← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · xmetalhead
Thread ID: 20752 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2005-10-25
2005-10-25 20:36 | User Profile
As you all know, I find this war incredibly offensive to humanity and a permanent stain on America's soul. It's affecting me everyday, knowing that the brave soldiers are risking life and limb for a repulsive administration's ambitions in a far away land. Our government has been hijacked by greed and twisted fanatics who careless for life than profits. My heart goes out to all the families as we reach another ignominous milestone in the sad and immoral saga of the Iraq War. As for the innocent Iraqis killed by America's hand, may God forgive us (although I doubt it will be that easy).
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9772398/[/url]
[url]http://icasualties.org/oif/[/url]
2005-10-25 21:07 | User Profile
Yeah, reaching the 2,000 mark is just yet another sad milestone in a war that we didn't fight out of necessity, but by choice. Whatever happened to Republicans that believe we SHOULDN'T be the worlds policeman?
2005-10-26 04:14 | User Profile
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Try 10,000 KIA, with the number of WIA being FAR higher.
Aided by the Pox News Ministry of Propaganda the Shrub Regime has been using every manner of slight of hand to tweak the numbers and make the true number of U.S. war dead appear much lower than it actually is.[/SIZE][/FONT]
2005-10-26 05:31 | User Profile
XM,
Karma is coming back upon those responsible for this like a boomerang.
2005-10-26 11:21 | User Profile
I sure hope you're right, Sert, but I'm not so optimistic. I think the American people (enough of them, anyway) are stupid and brainwashed enough that they'll probably allow Bushstein et al to extend the current Iraqi conflict into Syria or Iran. A majority might not support such a move, but they'll tolerate it. Americans of today will put up with anything and are too cowed by their government to hold it accountable.
2005-10-26 19:32 | User Profile
"2,000" represents only the Americans who actually died on the streets ("battlefields" if you prefer).
The original and ongoing practice of the Bush Administration is to not officially count as "killed in action" those of our troops who die in transit from the places at which they'd received their fatal wounds.
"In transit from action" includes all men and women who die at any time after they are loaded into ambulances, trucks, planes or helicopters while still breathing.
By some accounts, it is both conceivable and possible that the actual number of U.S. troops who have so far lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the ones who eventually died from their battle-wounds "while in transit" or at some medical facilities, could be approaching or surpassing 9,000.
Furthermore, there have been no "official counts" of American troops who have been severely maimed for life, nor of those who should have been granted immediate Medical Discharges and VA Compensations, but who were instead moved into desk jobs and kept on active duty.
The one thing that has become "crystal clear" is that the dry-drunk fool who is now our President and Commander-In-Chief is a pathological liar whose words simply cannot be trusted. He has in fact and indeed given new depth and meaning to the axiom; "The first casualty of war is TRUTH".
2005-10-26 20:09 | User Profile
Quitchyer bitchin' This is a glorious conflict for israeli happiness. What's a few thousand American lives compared to peace of mind in Tel-Aviv? Stop being so petty, so mean, so...American!
2005-10-26 20:13 | User Profile
Kminta,
Like you, I am also sceptical about anything that comes out of the Bush Administration. However, in this case they are being truthful about the number of dead. Not because they want to, but because this is too hard to hide. I've looked at several difference sources on this, including from one guy from my neck of the woods. The ones posted on Antiwar.com are accurate. The only thing in question is the number of wounded. There is room for Bush gang lying in that area.
2005-10-26 20:15 | User Profile
I tend to agree with Kminta and Hivemind that the official body count of American military deaths in Iraq is undercounted. By how much I'm not willing to say. I guess whether it's 2000 or 8000, the deaths of Americans and Iraqis alike in this misbegotten adventure is an unbearable sight/thought when you think they're all dying for lies and greedy men and Israeli paranoia.
Sertorius brought up Karma. That reminds me of a John Lennon song:
Instant Karma gonna get'cha ya/knock you right on the head/better wake up darling/pretty soon you're gonna be dead!
