U.S. October death toll in Iraq hits 69

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061018/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

U.S. October death toll in Iraq hits 69

The U.S. military reported Wednesday that 10 American troops had been killed the day before, raising the death toll so far this month to 69 and putting October on track to be the deadliest month for coalition forces in nearly two years.

The nine U.S. soldiers and one Marine were killed by roadside bombs and enemy fire in and around the capital on Tuesday, the military reported.

The sharp rise in deaths comes as the U.S. has increased the number of troops in the Baghdad area to try to stop the spiraling sectarian and insurgent violence engulfing the city of some 6 million people.



It seems as if Americans have become immune to the deaths of our troops. Not to mention the Iraq deaths which are on a pace of something like 35,000 this year.
And for what?
Bush is going to pull out after the election. Or the next President will pull out when elected.
And every day we are there we are worsening the situation.
Senseless, needless death. Orchestrated by draft dodging cowards who trip over themselves trying to prove how "strong" and "courageous" they are with other peoples children.

 

[jpeyton]

Wow, time to update the 'ole sig.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It's just a number, alot like a comma. Right?

 

[Jaskalas]

While I think we should have taken out Iraq, our rebuilding of it could not have been done worse. Our troops shouldn?t have to expend lives because we want them to pretend they are police officers in a civilized region.

Brutal attacks call for brutal measures at quelling the hostile population, if we?re not willing to do what we need to enforce civility, then we?ve no good reason for still being there under the guise of cleaning it up when we?ve never been willing to do it.

We gave the Iraqis a government much too soon, because defending that has cost us far more lives than necessary.

 

[EagleKeeper]

As long as Bush is in charge, there will be no immediate pullout due to public pressure

Troops will be in place until it is felt that the Iraqi's are felt to trained well anough and have the manpower to take over the missions that our poeple are doing.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
As long as Bush is in charge, there will be no immediate pullout due to public pressure

Troops will be in place until it is felt that the Iraqi's are felt to trained well anough and have the manpower to take over the missions that our poeple are doing.

The Army has already changed plans, again, and have stated they will be in Iraq through 2010. There are even talks of increasing troop strength.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
As long as Bush is in charge, there will be no immediate pullout due to public pressure

Troops will be in place until it is felt that the Iraqi's are felt to trained well anough and have the manpower to take over the missions that our poeple are doing.

I don't get the logic. By most accounts, our current missions aren't working out so well. To be more specific, whatever 'successes' that are achieved appear to be fleeting or otherwise mitigated by a general deterioration of the country (possible exception of Kurdish areas and the far south).

It seems like Bushistas are marking time until there's enough well trained and equipped Iraqis PLUS political will by Iraqi leadership to HELP the US military get control of the country. Does that make sense to anyone . . . aside from Bushistas?

 

[Bowfinger]

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs
Topic Title: U.S. October death toll in Iraq hits 69
Topic Title: U.S. October death toll in Iraq hits 69

Topic Summary: Why don't people seem to care?

Because "Mission Accomplished"

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
As long as Bush is in charge, there will be no immediate pullout due to public pressure

Troops will be in place until it is felt that the Iraqi's are felt to trained well anough and have the manpower to take over the missions that our poeple are doing.

I don't get the logic. By most accounts, our current missions aren't working out so well. To be more specific, whatever 'successes' that are achieved appear to be fleeting or otherwise mitigated by a general deterioration of the country (possible exception of Kurdish areas and the far south).

It seems like Bushistas are marking time until there's enough well trained and equipped Iraqis PLUS political will by Iraqi leadership to HELP the US military get control of the country. Does that make sense to anyone . . . aside from Bushistas?

Iraq has no longer been able to be a get in, stablize and get out.

The political facts are that one will not get out until the situtation is stabilized.
Until the IRaqis are able to effect the stabilization, the US forces will be assisting.

Some can say that by assisting, stabilization will never occur.
However, if we get out before stabilization, then the Balkans/Somalia, etc will happen.

Catch 22.

It has now become a political fight, not a military fight.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
As long as Bush is in charge, there will be no immediate pullout due to public pressure

Troops will be in place until it is felt that the Iraqi's are felt to trained well anough and have the manpower to take over the missions that our poeple are doing.

The Army has already changed plans, again, and have stated they will be in Iraq through 2010. There are even talks of increasing troop strength.

Bull ******. Try your propaganda on dailykos or moveon.org where people will eat it up. But not on a site where people who read the news and are well informed and willing to challenge lies like that.

