extremists who are killing them now. Something youd rather see us abandon them to.

When you start supporting our efforts to protect and liberate those peaceful and industrious natured Iraqis, your attempts to use them as an emotional appeal might bear fruit. But as long as you continue to appeal to them while at the same time you support policies that would have kept them oppressed, butchered, and living in a state of fear, it does nothing for your argument except show the hypocrisy of it.

 

[CockySOB]

They died in Iraq. Why? Never mind. I don't think you will ever understand the very genuine peaceful and industrious nature of the average Iraqi. We'll see milleniums come and go before we see this travesty of justice by an American sitting president forgotten.

And, my political statements are not petty. You just don't like to hear them and that makes you petty.

Psychoblues

Once again, refer to the bold-faced type from your own post. Isn't it ironic that in your original post you claim that the soldiers died for the ego and ego maniacal mannerisms of POTUS GWB? And now in this post you say that it doesn't matter why they died? Nothing like shifting gears in the middle of your own thread, Psycho.

And for the record Psycho, your failure to defend your statements with even the smallest shreds of fact make your arguments "petty" and unsustainable. Do you want people to take your commentary seriously? Then engage them with fact and logic. Hit-and-run sensationalism and emotionalism don't get the job done.

 

[Psychoblues]

That "bold faced type" was not in my original post. Whose sensationalism and emotionalism are you trying to attract? I am not trying to defend. I am still on the offense. What are you trying to defend?

Once again, refer to the bold-faced type from your own post. Isn't it ironic that in your original post you claim that the soldiers died for the ego and ego maniacal mannerisms of POTUS GWB? And now in this post you say that it doesn't matter why they died? Nothing like shifting gears in the middle of your own thread, Psycho.

And for the record Psycho, your failure to defend your statements with even the smallest shreds of fact make your arguments "petty" and unsustainable. Do you want people to take your commentary seriously? Then engage them with fact and logic. Hit-and-run sensationalism and emotionalism don't get the job done.

I always get the job done.

Psychoblues

 

[CockySOB]

Psycho, your original post claimed that the soldiers died for the ego and ego maniacal mannerisms of Pres. Bush. Then you followed up in another post by saying that it doesn't matter why they died.

Go have a nice cup of coffee (or five) and come back when you're awake.

 

[CockySOB]

That "bold faced type" was not in my original post. Whose sensationalism and emotionalism are you trying to attract? I am not trying to defend. I am still on the offense. What are you trying to defend?

Why do I have to be defending anything if I request you to clarify your attack stance? It seems to me that your "offense" is based on nothing in particular, and even you seem unable to validate your offense in terms of "why are you on the offense?" and in terms of "how are you on the offensive?"

I always get the job done.

Psychoblues

Usually that determination is left to those whom you are having a discussion or debate. As it stands, your posts are more akin to tossing a pebble at someone and then running like a scared little wuss all the time claiming "victory." How can you claim victory if you choose not to engage in the conflict?

 

[Avatar4321]

That "bold faced type" was not in my original post. Whose sensationalism and emotionalism are you trying to attract? I am not trying to defend. I am still on the offense. What are you trying to defend?




I always get the job done.

Psychoblues

Psycho, the bolded text is still in your post. Several people have quoted from it. How on earth are you claiming you didnt write it originally?

 

[Gunny]

Why do I have to be defending anything if I request you to clarify your attack stance? It seems to me that your "offense" is based on nothing in particular, and even you seem unable to validate your offense in terms of "why are you on the offense?" and in terms of "how are you on the offensive?"


Usually that determination is left to those whom you are having a discussion or debate. As it stands, your posts are more akin to tossing a pebble at someone and then running like a scared little wuss all the time claiming "victory." How can you claim victory if you choose not to engage in the conflict?

Not very transparent, is he?

 

[Bern80]

None of these soldiers deserved to die for the ego of an American sitting (and I mean sitting) President.

