posted on November 6, 2007 05:06:49 AM new
....and it isn't over yet and there is NO signs of improvement.....
2007 Is Deadliest Year for US in Iraq
Published: 11/6/07, 7:46 AM EDT
By LAUREN FRAYER
BAGHDAD (AP) - The U.S. military on Tuesday announced the deaths of five more soldiers, making 2007 the deadliest year of the war for U.S. troops, according to an Associated Press count.
Five U.S. soldiers were killed Monday in two separate roadside bomb attacks, said Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, director of the Multi-National Force-Iraq's communications division.
"We lost five soldiers yesterday in two unfortunate incidents, both involving IEDs," Smith told reporters in Baghdad's heavily-guarded Green Zone.
At least 852 American military personnel have died in Iraq so far this year - the highest annual toll since the war began in March 2003, according to AP figures. Some 850 troops died in 2004.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on November 6, 2007 10:04:50 AM new
And as yet fewer US Soldiers have died in total in Iraq than US teenagers that die each YEAR in traffic accidents.
At least the trrops have died for a good cause.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on November 6, 2007 08:19:12 PM new
Bear and Mingo, you are both right. I had to watch my baby brother bury his oldest son, who died because he unknowingly accepted a ride after a basketball game from an acquaintance who had been drinking. I fear that the commercials for bravado will entice his other son into the war in Iraq. As we approach Veteran's Day, let us honor those who served so willingly and died so valiantly, and also pray that we will only commit our children to causes that are just and necessary.
posted on November 6, 2007 08:36:22 PM new
Well said Pixiamom. I am very sorry for your loss. It is so frustrating that people continue to drive after drinking, no matter how many tragedies they hear about. It is also frustrating that we are still mired in this godforsaken Iraq war, losing sons, daughters, husbands and wives. Let's hope at least some of it will stop soon.
posted on November 7, 2007 06:07:44 AM new Bear and the wright wingers here have made a repeated attempt throughout the last several years to MINIMIZE the number of deaths in Iraq by an illogical comparison of death in battle to murders in cities or deaths from auto accidents. That is nothing but an insult to the memory of those who died in the service of this country. You may as well compare the number of Iraq deaths to the number of people who died of aids or cancer or heart attacks.
Even if only one soldier was killed in Iraq, it would not make any sense to point out that during that periond 5 homicides occurred at the same time in the District of Columbia. Rumsfeld made a similar effort to minimize the death toll in Iraq. His remark was critized all across the country and D.C. Mayor, Anthony A. Williams called his comments, "unfortunate, unappreciated and ill-advised."
Rumsfeld said, "You got to remember that if Washington, D.C., were the size of Baghdad, we would be having something like 215 murders a month. 'There's going to be violence in a big city.'
So now, Bear you've tried to shift and minimize the horror of the needless death in Iraq from a "hot time in the city" or just traffic deaths to what you may percieve is a more sensitive topic...teen age traffic deaths. How illogical, irrelevant and insensitive can you be. Your continued effort to write off a death in the service of our country as something like death from an auto accident or a murder on the city street. is insensitive to the point of being repulsive.
If you want to discuss teen age fatalaties from auto accidents start a new thread.
Hiding caskets and efforts to minimize the number of killed soldiers by such illogical comparisons will not hide the awful truth that is now recognized by the majority of all Americans.
posted on November 7, 2007 08:12:21 AM newBear and the wright wingers here have made a repeated attempt throughout the last several years to MINIMIZE the number of deaths in Iraq by an illogical comparison of death in battle to murders in cities or deaths from auto accidents. That is nothing but an insult to the memory of those who died in the service of this country. You may as well compare the number of Iraq deaths to the number of people who died of aids or cancer or heart attacks.
The INSULT is whey you left wingnut continue to call for a pullout of the troops before the job is done, thus minimizing the sacrifice those troops have made.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on November 7, 2007 10:53:48 AM new
Everytime there is a thread about the number of deaths in Iraq, some neocon, usually Bear, brings up the traffic deaths. What has one to do with the other? Why not bring up all those who died falling in their bathrooms? How about those who died in house fires? Just ridiculous! Soldiers killed in Iraq is a category unto itself and every one of those deaths are on the heads of Bush, Cheney et al.
posted on November 7, 2007 12:14:55 PM newThe INSULT is whey you left wingnut continue to call for a pullout of the troops before the job is done
The real INSULT is Bush changing the reason we are fighting in Iraq every time the reason he gave has proven false. How many different reasons has Bush given for the war in Iraq - 5 or 6?
Besides Bush has already declared Mission Accomplished so why are we still fighting unless that huge banner on the aircraft carrier was just a publicity stunt.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on November 7, 2007 12:56:56 PM new
No logansdunce. It's your left wingnut Demomorons who want to surrender to the terrorists before the job is done. It's clear the surge has worked, but yet you want to surrender.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on November 8, 2007 10:04:26 AM newIt's your left wingnut Demomorons who want to surrender to the terrorists before the job is done. It's clear the surge has worked, but yet you want to surrender.
Rocks for brains doesn't want to admit that Bush has changed his rationale for the war in Iraq at least 5 times. It is Bush's fault that we are in the mess. Are you going to dismiss all the promises that were made by Chimpy McFlightsuit and Rummy about how long the war will last? How many times did Dick say the insurgency is in it's final throws. This war has been mismanaged since day one but you can't admit it.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
Are YOU a Bunghole?