U.S. troop deaths in Iraq increased in January.
By on Feb 1st, 2008 at 9:53 am
U.S. troop deaths in Iraq increased in January.
McClatchy reports that “the U.S. death toll in Iraq increased in January, ending a four-month drop in casualties.” According the military statistics, “most of the deaths occurred outside Baghdad or the once-restive Anbar province” which “has some fretting that the U.S. is fighting another round of ‘whack-a-mole.’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bayh
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Supreme Court
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
its a lot easier to kill people than heal them.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:56 am“has some fretting that the U.S. is fighting another round of ‘whack-a-mole.’â€
When did we ever stop playing the last round of whack-a-mole?
February 1st, 2008 at 9:58 amMcCain:” The Surge is working, my dear friends”…
February 1st, 2008 at 10:01 amI am curious – what is the difference between “the surge” and “stay the course”?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:05 amSee http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=19384
Comment by good_golly — February 1, 2008 @ 10:06 am
yet the US troop death number in 2007 was the highest yet. Why do you cheer the deaths of troops?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:07 amwhich “has some fretting that the U.S. is fighting another round of ‘whack-a-mole.’â€
We will be playing “whack-a-mole” as long as we continue to occupy Iraq. We simply don’t have enough bodies to completely control the people who live in Iraq.
It’s time to leave and let the Iraqi’s step up to the plate and govern their own country. It’s not going to happen as long as we are an occupying force.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:08 amAnd through all the US troops killed, and the billions spent, we’ve gotten all of , what, 1500 enemy fighters killed, captured or “detained”. What a joke, what an incompetent and poor leader Bush is, not to mention the massive failure of Betrayus. GG’s figures are nothing short of an international embarrassment, if they’re even accurate, which is unlikely, given that lying to the public is the Bush administration’s only expertise.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:10 amOur resident troll GiGi left the thinkfast thread so perhaps he will answer the question here. I’ll put it to him again.
GiGi…Why does Bush think it is more important to shield the telcoms from prosecution for violating our constitution than it is for him to protect us from “terrorists”?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:10 amMcCain:†The Surge is working, my dear friendsâ€â€¦
Comment by tarazan
If McCain says “my dear friends” one more time I think I am going to barf. He said it 16 times in his first primary acceptance speech. Does he think that is going to endear him to us? All it does for me is show what a phony he is.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:12 amI don’t, Lefty. I mourn them. But I also believe it is important to report on their gains and victories, not just on their casualties and losses.
Comment by good_golly — February 1, 2008 @ 10:10 am
You believe that it’s important to catapult the propaganda, from rightwing warmagering sites proven to be run by liars. Why do you hate the troops? Why do you campaign for weakening America? Why are you a traitor?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:13 amThe figures I provided were only for the first 10 or 11 days of Operation Phantom Phoenix, not for the entire War, or even for the entire Operation.
Comment by good_golly — February 1, 2008 @ 10:13 am
the figures you provided are lies and propaganda, as usual.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:14 amgoodgoofy, what was the purpose of the “surge”?
by definition, its yet another republicant failure.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:15 amThe real key here is that all US casualties are unnecessary but for the bloodlust of an impotent, petty tyrant and his neocon enablers, who are invested in killing peo[ple to put a few more dollars in their pockets. Every US soldier slain in the middle East is another victim of Bushco, and weakens Aemrica.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:16 amIt is important both to protect us from terrorists and to protect those who help protect us from terrorists.
Comment by good_golly — February 1, 2008 @ 10:15 am
and yet Bush failed completely on 9/11, and repeatedly is photographed with the very people who fund the terrorists. Bush is the world’s #1 terrorist, and terrorist enabler.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:18 am12. Your question in nonsensical. It is important both to protect us from terrorists and to protect those who help protect us from terrorists.
Comment by good_golly
GiGi’s answer is nonsensical. He doesn’t seem to be able to wrap his pea brain around the fact that Bush will veto a FISA bill that doesn’t have immunity for telcoms in it. According to Bush, without a new FISA bill we will be in danger of attacks from the “terrorists”. So, why is Bush more concerned with protecting the telcoms than with protecting us from “terrorists”.
