Iraq war death toll for December 23, lowest per day average of the entire war

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
ProfJohn, do you think we should have permanent bases in Iraq?

hmm not sure, if the Iraqis want us then perhaps, but I am not of the mind that we must have bases there.

When you say, "Iraqi's," do you mean the Iraqi government, or the Iraqi people?

I think its a valid question because many Saudi's didn't want our base in their country, but their government was different obviously.

Would you support our military being used to support a government that the majority of Iraqi's don't want, if it comes to this?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JD50
Oh one other thing, how many of you "zero deaths is the only acceptable amount of casualties" people are voting for a Presidential candidate that is advocating an IMMEDIATE withdraw from Iraq?

Good question.

I can proudly say that I am.

 

[Lemon law]

No, I think what we are unhappy about is the fact the so called surge just fossilizes a US military commitment in Iraq while doing nothing to end that commitment in any way. All of us
would support a plan that had a hope of success, but a plan that locks in no progress towards an end is cynical and evil. Because then our troops die just so GWB&co. and its egomaniacs can slink out of office without doing anything or fixing what they broke.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
No! Our fighting men and women are the best in the world and they deserve better than to have their lives squandered by your dumbass TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of LIARS, TRAITORS and MURDERERS.

One of the great things, Harvey, is that they fight so ungrateful assholes like you and a few others in this thread can keep spouting off your bullshit. You're the lowest of low, one who would use a war and those fighting it as tokens in a political power struggle. Disgusting, Disgraceful, And Shameful. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ooooh, the angry face. Have I made poor baby mad again? There there, it's OK little man. Don't cry.

No, you've just shown yourself for the immature little prick you are. I guess Dr. Paul's crushing defeat and rejection is still souring you.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: JD50
Oh one other thing, how many of you "zero deaths is the only acceptable amount of casualties" people are voting for a Presidential candidate that is advocating an IMMEDIATE withdraw from Iraq?

Good question.

I can proudly say that I am.

:thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

When we get done with Iraq, it'll be a safe, prosperous country, with well-educated people who will enjoy their new freedoms and liberties.

Just like the Saudi's.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: umbrella39
The OP just doesn't get it. Whether he is excited about 100 deaths a month, or 50 deaths a month, or 25 deaths a month. He is still cheerleading death. :thumbsdown:

Why weren't you saying this in all of the threads by Jpeyton and Techs back when we were hitting record high death tolls?

Well mainly because of my stance on the war. 1 being too many for my likes. So when someone is pointing at death tolls to improve their arguments or right or wrong, I will of course side with the ones that say 1 is too many let alone the record high levels you mentioned them citing, not the one who has some imaginary number of deaths = success.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: umbrella39
The OP just doesn't get it. Whether he is excited about 100 deaths a month, or 50 deaths a month, or 25 deaths a month. He is still cheerleading death. :thumbsdown:

Why weren't you saying this in all of the threads by Jpeyton and Techs back when we were hitting record high death tolls?

Well mainly because of my stance on the war. 1 being too many for my likes. So when someone is pointing at death tolls to improve their arguments or right or wrong, I will of course side with the ones that say 1 is too many let alone the record high levels you mentioned them citing, not the one who has some imaginary number of deaths = success.

Well the person that is posting about record high deaths is politicizing these soldiers deaths just as much as the person that posts about record low deaths, the difference being that one person is "excited" about record low deaths while the other person is "excited" about record high deaths.

Also, if you think that the number of deaths do not reflect on the success of the mission, why do you support people that say otherwise (those saying that high deaths = failure)?

Although we might disagree a lot, its nice to see that Ron Paul has gained yet another supporter. I mean if you feel this strongly about it you must be voting for the ONLY candidate that will pull our troops out of Iraq immediately right?

 

[Lemon law]

Sadly the Iraq war argument is now far more complex than just troop deaths.

1. The initial GWB&co argument was that we were removing Saddam to make the USA and the larger world safe from Iraqi WMD. We all know that argument was a crock of balony and if it could be proved that GWB had the intel to know it was false, we would have impeached GWB long ago. But thats all in the realm of plausible deniability.