Not ONE of these soldiers deserved to die in the name of the egotistical mannerisms of the present CIC, Commander In Chief.

Honestly, if the Bush 'surge' doesn't work, measured in terms of markedly less sectarian violence (that being the stated goal), then I would say enough is enough.

I view the Irag war as similar to a relationship between a parent and child. I know you'll laugh Psycho but in this case the U.S. is the parent and the militants in Iraq are the children. I believe there are groups of people there, that simply can not stand people that are not like them and are willing to kill because of it. In a nutshell they just won't grow up.

I still believe Psycho that your disdain for anything Bush, clouds your judgement. Your emotion comes through in your posts as much as it did 3 years ago (the last time I spent anytime on this board consistantly). I would try to seperate the cause/purpose of being in Iraq with whatever you think of Bush. Even as a conservative I think his decision making is getting worse, but that doesn't keep me from believing at the end of the day that given the potential positive outcome and that Iraq would've become an issue at some point, that what we're fighting for their is a worthwhile cause. The biggest mistake the administration made was thinking that once not uder Saddam's boot heel, these people could keep from each other's throats

 

[manu1959]

None of these soldiers deserved to die for the ego of an American sitting (and I mean sitting) President.
Not ONE of these soldiers deserved to die in the name of the egotistical mannerisms of the present CIC, Commander In Chief.
At least 20 American service personnel were killed in military operations Saturday in one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since the Iraq war began, and authorities also announced two U.S. combat deaths from the previous day.
The day's worst loss came from the crash of a U.S. Army helicopter northeast of Baghdad that killed 13 service members. An attack Saturday night blamed on militiamen in the city of Karbala killed five soldiers. Roadside bombs killed another soldier in the capital and one in Nineveh province north of Baghdad.
The military gave little information on the crash of the Black Hawk during good weather in Diyala province, where U.S. and Iraqi forces have been battling Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias around the city of Baqouba for months.
More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Psychoblues

the chopper didn't crash, it was shot down by, and i quote "the very genuine peaceful and industrious nature of the average Iraqi......"

 

[Psychoblues]

Just what are trying to say, manu1959? I will personally guarantee you that no "average, peaceful or industrious Iraqi" had anything to do with the shooting down of that "chopper". You need to get a little more educated and broad minded before you make such a ridiculous and clearly prejudiced remark.


Psychoblues

the chopper didn't crash, it was shot down by, and i quote "the very genuine peaceful and industrious nature of the average Iraqi......"

 

[eots]

soldiers die to serve the interest of the elite ,its all a grand chess game
911 was an inside job

 

[Roopull]

It's like some people post thing to make themselves feel good... forum masturbation, if you will.

Please don't get any on the screen.

 

[trobinett]

It's like some people post thing to make themselves feel good... forum masturbation, if you will.

Please don't get any on the screen.

Ain't that the truth!!

 

[roadhouse158]

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm


This war was going to happen at some point. Bill Clinton may have invaded if his term wasn't almost up. I agree with a post earlier. I think the Bush Administrations biggest mistake was in predicting what would happen after the Sadam regime fell. Maybe if the Democrats would have helped come up with a plan back in 04, instead of going and bitching to the media; this could have been taken care of. Finally Bush has said enough is enough. Screw all of you. I asked everyone how to win. You have no recommendations but to leave. In his opinion, in the future even more Americans can be killed if another extremist regime takes over. I don't know why so many of you can't see that. Luckily we have someone in office that doesn't give a shit about the political game. He wants to accomplish something. Yes soldiers are dying. Would you rather it be 3200 now, or 40,000 in the future? Democrats began playing the anti-war card so they could win in 04. Now, after the November elections you have some Republicans going anti-war so they can win in 08. That's absurd! What needs to be done is victory. How in the hell can leaving Iraq benefit this country? It's been laid out how it can hurt us. Someone tell me how it will help our country if we leave.

 

[Annie]

That was a perfect post!