There is nothing nonsensical about that question. But, then, I didn’t expect the right wing tool GiGi to give an honest answer to an honest question. It’s not within his limited abilities to do so.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:21 amGoon_golly said:
The number increased in January, 2008 compared to December, 2007 because the U.S. has launched a major offensive against Al Qaeda in the provinces that are not yet under control of Iraqi Security forces. As of January 18, in Operation Phantom Phoenix, Iraqi and US forces confirmed that they captured or killed 121 al Qaeda fighters, wounded 14, and detained an additional 1023 suspects.
Their last throes, indeed. Don’t you find it the least bit disturbing that after almost 5 years in Iraq, we still have to launch “major offensives” to quell the “insurgency”? We’re creating terrorists by creating terror in Iraq.
Jesus H. Christ, how dumb can Neocons be? Throwing out large numbers of captured or killed “insurgents” this late in the “War on Terra” actually makes your case for being there look even more pointless. Get a f@#ing clue.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:22 amomment by good_golly — February 1, 2008 @ 10:20 am
Catapult the wingnut propaganda, gg. cut and paste those lies and fairy-tales. it’s not going to prevent the destruction of the GOP, or the war crimes tribunals that will hang Bush and Cheney, with much worldwide rejoicing!
February 1st, 2008 at 10:22 amThe US is relying on air strikes, and the mass-murder of innocent families, to try to show that it’s not losing the Iraq war, but it’s desperation.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:23 amWe are not fighting the nation of Iraq. We are fighting the terrorists within Iraq.
Comment by good_golly — February 1, 2008 @ 10:22 am
Wrong. As usual. Airstikes against the Iraqi infrasturcture and innocent children are only increasng the terrorist’s numbers and strength.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:24 amWe are not fighting the nation of Iraq. We are fighting the terrorists within Iraq.
Comment by good_golly
GiGi really has drunk the kool-aid. He thinks that all the people we are fighting in Iraq are “terrorists” when in actuality 90% of them are Iraqi citizens who are damn sick and tired of being occupied by the USA. GiGi is a tool and a fool.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:24 am12. Your question in nonsensical. It is important both to protect us from terrorists and to protect those who help protect us from terrorists.
Comment by good_golly
GG- The question makes perfect sense. Your Dear Leader has said that he will veto the bill if it does not include immunity for the telecoms. This clearly says that Bush cares more about protecting corporations (one of which, Verizon, has AG Mukasey’s son as part of it’s lobbying campaign) above the safety of our soldiers and our citizens. I won’t ask you what Bush’s reasoning is, but do you agree that he should veto the bill?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:25 amBTW, someone should tell loon GiGi that there is no war in Iraq. We won the war a long time ago. What is happening in Iraq now is the occupation of a country by another country against the will of the people. THERE IS NO WAY TO WIN AN OCCUPATION short of the total subjugation of the entire population. We don’t have enough people in Iraq to do that.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:26 amgood golly is a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:27 amI don’t, Lefty. I mourn them. But I also believe it is important to report on their gains and victories, not just on their casualties and losses.
Comment by good_golly — February 1, 2008 @ 10:10 am
So GG what about the decline in US deaths from Nov 2005 to Mar 2006? 5 straight months of reduced deaths. And now from May 2007 to Dec 2007 we have 7 months of reduced deaths (aug 2007 being a small exception).
What happened from Mar 2006 to May 2007? What reason does anyone have to believe that this recent decline will not reverse like the previous one did? You and your type are so bent on ignoring reality that you can spin any stat into a “gain and victory”.
Is 30 deaths per month for years acceptable?
Is 50 deaths per month for years acceptable?
What exactly are these deaths gaining the for the US?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:27 amGoon_golly – do you care to explain, why, after almost 5 years in Iraq, we still have to launch major offensives to kill, capture, or detain over 1,000 suspects? Does that sound like we’re winning? Have we been breaking the spirit of the insurgency over the last 5 years? No, the “stay the course” policies set by our Coward-in-Chief are fueling the insurgency and emboldening our “enemies”.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:31 amgood golly has no explanations for anything, just the regurgitation of false claims and wingnut hyperbole. in 5 years, the great USA has failed completely to subdue the ragtag insurgency, the out-of-town opportunists, and the so-called Al Qaeda, a CIA-invented bogeyman. Time to surrender and withdraw.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:35 amps. A big hello to those of you who only a week ago were inventing other reasons TP must have stopped publishing their monthly dead troops updates.