2. Then the argument became that we were freeing the Iraqi people from dictatorship and Iraq had become a central front on the war against international terrorism. We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. A somewhat strange argument given the fact that there were no Al-Quida in Iraq under Saddam before and the we now know the net effect of GWB's so called war on terror has been to increase international terrorism. And then we also find, according to our own NIE, that 85% of the Iraqi insurgencies is home grown Iraqi due to a combination of the removal of Saddam and our ineptly run occupation. And given our policies, GWB&co does not have any commitment to the Iraqi people, or in protecting them
from the ethnic cleansing that resulted, or in seeing that Iraqi infrastructure is repaired. But at all costs we must protect the rights of corporate thugs and blackwater to continue to loot the country.

3. And after critics screamed for 3.5 years to remove Rumsfeld as central dummy of our bungled occupation, the removal of Rumsfeld was accomplished in a single day only after
GWB&co lost the House and Senate in the mid-term election of 11/06. And rather than being
a uniter and not a divider, shortly thereafter the concept of the surge was invented out of thin air with one and only one purpose in mind. And that was to keep GWB&co in charge while ignoring congress. The original surge plan was descent and could have worked, but it was predicated on having Iraqi troops trained which was neglected for four long years, and by 3/07 it was apparent that the surge plan was busted because the Iraqi assets were worse than useless. But in the fortunes of war, Iraq became ethnically segregated enough so that ethnic cleansing slowed even thought 2007 saw the creation of better than a million Iraqi refugees fleeing to mainly Syria. And while Al-Quida wore out its welcome as the various insurgencies started to consolidate their gains in the abscience of any political progress. And now its clear that GWB has no plans other than to run out the clock and leave town on
1/20/2009 leaving all Iraqi problems to the next congress and President.

4. And with better than a year to go until 1/20/2009, we the American people have to ask two questions. Namely why are we in Iraq and are we going to waste a whole year pandering to the ego of GWB&com just so he can leave us high and dry and guaranteeing an entire year is wasted.

The first question is fairly easy to answer, if we leave now we risk a huge regional war. The second question is more baffling.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I won't be happy until that number is zero.

100% agreed.

Only 23. Only? Only?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: chucky2
I doubt many will be saddened by the news (although sickly a few will) that we're loosing much less per day that we used to...

...but the reality is that 23 mothers got notified in Dec. that their baby is dead. 23 families had about as sh1tty a Dec. as one could possibly have.

When that number is 0 per month - or d@mn close to it - then we can all celebrate.

Chuck

Ummm you do understand that between 400 and 600 members of the military die every year due to accidents. That works out to 33 per months (at 400) which means more than likely more members of the military died in accidents during the month of December than died in Iraq.

Yes, 23 is still too many, but let?s not diminish the amazing success our military has had over the last 6 months.

First, I'm not diminishing anything the members of our military - a totally volunteer force - have done. By 99.99999% of accounts, they do the best they can in what many/most times are difficult/sh1tty/impossible situations. That they do it for the benefit of US/Western world, and the Iraqi's, while getting low pay and sh1t bennies is only more amazing (People can talk about "The US" being there for oil, imperialism, etc, but the average soldier is there for their country, buddies, and to help the Iraqi's...and that's as honorable as it gets). So don't take my post as a slam of the military or of their sacrifices.

My point was that, while 23 dead a month is lots better than triple digits a month, 23 dead a month is still 23 dead a month. This isn't two buddies got drunk back in the States and ended up in a DUI fatality. This is 23 sons and daughters got shipped home in body bags...and many more got sent home alive but changed forever.

We should feel some relief that the monthly body count is dropping (hopefully we truly didn't make deals with devils to accomplish that, i.e. setting up the country to desintegrate further down the line, make a deal with Iran to stop instigating and they could have nukes, etc.), however we should also be keeping in mind the real long term goal of not only a stable Iraq, but a prosperous - for the people - Iraq.

Failing to start bringing the common people into the fold in that region, through and starting with Iraq, will be the real long term failure if we can't pull that off...if we can't manage that long term, then truly everything that's been sacrificed (by all sides) up to this point will have been a waste.

And forgetting about Afghanistan and Pakistan we should not be doing....the US has the resources, we should be going all out there as well, at a people - not smart bomb - level.

Hope that cleared up what I meant...

Chuck

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JD50
Oh one other thing, how many of you "zero deaths is the only acceptable amount of casualties" people are voting for a Presidential candidate that is advocating an IMMEDIATE withdraw from Iraq?

