2007 deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq

Democrats, and republicans who aren't totally brainwashed hearts go out to the brave service men and women killed in George Bush & Dick Cheney's Criminal enterprise.

Impeach & imprison!!!

Today's bad news from Iraq can expected to reinvigorate calls from critics of the war,

And you will hear this from everyone of the sheeple today in the form of...The liberals want defeat. Instead of...the liberals want out of a stupid war started for dubious reasons, mismanaged from the start, will bring us the entirely wrong results than promised. Lied to about oil paying for the war, last throes, throw flowers. Since these people are such "good" americans, I'm sure they know baseball.....strike three.....you're out!!!!

Bill R... you are correct with the reasons of this terrible war so why are you so angry.? Hopefully when it is all over, the truth will come out, and all the supposed Christian right, who are terribly wrong, will realize Bush and his cronies were liars and will be prosecuted.

Please Santa, give me what I want most for Christmas this year. I want more shock and awe. I like watching explosions and things that go boom. Please, please Santa give me war with Iran.

852 dead, and not one of the benchmarks that Bush promised to hold the Iraqi government to in his speech announcing the "surge" has been met. Not one.

How many more lives are we going to sacrifice for a foreign government that isn't even trying?

Where's Johnny D. on this?? Mr. "the number of deaths each month is going down". And remember folks - this is just through October. We still have two more months to go.

The last year of World War II was the "deadliest year" of the whole war for Americans.

Should we therefore have withdrawn our troops from Europe and the Pacific in mid-1944, and left the world to the tender mercies of Hitler and his allies?

If today's pro-defeat Left had been around then, they would have said "yes".

If today's pro-defeat Left had been around then, they would have said "yes".

Posted by: Bruce | November 6, 2007 10:43 AM

Thanks for not letting me down Bruce. You're history maybe OK, but your "apples to oranges" thing is a little off.

Bruce can always be counted on to show up and demand that more american soldiers be killed, no matter if anything is being accomplished or not.

Bruce, there's so much you don't know or understand about me. Try going back to junior high then get back to us.

Bruce

"If today's pro-defeat Left had been around then, they would have said "yes.""

We weren't lied into world war II. There was an actual enemy to face, land to take, and a strategy.

Oil wasn't the reason for world war II.

As far as Bush is concerned the deaths of American servicemen aren't important. If it were rich kids dying it might be different.

Should we therefore have withdrawn our troops from Europe and the Pacific in mid-1944, and left the world to the tender mercies of Hitler and his allies?

If today's pro-defeat Left had been around then, they would have said "yes".

Posted by: Bruce | November 6, 2007 10:43 AM

Bruce yer so full of it!!!

Bruce:

WWII also lasted less than 4 years. We were fighting enemies who attacked us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and never attacked us.

We are already more than 4 years into this one, and no end in sight.

Bet you can't wait for that war with Iran to start, can you???

For Bobin: World War Two did last about four years, but the fact is, American troops were fighting Nazi SS Werewolf insurgents in Germany well into 1948. Same thing as now: assassinations of local officials cooperating with the Allies; bombings of civilian targets; attacks against American troops. The war against Iraq lasted 17 days. The pacification of Iraq has, indeed, lasted far too long. But when quoting supposed "facts," it's nice to be factual.

Bruce:

WWII also lasted less than 4 years. We were fighting enemies who attacked us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and never attacked us.

We are already more than 4 years into this one, and no end in sight.

Bet you can't wait for that war with Iran to start, can you???

Posted by: BobinATL | November 6, 2007 11:22 AM

Exactly when was that German attack on us?

Bobin, deaths are down SIGNIFICANTLY in September and October, which left-wing media lapdog Frank James barely notes in his DailyKook propaganda piece. Gen. Petraus's plan is working, something those on the Left and in the media cannot admit to.
Remember, Bobin, you and your friends, the Loony Left and your media lapdogs have staked everything on bad news in Iraq.
Good news is bad news for you folks and those in the media.
Bad news is good news for you folks and those in the media.

Bruce's analogy accurately points out that the left's ghoulish fixation on the numbers here cannot be the way to deterimine a path forward in Iraq...

Al queda is all but defeated in Iraq-

Us Soldiers are going into places that were all but given up as recently as this year..

Entire provinces have been returned to autonomous Iraqi control..

Quit using soldiers deaths has currency here...

Bruce believes in the war sooooooo much he has dedicated his life to posting here on this blog, ignoring reality, logical thought and the desire to be socially relevant. And who says Americans who support the war are not willing to sacrifice?

The downturn in violence may result largely from the Shiite (Sadr) decision to shut down his troops or militia. Clearly violence is under the surface and the Administration only activates it when they herald the success of the surge

"... ghoulish fixation on the numbers..."