Comment by Kilo — February 1, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Couldn’t wait to cheer the deaths of American troops, could you, kilo?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:36 amYesterday Shia cleric al Sadr announced that the 6 month cease fire that he imposed will be revoked if attacks against his followers do not stop:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2250402,00.html
Keep swinging at the hornet’s nest, Georgie. When al Sadr resumes his violence look for Betray-us to announce a halt in troop drawdown. No one should be surprised.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:36 amWhen al Sadr resumes his violence look for Betray-us to announce a halt in troop drawdown. No one should be surprised.
Comment by A Patriot Acting — February 1, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Didn’t this announcement already occur?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:39 amQuack Matt. Please provide credible links for your repeated, unverfied claims. No left wing nut links allowed.
Comment by good_golly — February 1, 2008 @ 10:35 am
February 1st, 2008 at 10:45 amwell, your rightwingnut sites certainly don’t imbue you with any credibility, gg.
Figures suggest new increase in US Army suicides
February 1st, 2008 at 10:47 amReuters – 18 hours ago
WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) – As many as 121 US soldiers may have committed suicide in 2007, a record number if confirmed, according to Army statistics released on Thursday.
WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) – As many as 121 US soldiers may have committed suicide in 2007, a record number if confirmed, according to Army statistics released on Thursday.
Comment by katy — February 1, 2008 @ 10:47 am
cue kilo to cheer again.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:50 amWow… poor Kilo is ready to pop a cork here. Someone put on their cranky pants by mistake here this morning.
Clean-up in Aisle 3.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:58 amMe thinks Kilo works there, Dr. Matt
February 1st, 2008 at 11:04 amOne thing these trolls and bush bootlickers can’t handle is 9-11 happened on bush’s watch after numerous warnings that he ignored. And then instead of taking the goodwill we had and getting OBL, he attacked a country that had nothing to do with the attacks. I am a proud US Army Vet and am disgusted at what bush/co has done to our military. He is like a spoiled child playing with his army men until they are broken!
February 1st, 2008 at 11:11 am“Iraq was however providing sponsorship to terrorists, home to terrorist groups who ran training camps there and was the base from which attacks on other states were launched.”
Comment by Kilo
More baloney. What Kilo negects to mention is that the training camps were in areas not controlled by Saddam.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:22 amThis war has always been bullsh!t. It has always been about “staying the course” so those hundreds of billions of tax dollars can continue flowing into no-bid contracts, and billions more can continue to go “missing”. It has always been about staying forever.
Just like everything else this administration does (ending the dividend and inheritance taxes, wanting to privatize social security and force that money into the stock market, the credit card company giveaway and reduction of bankruptcy protection, the prescription drug plan that can’t buy from cheaper manufacturers, the politically motivated interest rate cuts that increase inflation, wanting amnesty for illegals so corporations have a cheap source of labor, etc.), it’s all about creating corporate welfare programs.
It’s the same reason why Bush picked and kept an unpopular former CEO of Haliburton as his Vice President. It’s the same reason he appoints banking officials to regulate the banking industry. It’s the same reason he appoints people with a financial stake in drug companies to run the FDA, and appoints lobbyists for the toy manufacturers to regulate toy safety. It’s all about turning the government into a tool of corporations, not the people.
The Bush admin and the military industrial complex wants to keep things quiet enough in Iraq so Americans won’t want to pull out, but not quiet enough to where we are not needed. So after the violence increases yet again, we’ll just get another “stay the course” aka “surge” packaged under a new label. They’ll always find some reason for staying. They’re not giving up their cash cow.
Meanwhile, America suffers.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:23 amHEAR HEAR, BrianFL !!!
i have such fears that you may be correct…
they will not go easliy… that’s for sure…
February 1st, 2008 at 11:32 amTell Wilf Blizzard–his question last night seemed to say the surge is working.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:34 amWould you like me to find you a WH transcript and convert your gullible arse ?
Comment by Kilo — February 1, 2008 @ 10:55 am
]sorry, kilo, nobody is as ignorant and gullible as you, which you’ve just proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:38 amThis is not a battle between victory and defeat, democracy and theocracy or Christianity and Islam, this is war vs peace. You either want death or life. The Iraq “war” is causing death, get out, so those brave people fighting can live again. Freedom only comes when the free have been let go.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:38 amWhat, are you thinking someone else is also going to pretend that an ability to read english has also temporarily and conveniently escaped them ?
You look credible Doctor, really.
Comment by Kilo — February 1, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Keep on dancing, fool. You’ll wear out your shoes soon enough, you gullible moron.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:41 amKilo = 2.2 lbs of crap.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:43 amThere have been terrorist camps inside the US for decades and still are. These are not under the personal control of George Bush Jnr. This is hardly notable.
