U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Surpassed 2,000

[realmofotalk]

A Look at U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq

By The Associated Press
2 hours, 26 minutes ago



As of Saturday, Oct. 29, 2005, at least 2,015 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,567 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers. The figures include five military civilians.

The AP count is eleven higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated at 10 a.m. EDT Friday.

The British military has reported 97 deaths; Italy, 27; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Slovakia, three; Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia one death each.

Since May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 1,876 U.S. military members have died, according to AP's count. That includes at least 1,458 deaths resulting from hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

___

The latest deaths reported by the military:

• A soldier was killed early Saturday when his vehicle struck a land mine southwest of Beiji.

• Two soldiers were killed Saturday when a bomb exploded near their vehicle in south Baghdad.

___

The latest identifications reported by the military:

• No new identifications.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051029/...q_us_deaths_19

I'm sure any political criticism will not be tolerated since the war had nothing to do with politics.

[General]

It's a war. People die in wars.

Pretty simple.

[realmofotalk]

Yes, but I ask you, was it for a worthy cause?

[General]

No comment. Don't want to start a flame war.

[realmofotalk]

No comment. Don't want to start a flame war.

Lame excuse using this forum to just say "no comment," considering your old "location" in the other forum was "political asylum."

[ATLien]

Why you tryin' to start shit? This thread about to get ugly.

[Slyder]

They should have kicked Saddam out in 1990 before he got a chance to rebuild and even think of trying to pull anything.

[General]

Different forum, different rules, mofo.

[realmofotalk]

They should have kicked Saddam out in 1990 before he got a chance to rebuild and even think of trying to pull anything.

But the right wing would tell you it was Clinton's fault too, right? just like the right wing blames everything on him.

[Slyder]

Theres enough blame to go around:
A few examples
1) UN is to blame for not paying attention to the Food for Oil Program.
2) Bush 41 is to blame for not finishing the job the first time.
3) Reagan can get blame for "helping" Saddam when he was getting his keyster kicked by Iran during the 80s.
4) Truman, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, etc can get blame for allowing Britain and France to get away with basically replacing one empire in the region with another, and for dividing up the area without even looking at the general breakdown of the populace (why we have Kasmir and the Kurd situations).
5) Every President since WW2 is at partial fault for the middle east mess(es) because they (in Iran) supported a nut.

I make no excuses for anyone, nor do I advise anyone of importance, just my general belief that we should have finished the job THE FIRST TIME.

[realmofotalk]

Carter was especially at fault for supporting the Shah of Iran, and in response the Iranian militants took the Americans hostage.

[Slyder]

Why you tryin' to start shit? This thread about to get ugly.

I'll try my best to have a civilized debate, but I always go into talk about politicians with the mantra politics means 2 things 1) lots of hot air. 2) Latin Word POLY(I) meaning Many and TICS meaning blood sucking creatures .

[realmofotalk]

Why you tryin' to start shit? This thread about to get ugly.

I assure you my comments will not make this thread into a flame war. But I don't fully support not being able to comment within reason on issues either just because the views may be polar opposites.

[realmofotalk]

I make no excuses for anyone, nor do I advise anyone of importance, just my general belief that we should have finished the job THE FIRST TIME.

Absolutely, although if that were to happen who knows how much resources and military personnel Bush 41 would have wanted to invest in the rebuilding of Iraq.

[Slyder]

Absolutely, although if that were to happen who knows how much resources and military personnel Bush 41 would have wanted to invest in the rebuilding of Iraq.

I just look at it like this...

Saddam had already started 2 fights with his neighbors and made no excuses that his goal was to become the sole controller of the Middle East's Oil (which would have included taking over parts of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, and a couple other points of interest). Already showed he cared nothing for humanity as he used gas on the Kurds in 1988. Allegedly used it on the Iranians, alogn with US soldiers. He would not have had as much time to discard, burn, sell anything he MIGHT have been doing and we probably could have convinced the UN that he needed the oust and had most of the Arab world with us.