They army is planning to keep troops there. That does not mean they will actually be there. Even the head of the army said that the troops can be removed when ever they are ordered to. It is the job of the army to plan just incase they are there in 2010.

The army does not decide when and where they are deployed, do you not understand this basic principle of our government?

I am sure the army right now is planning on how to attack North Korea, that does not mean we will ever actually launch an attack. It is the civilian leadership that decides that. And it will be the next President who decides how long we stay in Iraq, not the army.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
As long as Bush is in charge, there will be no immediate pullout due to public pressure

Troops will be in place until it is felt that the Iraqi's are felt to trained well anough and have the manpower to take over the missions that our poeple are doing.

The Army has already changed plans, again, and have stated they will be in Iraq through 2010. There are even talks of increasing troop strength.

Bull ******. Try your propaganda on dailykos or moveon.org where people will eat it up.

Ohhh the irony. As for you sig, care to put your money where your mouth is? If they take control of either house or senate, you leave for good, AGAIN... :laugh:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
As long as Bush is in charge, there will be no immediate pullout due to public pressure

Troops will be in place until it is felt that the Iraqi's are felt to trained well anough and have the manpower to take over the missions that our poeple are doing.

The Army has already changed plans, again, and have stated they will be in Iraq through 2010. There are even talks of increasing troop strength.

Bull ******. Try your propaganda on dailykos or moveon.org where people will eat it up. But not on a site where people who read the news and are well informed and willing to challenge lies like that.

They army is planning to keep troops there. That does not mean they will actually be there. Even the head of the army said that the troops can be removed when ever they are ordered to. It is the job of the army to plan just incase they are there in 2010.

The army does not decide when and where they are deployed, do you not understand this basic principle of our government?

I am sure the army right now is planning on how to attack North Korea, that does not mean we will ever actually launch an attack. It is the civilian leadership that decides that. And it will be the next President who decides how long we stay in Iraq, not the army.

Geez what's with all the angry R's on this forum? I dunno I think I'm going to make a thread about it.

 

[brandonb]

Sickening...

We need to get our boys out of there, ASAP.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The army does not decide when and where they are deployed, do you not understand this basic principle of our government?

I am sure the army right now is planning on how to attack North Korea, that does not mean we will ever actually launch an attack. It is the civilian leadership that decides that. And it will be the next President who decides how long we stay in Iraq, not the army.

Not understanding the government? What does my previous post have to do this and why the attacks on me?
I just stated something that was on Yahoo / Reuters news a few weeks ago.. it isn't some $hit I just made up..

As for the Army.. yes.. The Army does have a say in deployments.. Upper level Army is the government. Do you actually think the entire Army are puppets? Contrary to what you think, the Army has a say in how it is run.

As for planning an attack on North Korea? Does civilian leadership plan and train for daily operations in the event of an attack? Here you go again claiming the Army operatins as puppets. As a former soldier myself, I can say that every day is training and planning. Thats the Armys job; to train, plan and deter our enemies. You are a fool to think the Army sits back and does nothing until your so-called civilian leadership gives commands.

 

[ayabe]

Meanwhile, according to Dick Cheney:


"CHENEY: Well, I think there?s some natural level of concern out there because in fact, you know, it wasn?t over instantaneously. It?s been a little over three years now since we went into Iraq, so I don?t think it?s surprising that people are concerned.

On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now. They?re off to a good start. It is difficult, no question about it, but we?ve now got over 300,000 Iraqis trained and equipped as part of their security forces. They?ve had three national elections with higher turnout than we have here in the United States. If you look at the general overall situation, they?re doing remarkably well.

It?s still very, very difficult, very tough. Nobody should underestimate the extent to which we?re engaged there with this sort of, at present, the ?major front? of the war on terror. That?s what Osama bin Laden says, and he?s right. "

This is part of his interview with Rush yesterday.

 

[ProfJohn]

874 people were murdered in New York City alone last year, why does nobody care?

Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off.

If we leave there tomorrow and Iraq turns into one big terror training camp then the lives of those brave soldiers will have been lost for nothing. However, if we stay and do the job the way it should be done then their sacrifice will have been worth it.

History is filled with people taking the ?easy way out? and paying for it in the end.
It was easy to stay out of the war in Europe in 1939, 40 and most of 41. However, our sitting at home on our asses ended up costing FAR more lives in the long run than if we had gotten involved earlier on.