Really? Who’s a bigger terrorist than Bush? And where are these “camps” that you imagine? And how are they not under control of Bush?
you’re going off the deep end, wingnut.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:44 amCan you even recall the last discussion that you had enough intelligence to be able to participate in, rather than just pretend to by throwing insults about ?
Comment by Kilo — February 1, 2008 @ 11:43 am
One doesn’t converse with whackjobs like you, one is merely entertained by your craziness and lack of proof of your insane assertions.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:45 amand another HEAR HEAR! to robertoroberto @ 11:38 am
so simple… so true…
February 1st, 2008 at 11:47 amYour question in nonsensical.
Comment by good_golly
If you want to have a fuzzy definition of a “terrorist countryâ€, Iraq fitted it more than it didn’t.
Comment by Kilo
Boys and girls, you are watching a couple of poor dumb bastards who weren’t smart enough to know right from wrong and now they have to defend themselves to the death.
Soon others will be making the decisions and these two will not like it but too bad…..your days of folly are over…..and you helped….
I just want to thank these goons…..gg, kilo, frankM, manstatic, etc. all of you for making it so easy to see what right wing extremism really stands for. You are scaring the hell out of people I send here daily……thank you so much and keep up the good work.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:51 amKilo,
So if some neo-Nazi wackos started a terror camp in our country that Bush had nothing to do with, and those wackos actually opposed Bush, would you advocate we use our military to topple the Bush’s administration?????
That’s essentially the argument you’re making about Saddam.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:52 amThe $64,000 question is whether or not the Sadr keeps the Mahdi Army on the sideline in the next few months.
You have a US general say this morning that Sadr will extend the ceasefire:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01416514.htm
But then I read that Sadr is threatening to end the ceasefire
February 1st, 2008 at 11:52 amhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2250402,00.html
Let’s hope that the electorate doesn’t go crazy again and elect another Republican war-monger. John McCain is following in the footsteps of George W Bush and trekking even further. He doesn’t care of we stay in Iraq 100 years. Or even a million years… my dear friends.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:55 amgood point, fred, these wingnuts have been wrong from the beginning, have marched in lockstep with a dry-drunk, coke-addles fratboy deserter and his stringpuller, and would love to blame their massive failures on anyone they can, including those of us who warned of this folly at the beginning. the fool kilo thinks that he can judge whether Iraq was a terrorist threat or not, even as the UN inspectors proved that it wasn’t, until Bushco sent over 100,000 convenient targets. The whole Purple fingers=freedom charade was a great example of the simplemindedness of the right, and every time any rightard expresses any concern for a single Iraqi, you know it’s a lie. they’ve proven that they will say or do anything to redefine their monstrous failure as a “win”.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:56 amSo are you really advocating death or life with that ?
Take a minute and decide how your answer will remain or differ when Sudan next comes up.
Comment by Kilo — February 1, 2008 @ 11:52 am
See? The only answer from fool kilo is to keep killing Americans.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am86 some of the right leaning kids from my sons college have been watching the action here and they are appaled at the things that the trolls say.
Then they are embarrassed that they ever bought any of the talking points…..so many of them are debunked here with links…..to reliable sources(not left wing sites like the wingers always try to pawn of links to fox, etc.)
February 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pmLike Republican politicians and Fox pundits, kilo seeks to rewrite history, as though no one had any written, filmed or taped record to refer to. “We needed to invade Iraq because of the terrorists!” That may have been number 398 on Bush’s list, after the previous 397 reasons were proven specious, but it certainly wasn’t “the reason.”
Reason had nothing to do with it.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pmTake a minute and decide how your answer will remain or differ when Sudan next comes up.
Comment by Kilo
Wow, what a puzzle.
The UN Charter never predicted that kind of moral crossroad.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pmTake a minute and decide how your answer will remain or differ when Sudan next comes up.
Comment by Kilo — February 1, 2008 @ 11:52 am
Interesting, I didn’t know the US invaded Sudan, then left only to have Sudan eat their own! I guess the US shouldn’t have invaded Sudan.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:02 pmLike Republican politicians and Fox pundits, kilo seeks to rewrite history, ……
Comment by gummitch
and the more they talk, the more the smoke screen lifts……I detect panic in their posts today(the trolls).
February 1st, 2008 at 12:04 pmReason had nothing to do with it.