Posted by: heartburn | November 6, 2007 11:35 AM

heartburn,
They are not "numbers". They are soldiers. Dead American's because of the mess in Iraq created for what? For what? When will you apologize for calling them "numbers"? You are sick, sick human scum!

"World War Two did last about four years, but the fact is, American troops were fighting Nazi SS Werewolf insurgents in Germany well into 1948. Same thing as now: assassinations of local officials cooperating with the Allies; bombings of civilian targets; attacks against American troops."

Nope, Never happened. Urban legend, simply not true. There is not a single solitary incident of a US soldier being killed by "Werewolf resistance" after the surrender of Germany in the files of the US Army.

http://www.slate.com/id/2087768/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512150003

heartburn,
They are not "numbers". They are soldiers. Dead American's because of the mess in Iraq created for what? For what? When will you apologize for calling them "numbers"? You are sick, sick human scum!

Posted by: janet | November 6, 2007 11:48 AM

Janet- all bug-eyed histrionics aside- I agree with you ( kind of).

The only reason this piece was written was because the "number " of deaths for this year surpassed all previous years... when the fact that the human toll ( feel better now) has been decreasing...

You and I will likely never agree on the validity of the Iraq war- but we should agree that this article is written purely from a "numbers" perspective.
Unfortunately, the only time the left wants to talk about Iraq is in this context.

Janet- BTW- you should really use my whole quote before you call me sick sick human scum-

I said

"Bruce's analogy accurately points out that the left's ghoulish fixation on the numbers here cannot be the way to deterimine a path forward in Iraq... "

not

"... ghoulish fixation on the numbers..."

Thanks

"Exactly when was that German attack on us?"

Posted by: heartburn | November 6, 2007 11:30 AM

Hitler, Mussolini & Hirahito were all connected. They were all part of the fascist coalition and axis powers. When Japan attacked us, they all did.

The same cannot be said for Iraq. Sadamm Hussein actually kept AlQaeda out of Iraq. He wanted no part of them.

To Heartburn:

"Was it over when the...Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!!!"

Exactly when was that German attack on us?

Posted by: heartburn | November 6, 2007 11:30 AM

Back to school, dude. We got in the war after Pearl Harbor. There actually used to be an Axis and they were all against America and her allies.

The May 15th Prophecy has accurately predicted the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The May 15th Prophecy has been the only source that have given detail with 100% accuracy of what is really happening in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and the greater Middle East

You should do a Goggle search of the “May 15th Prophecy” or go to
http://lastdaywatchers.blogspot.com/

heartburn-

October 31, 1941

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)

There's also the small matter of the fact the Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.

Learn some history.

Johnny:

Which is better - deaths of American soldiers in Iraq going down, or NO deaths at all in Iraq because we got the hell out of there??? If you meet the parents or family of a young man or woman killed in Iraq in September or October, would you point with pride about how much the deaths have decreased in those months??

Oh, and Heartburn??? Alqaeda in Iraq is NOT part of bin Laden's Al-qaeda. And remember - they were not even IN Iraq when we started this stupid war - they came in after that.

Remember, Saddam Hussein was secular - the last thing he wanted in Iraq was an Islamic group like Al-Qaeda. He saw them as a threat to his power - but thanks to us, they are there now!!!

And Steve34 answered your other ridiculous post about WWII - they declared war on us after Pearl Harbor - when did Saddam declare war on us??

Pro defeat leftie "BobinAtl" says "WWII also lasted less than 4 years."

Even 6th graders know that World War II lasted 6 years, from 1939 to 1945. Not 4 years.

6th graders know this. But not the pro-defeat left.

Not all pro-defeat leftists are ignorant and/or illiterate. It just seems that way when you read Swamp comments.

"Bruce's analogy accurately points out that the left's ghoulish fixation on the numbers here cannot be the way to deterimine a path forward in Iraq"

Who is this "left" who is so fixated on "numbers?" Sorry "heartburn," Janet is right. Bruce's statement equated dead American soldiers with "numbers," and by reducing them to numbers, he then has the audacity to protect his rhetorical gymnastics onto "the left," calling them ghoulish.

Bruce clearly lives in bizarro world: "the left" is ghoulish because it sees the casualties as people, as opposed to numbers. Bruce and John D, who want to focus on the drop in the number of casualties, are the ones turning people into numbers. Talk about ghoulish.

Do you neocons have any shame whatsoever? Sorry, silly question. We all know the answer.

Historically challenged Bruce-

If your going to talk about the total length of World War Two, it's really 8 years. Japan invaded China in 1937.

Apparently the pro dead american soldiers Right doesn't know this. Not all rightists are historically ignorant, but you'd never know it from this thread.

We may get Sam's sarcastic wish granted re. Iran.

TeamBush is ignoring the same experts that warned them, no nukes or WMD in Iraq.