2005-10-26 23:34 | User Profile
[quote=Hivemindgammahydra7][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Try 10,000 KIA, with the number of WIA being FAR higher.
Aided by the Pox News Ministry of Propaganda the Shrub Regime has been using every manner of slight of hand to tweak the numbers and make the true number of U.S. war dead appear much lower than it actually is.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Your source? Or are you making this up?
Were the medics and the methods of treating and treaging wounds not so advanced and well practiced, in trauma hospitals in every major city in the US, the dead count could well be two or three times what is already is at about 2000.
The medical profession does a remarkable job of turning a life threatening injury into a bad wound that you live through, though possibly maimed for life.
You will note that, based on news reports from a variety of sources, in the last six months roughly 3600 or so Iraqis are confirmed killed in the bombings and shootings that take place in Iraq on a daily basis. 2000 in two and a half years versus 3600 in six months. The ability to get trauma care to unarmored civiliasng going about their lives, and the lightly armored Iraqi police and troops, is obviously short of what the American troops have access to.
None of these deaths are to be applauded, considering that "other means" to deal with Saddam Hussein were available and ignored.
If you haven't read Wilkerson's column in re the cabal that subverted American Foreign Policy in 2002, it is worth a look. Washington post, I believe.
AE
2005-10-26 23:41 | User Profile
AE,
I see that you either read the speech or viewed it. [url]http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm[/url] Video of the speech: [url]http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=event&EveID=520[/url] Interesting and way over the heads of those who have bitched about it.
2005-10-27 06:48 | User Profile
While trolling around on a few pro-war boards I've noticed that a common myth that's doing the rounds right now is "you're statistically more likely to get killed by gunfire in Washington DC than in Iraq".
e.g:
In three years, the probability of being killed by hostile fire in Iraq is about 5.1%, or 2.34% per year. In Washington DC, the probability of a young man between 15 and 45 (roughly the same range of ages as in the military) being murdered is about 8%, in Baltimore about 7.5%, in New Orleans about 7%, in Philadelphia, Chicago and Detroit about 4.5%, in about 3%, and in the entire US about 0.5%
Guess we should be reporting differently in DC, Baltimore, New Orleans, Philly, Chicago and Detroit, huh? All much more dangerous than Iraq. JorgXMcKie | 10.24.05 - 9:29 pm | #
From here: [URL="http://homepage.mac.com/cptchaz/iblog/C223513943/E20051023225732/index.html"]http://homepage.mac.com/cptchaz/iblog/C223513943/E20051023225732/index.html[/URL]
This is false. The murder rate for the entire population of Washington DC was 45.8 per 100,000 per year, or 0.045% (in 2002)
Source: [URL="http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html"]http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html[/URL]
Even assuming that all murders in Washington were of young males, there is no way that the murder rate could be 8%
2005-10-27 12:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]While trolling around on a few pro-war boards I've noticed that a common myth that's doing the rounds right now is "you're statistically more likely to get killed by gunfire in Washington DC than in Iraq".[/QUOTE]
I see that one too around the 'net RRP. It's amazing how far the chickenhawks will rationalize in order to spare facing up to their own cowardice. If they feel that Iraq is safer than DC, then they should enlist in the Armed Forces and put their money where their mealy mouths are.
2005-10-28 00:01 | User Profile
[quote=Sertorius]AE,
I see that you either read the speech or viewed it. [URL="http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm"]http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm[/URL] Video of the speech: [URL="http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=event&EveID=520"]http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=event&EveID=520[/URL] Interesting and way over the heads of those who have bitched about it.
Sert:
I am disappointed that it took this long for Col (ret) Wilkerson to come forward, although I suspect he, like Sec Powell in some respects, operated under the notion that not doing ones best to polish the turd of policy, which soldiers have done since our Republic was founded, would be dishonorable.
Again, Zinni and others were speaking up in 2002 against a war that only served the strategic interests of Iran, America's sworn enemy in the mid east since 1979.
But at least someone with a bit of understanding is telling it like it is, and somewhat like it was.
AE