Comment by gummitch
Hey, hey, slow down, Ni-Dan.
Remember there were terrorist training camps in Iraq, although that wasn’t the rationale for the invasion.
In fact, Saddam was like a walking contradiction: he was the all evil brutal dictator that people were so terrified of…but at the same time, there were training camps inside his territory…or something like that.
Furthermore, he was so evil and brutal that nobody lifted a finger against him…yet now, some people seem to be willing to die to kill their tribal rivals and the US forces… huh?
But, I’m sure Kilo will answer us with his typical convoluted, pseudo-philosophy, phony logic.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pmSo Kilo, are my tax dollars paying for you to sit at a computer and spout Administration lies and talking points or is the RNC picking up the tab? Just would like to know because if ti’s the former, I would like my money back. If the latter, then thanks for the jokes RNC!
February 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pmSudan, without a doubt is a humanitarian nightmare. But again, America, China, Britain control the nightmare. If there wasn’t oil in Sudan, would there be fighting? China and the US are guilty of funding the warlords who then cause the instability leading to the war and the tragedy. Then the US and the rest of the West comes back and saves the day by sending in peace troops who basically just clear the way for the Sudanese oil to flow back into the controls of the US/China/Britain/Japanese companies.
Now, in Iraq, We liked Saddam when he was keeping his oil to himself because he wasn’t flooding the market with cheap oil, but in 2001 the Cheney Energy Task Force decide they want the price of oil to go even higher and then all of a sudden, we’re in Iraq and millions are dying because of it.
Greed is the theme for the Iraq war. Greed and power.
Now, if US troops get out of Iraq today yes, many Iraqi’s would die. But if the Bush administration got off its high horse and talked with Ahmadinejad and Assad, they could negotiate a way out of Iraq with very few casualties in the aftermath. I don’t just advocate running out of Iraq Black Hawk Down style. Its going to take some diplomacy to work it out.
Of course, i’m not hopeful that the administration is all of a sudden going to stop its terror talk, but one can dream.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm“Either way, was the area not controlled by Saddam outside of Iraq or do you also have no disagreement with what I wrote ?” Kilo
The weaselly way you tried to conflate “Iraq” with “Saddam,” is an intellectually-cowardly tactic. You did it to give yourself a rhetorical “out” if anyone exposed your half-truth, like I just did.
Have you Bushies really been driven so low, as to try this old canard again, at this late date? It says more about your lack of understanding what’s really going on in the world, than anything else.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:14 pm“I made an arguement against the Iraq war when Colin Powell made his UN presentation. You’ll recall this was after congress already authorised the war.”
Please post it. I’d be interested to see it.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:17 pmKilo was against the war before he was for it
February 1st, 2008 at 12:17 pmTake a minute and decide how your answer will remain or differ when Sudan next comes up.
Comment by Kilo
this will be easy for you kilo, you won’t have to worry about it. You will be on the sidlines while a democratic president presides over a nation with a democratic House and Senate…..all you can do is watch all you cherish crumble and be stomped on……you know the greed and killing.
I can tell you this much. The way situations like this(Sudan) are handled in the future will be different than they way you and yours handled Iraq.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pmAnd Kilo, please post it’s time stamp as well. We’d never accuse you of only telling half the story – well, perhaps once.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:20 pmIs it just me or does post #98 just not make any sense at all?
February 1st, 2008 at 12:22 pmI don’t want to hear any crap about how GOOD 38 dead American Soldiers might be to some efffing troll.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:24 pm…I’m sure Kilo’s furiously searching for his past posts… [cue Jeopardy theme song...]
February 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pmReason #1 was he was authorised to by congress. You’re not going to point to anything I’ve written here as constituting me “rewriting history†that’s gonna compare to you on that.
Comment by Kilo — February 1, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
That’s a reason? Congress spontaneously decided to invade Iraq and forced Bush/Cheney to do so?
You’re certifiable, kilo.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pmReason #1 was he was authorised to by congress.
Comment by Kilo
to premptively strike someone who he said was getting ready to hit us. Not to invade and occupy a nation.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:27 pm“And I note that your answer is “noâ€. You don’t disagree with what I wrote…. when I replied to the guy protesting suicide bombers being called terrorists.”
Yeah why don’t YOU call ME intellectually cowardly. Can you think of any other dishonest arguments your intellect demands you take issue with here ? No ? All good on the progressive anti-war argument front eh.”