As much as you would like to think, this is not Vietnam. We withdrew from Vietnam and never had to worry about Americans dying because of that. However, if we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan because we feel that the lives of 3000 people is to much of a cost to bear we will without a doubt pay the price down the road when we have to deal with more terror attacks.

Withdrawing from Iraq tomorrow may save the lives of a few hundred soldiers over the course of a year. But it will certainly cost us more lives via terror attacks in the long run. Not to mention the fact that the open warfare that is likely to result without our forces there acting as a buffer will results in the deaths of FAR more Iraqis than are even dying now.

I do not like the fact that Americans are dying in Iraq anymore than anyone else on here does. But we can NOT afford to lose in Iraq. We can NOT hand the terrorists a monumental victory. We can NOT send a message to terrorists and tyrants world wide that all you have to do is kill a few Americans and we as a country will go running for the hills.

 

[umbrella39]

^^^ Someone who only cares about body counts when it is his own. You are part of the right political party, let no one ever tell you otherwise.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
874 people were murdered in New York City alone last year, why does nobody care?

Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off. ...

Speaking of "bull****". I know you don't like to acknowledge that Iraqis are human beings too, but point of fact, there have been several hundred thousand deaths in Iraq in the last three years.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
874 people were murdered in New York City alone last year, why does nobody care?

Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off. ...

Speaking of "bull****". I know you don't like to acknowledge that Iraqis are human beings too, but point of fact, there have been several hundred thousand deaths in Iraq in the last three years.

Yes there have been. Let's withdraw our forces tomorrow so that the Iraqis who want to kill each other can do it freely without us getting in the way. That should lead to less deaths right?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Maybe you should sign up, go over there, be the big bad patriot you make yourself out to be. Meanwhile, more innocent Iraqis are dying because 1 little man started a war based on lies. I'd ask you how you think he sleeps at night, but a man without a soul will sleep the sleep of the dead.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
874 people were murdered in New York City alone last year, why does nobody care?

Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off. ...

Speaking of "bull****". I know you don't like to acknowledge that Iraqis are human beings too, but point of fact, there have been several hundred thousand deaths in Iraq in the last three years.

Yes there have been. Let's withdraw our forces tomorrow so that the Iraqis who want to kill each other can do it freely without us getting in the way. That should lead to less deaths right?

Oh yes, because those are the only two options, immediate, total withdrawal, or stay the course with a tragically failed "plan". Grow up. You become more of a joke with each post you make.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061018/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

U.S. October death toll in Iraq hits 69

The U.S. military reported Wednesday that 10 American troops had been killed the day before, raising the death toll so far this month to 69 and putting October on track to be the deadliest month for coalition forces in nearly two years.

The nine U.S. soldiers and one Marine were killed by roadside bombs and enemy fire in and around the capital on Tuesday, the military reported.

The sharp rise in deaths comes as the U.S. has increased the number of troops in the Baghdad area to try to stop the spiraling sectarian and insurgent violence engulfing the city of some 6 million people.



It seems as if Americans have become immune to the deaths of our troops. Not to mention the Iraq deaths which are on a pace of something like 35,000 this year.
And for what?
Bush is going to pull out after the election. Or the next President will pull out when elected.
And every day we are there we are worsening the situation.
Senseless, needless death. Orchestrated by draft dodging cowards who trip over themselves trying to prove how "strong" and "courageous" they are with other peoples children.

It's not that people dont care. It's that intelligent people know you dont gage success or failure of war by bodycount.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
874 people were murdered in New York City alone last year, why does nobody care?

Call me an SOB, but 3000 deaths in 3 years in Iraq compared to 3000 deaths in New York in one day (9-11) seems like a good trade off. ...

Speaking of "bull****". I know you don't like to acknowledge that Iraqis are human beings too, but point of fact, there have been several hundred thousand deaths in Iraq in the last three years.

Yes there have been. Let's withdraw our forces tomorrow so that the Iraqis who want to kill each other can do it freely without us getting in the way. That should lead to less deaths right?

Oh yes, because those are the only two options, immediate, total withdrawal, or stay the course with a tragically failed "plan". Grow up. You become more of a joke with each post you make.

I have to agree Bow, I am going to simply ignore his posts from now on. CsG was less rock headed than this one.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

The people that care will be the ones voting for change in 3 weeks. The people that vote to "stay the course" claim to care, but continue to keep men in office that would keep killing our troops through their inaction.