I am.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ooooh, the angry face. Have I made poor baby mad again? There there, it's OK little man. Don't cry.

No, you've just shown yourself for the immature little prick you are. I guess Dr. Paul's crushing defeat and rejection is still souring you.

Hahahahaha, being called immature by Pabster. That's rich.

Go suck on your pacifier, little boy.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
ProfJohn, do you think we should have permanent bases in Iraq?

hmm not sure, if the Iraqis want us then perhaps, but I am not of the mind that we must have bases there.

When you say, "Iraqi's," do you mean the Iraqi government, or the Iraqi people?

I think its a valid question because many Saudi's didn't want our base in their country, but their government was different obviously.

Would you support our military being used to support a government that the majority of Iraqi's don't want, if it comes to this?

The Iraqi government is a democracy, the Saudi government is not.

Iraq may not be a perfect democracy, but that is the direction we are heading.

Also? did you miss all the stories about how the people of Iraq want us to stay there and how many of them feel safer with our troops around than with their own police or armed forces around?

I know there are polls that show many Iraqis want us to leave, but I equate those with all the polls that show Americans are unhappy with congress. We all hate congress with its sub 20% approval rating, but come November 95% of congressmen will win reelection because while we hate congress we seem to like our congressman.

 

[senseamp]

Success is us leaving Iraq.

 

[First]

Reduction is nice, but still no political progress, and since every U.S. commander in Iraq will tell you that's the ultimate litmus test for success in Iraq, surge has been nothing but a military success, which was never in doubt. Only Bill O'Reilly-type hacks would claim otherwise.

Besides, the death tolls will start to rise this year, economy will worsen, and neocons will continue to look too hawkish for America and, eventually, just die out entirely. Should be a good year for cleansing uninformed idiocy.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Success is us leaving Iraq.

Great, another vote for Ron Paul...:thumbsup:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
ProfJohn, do you think we should have permanent bases in Iraq?

hmm not sure, if the Iraqis want us then perhaps, but I am not of the mind that we must have bases there.

When you say, "Iraqi's," do you mean the Iraqi government, or the Iraqi people?

I think its a valid question because many Saudi's didn't want our base in their country, but their government was different obviously.

Would you support our military being used to support a government that the majority of Iraqi's don't want, if it comes to this?

The Iraqi government is a democracy, the Saudi government is not.

Iraq may not be a perfect democracy, but that is the direction we are heading.

Also? did you miss all the stories about how the people of Iraq want us to stay there and how many of them feel safer with our troops around than with their own police or armed forces around?

I know there are polls that show many Iraqis want us to leave, but I equate those with all the polls that show Americans are unhappy with congress. We all hate congress with its sub 20% approval rating, but come November 95% of congressmen will win reelection because while we hate congress we seem to like our congressman.

Before I call you an outrageous liar I'll get you the chance to back that up with links to reputable surveys and polls.

Last one I saw over 70% of Iraqis wanted us to leave immediately ""without delay"". The Iraqi Interior Minister told Cheney, ""NO. BIG FAT NO."" to military bases.

And the people of Iraq overwhelmingly favored the Iraqi Army and Police by a 10-1 margin over US Troops. They even preferred local militias over US Troops by a 5-1 margin. These were Guardian/UK and Zogby polls ...

Back it up, Johnnie, or go back to Fox News.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hahahahaha, being called immature by Pabster. That's rich.

Go suck on your pacifier, little boy.

:lips: my (_(_).

 

[IronWing]

Training the Iraqi Army is paying off...their soldiers are learning to shoot straight...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...vt8suN7TfwYPB4JdVZ.3QA

Maybe we would see less violence against our troops if we would stop arming all the folks who want to shoot at our troops.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39
The OP just doesn't get it. Whether he is excited about 100 deaths a month, or 50 deaths a month, or 25 deaths a month. He is still cheerleading death. :thumbsdown:

So you'd be happier if the death count in Iraq was much higher again because it just doesn't matter?

That's about the only reason I can think of as to why you'd so grossly mischaracterize the intent of the OP. I mean, there are other reasons I can think of but surely you wouldn't be so crass.

:roll:

Hey I'm not the one holding up a sign proclaiming that "xx" is an acceptable amount of casualties as some sort of litmus test for the surge being a success.