I take issue with you tendency to tell half-truths, and I see that you cannot post your previous stuff, so you’re a liar as well as an intellectual coward. And lick you own balls – that’s what dog’s do.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pmReason #1 was he was authorised to by congress. You’re not going to point to anything I’ve written here as constituting me “rewriting history†that’s gonna compare to you on that.
This was months before Powell went to the UN with his little vials. This was only a few months after anyone raised Saddam as an issue, let alone a threat.
Kilo, what about Rummy and other neocons raising Saddam’s name mere moments after 911 or I believe before 911? Guess that’s just too inconvenient for you.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pmStill waiting for your previous posts, Fido.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pmSuck my balls you pissant.
Comment by Kilo
Oh, the intellectual rebuttal.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:43 pmOk, Kilo, i want to give you the benefit the doubt and assume you’re intelligent. How would YOU deal with the situation in Iraq right now? I’m not trying to call you out, i am genuinely interested in having a productive debate. We have enough name calling among the politicians, i have no time for it.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pmThe US did break the country, and their goal is to own it. My theory is to speak to the Syrians and the Iranians and building a coalition of consolidation with the so called enemy. The suicide bombing is about ethnicity. The kurds want land, the Shia want land, the Sunni’s want land, yet the only negotiation the administration is pushing is the OIL LAW! Speak to people who know the region (Syria/Iran/Pakistan/India) If the Bush administration can ask these nations for help then, although he is still an awful person, he will earn my praise for once.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pmFebruary 1st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
“Reason #1 was he was authorised to by congress. You’re not going to point to anything I’ve written here as constituting me “rewriting history†that’s gonna compare to you on that.”
the Big Lie is dragged out agin and again. begone, kilo, you havenothing to offer but to repeat the wingnut lies that have already killed thousands of US soldiers. 2.2 lbs. of crap is as accurate as anything you’ve made up.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:23 pm124 some posts and no trolls have bothered to explain to me how over 1,000 killed, detained, and captured “insurgents” during January equates to us “winning”, especially since the “insurgency” was in its last throes about 2+ years ago.
We’re creating “insurgents” by creating desperation in Iraq and then claiming it a victory when we’ve killed the monster WE created, while never ceasing the creation of more “insurgents”. Sounds a bit like giving yourself cancer by smoking cigarettes and claiming that chemotherapy is victorious, but all the while continuing to smoke.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:00 pmThis demonstrates the fundamental misunderstanding that some people, like Lefty Patriot, have about this war. When you “surge” your troop numbers into areas like Anbar and Baghdad in order to reduce violence there, casualties are going to rise a lot. That’s what happened in the first half of 2007. Was it worth it? Well, if you consider how much violence has fallen in those two provinces, then, yes, I think it is worth it. The men and women who risked their lives to make Iraq more peaceful are true heroes, and I don’t want to see their efforts wasted by an early withdrawal. It’s not about cheering troop deaths; it’s about cheering the bravery of people who put security in Iraq before themselves, and who achieved something great as a result.
Now, if you read the report here, it indicates how much violence in Anbar and Baghdad are down. That’s great news. The violence in Iraq overall, however, while much less than it used to be, is up because we’re ratcheting up operations in Mosul. Yet, hopefully this will, in the long run, make that city a more stable and secure place.
You can attack me all you want, but I’m not going to back down from this belief. We have a sense of direction now in Iraq; no longer are we running in circles, clearing areas but failing to “hold” and “build” them, when Iraq was truly a whack-a-mole situation. We have stabilized Anbar and Baghdad relative to what they once were, and now we’re trying to do so in Mosul. To deny that is to ignore reality.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:38 pmDr. Matt, stop plagiarizing from Wikipedia, OK?
February 1st, 2008 at 3:56 pmNo, you have it completely and laughably wrong. Look at the chart provided by the McClatchy link that TP provides; it shows how the surge began in February and was at full strength in June. These are simple facts that even you should be able to acknowledge and wrap your head around (though I don’t expect you to admit you were wrong, knowing you). Furthermore, what, exactly, were General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker reporting on in September if the surge wasn’t underway?
February 1st, 2008 at 4:08 pm# 68. Meanwhile, America suffers.
Comment by BrianFL — February 1, 2008 @ 11:23 am
How right you are BrianFL, your comments remind me of the 14 points of Fascism, especially point #3:
And so, America will continue to suffer, as will innocent Iraqi women and children.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:54 pm