But people like you sure were quick to harp on that toll when it was much higher. Every time there was a new monthly record the entire gaggle of the anti-war crowd would roost and make loud noises about it. Obviously the numbers were important to you and others then. Now that those numbers have decreased dramtically suddenly it's purely about death and not the numbers involved?

Sorry, but that's quite an exhibit of intellectual dishonesty no matter how you try to slice and dice it. It's rhetoric designed to do little more than malign PJ as well and it reflects poorly on whatever message you're trying to get across, unles you're message is has little more thought to it than a Sheehanesque accusation of "baby-killer!," or a Harveyesque abuse of macros and emoticons.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Training the Iraqi Army is paying off...their soldiers are learning to shoot straight...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...vt8suN7TfwYPB4JdVZ.3QA

Maybe we would see less violence against our troops if we would stop arming all the folks who want to shoot at our troops.

That's a sad story.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Before I call you an outrageous liar I'll get you the chance to back that up with links to reputable surveys and polls.

Last one I saw over 70% of Iraqis wanted us to leave immediately ""without delay"". The Iraqi Interior Minister told Cheney, ""NO. BIG FAT NO."" to military bases.

And the people of Iraq overwhelmingly favored the Iraqi Army and Police by a 10-1 margin over US Troops. They even preferred local militias over US Troops by a 5-1 margin. These were Guardian/UK and Zogby polls ...

Back it up, Johnnie, or go back to Fox News.

It comes from reading the various military blogs and first hand reports from people on the ground, such as Michael Yon.

The people who are there on the ground tell a different story than what you see in the MSM.

If you are not reading some blogs and first hand reports then you are missing out on a lot of the story.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39
The OP just doesn't get it. Whether he is excited about 100 deaths a month, or 50 deaths a month, or 25 deaths a month. He is still cheerleading death. :thumbsdown:

So you'd be happier if the death count in Iraq was much higher again because it just doesn't matter?

That's about the only reason I can think of as to why you'd so grossly mischaracterize the intent of the OP. I mean, there are other reasons I can think of but surely you wouldn't be so crass.

:roll:

Hey I'm not the one holding up a sign proclaiming that "xx" is an acceptable amount of casualties as some sort of litmus test for the surge being a success.

But people like you ........

Not sure who people like me are exactly, however I have always been an opponent of this invasion prior to it ever coming to fruition. +1 was too much. Your argument is moot. Anyway you try to slice it, 23, 230, 2300 is too much if it is +1. Slower bleeding is still bleeding TLC. As others have pointed out, 23 families had a real shit Christmas this year. That is 23 too many. No, I am not going to applaud the fact that only 23 died in December or give some sort of pat on the back to those that point it out as some sort of gauge of success. I was unaware that 23 dead a month was the goal of the surge and that IS what we are talking about in this thread. Not some other persons post 2 years ago that was "harping" a death count > 23 prior to the surge. You trying to paint this as a numbers comparison is rather lame. Yeah, TLC, the numbers matter then and they do now, they are still +1 and that is all I have ever insisted is too much. EOS.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ironwing
Training the Iraqi Army is paying off...their soldiers are learning to shoot straight...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...vt8suN7TfwYPB4JdVZ.3QA

Maybe we would see less violence against our troops if we would stop arming all the folks who want to shoot at our troops.

That's a sad story.

Yet symbolic of the democracy we're bleeding for in Iraq.

As Robert Spencer says::

I have maintained for years that there is no reliable way to distinguish a "moderate" Muslim who rejects the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism from a "radical" Muslim who holds such ideas, even if he isn't acting upon them at the moment. And the cluelessness and multiculturalism of Western officialdom, which make officials shy away from even asking pointed questions, only compound this problem.

This kind of incident is completely inexplicable according to the established paradigms. Here was an Iraqi who was being "empowered." Who had been shown the good will of the Americans, who no doubt trained his unit and bankroll its existence, in innumerable ways. His loyalty to a unified, independent Iraq, and his abhorrence of the jihad ideology was assumed. Assumed at a great cost.

Are we not assuming an Iraqi democracy's abhorrence of the jihad ideology? I contend that with their ties with Iran that they will embrace it and oppose us. Which seems counter productive to defending America.