Bruce says;
"Even 6th graders know that World War II lasted 6 years, from 1939 to 1945. Not 4 years."

I think Bobin meant our direct participation was 4 years.

Bruce, your 'red herring' is starting to turn puce. Shoulda smoked it.

Unfortunately, the only time the left wants to talk about Iraq is in this context.

Posted by: heartburn | November 6, 2007 12:06 PM

Fine. Let's disregard those numbers for the moment. What, then, have we really accomplished in this 4+ years of fighting? Are you guys absolutely insane? Bruce, John D, et al? You continue to defend and absolve this administration?

This ain't about Right or Left; this is about Right and Wrong. Don't you get it? Can't you see it, or has your blind adherence to party dogma rendered your senses completely incapable of objectivity?

Effin' amazing!

Not all pro-defeat leftists are ignorant and/or illiterate. It just seems that way when you read Swamp comments.

Posted by: Bruce | November 6, 2007 1:12 PM

Not all republicans are ignorant or illiterate. For that matter most of them no longer support the criminal Bush / Cheney war either. Only ignorant, Kool-Aid guzzling propaganda artists.

Gee, I wonder who that would be BRUCE???

Fine. Let's disregard those numbers for the moment. What, then, have we really accomplished in this 4+ years of fighting? Are you guys absolutely insane? Bruce, John D, et al? You continue to defend and absolve this administration?

This ain't about Right or Left; this is about Right and Wrong. Don't you get it? Can't you see it, or has your blind adherence to party dogma rendered your senses completely incapable of objectivity?

Effin' amazing!

Posted by: Dan M | November 6, 2007 1:38 PM

You can disregard the numbers if you want- but a few months ago, DEMS were saying the war is lost, the surge won't work, etc.. using NUMBERS like troop deaths to make the point. Now there is clear evidence that we are moving rapidly in the right direction in Iraq and what do we get- A SPIN JOB.. that is ignoring the fact that less of our soldiers are dying in Iraq- and that more and more of Iraq is safer Talk about dogmatic..

Brucie:

C. Morris is right - we were not even minimally involved with WWII until the Lend-Lease Act. You seem to forget that the REPUBLICANS in Congress were blocking FDR in every possible way to keep us from helping the British - remember America First? Remember Lindbergh telling America that there was no way we could beat the Germans and the Luftwaffe??

Heartburn-

How many of the benchmarks that the President of the United States mentioned in his Speech of January 10, 2007 have been met, the ones he pledged to hold the Iraqi government accountacble for?

"So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution."

Bush himself admitted in that speech that there could NOT be a military solution in Iraq outside without a political soultion.

Let's talk about those numbers ok?

It makes sense that casualities would go up this due to the military strategy known as the "surge". Maybe Bruce can educate us on the all the progress the Iraqi government and economy is making in the wake of that strategy? How about the status of Iraqi refugees, how are they settling in? Let the facts flow, bro!

Bobin, sorry to wake you from your stupor, but the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq are the same Al Qaeda folks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Al Qaeda has its people pretty much everywhere in the world: Africa, North America, Europe, Southeast Asia, throughout the Middle East. It was that way BEFORE 9/11 and it's that way today. They have largely been stifled though because of the actions of this administration.

Also, I am not happy about one American losing his or her life. However, doing nothing or cutting and running is not an option. Letting terrorist countries exist is not an option. Letting Islamic fanatics have victories in any country is not an option.
Being successful in Iraq is an option. Being successdul in Afgfhganistan is an option. So on and so forth.

Heartburn,

Show me "clear evidence we are moving rapidly in the right direction in Iraq". Have the sacrifices of our troops forced the Iraqi Parliament to make any progress whatsoever on the major political issues? I know they were able to agree on a vacation in the midst of a crisis, but I mean, other than that?

Let's talk about those numbers ok?

Posted by: AJF | November 6, 2007 2:22 PM

your right- those benchmarks are not being met- they will continue to not be met while there is this little thing called an insurgency in the country is stopped.

Looks like we are making progress towards that end- but you wouldn't know it based on the spin of this article.

C. Morris is right - we were not even minimally involved with WWII until the Lend-Lease Act. You seem to forget that the REPUBLICANS in Congress were blocking FDR in every possible way to keep us from helping the British - remember America First? Remember Lindbergh telling America that there was no way we could beat the Germans and the Luftwaffe??
Posted by: BobinATL | November 6, 2007 2:13 PM

So republicans we afraid of their own shadows back in the 1930 too? Who knew?

What a bunch of whiney twits.

Johnny:

Again, was Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded?? And a study done at West Point has shown that the Al-Qaeda in Iraq is NOT part of bin Laden's Al-Qaeda. They took the name Al-Qaeda so that people would think that. All they are doing now is laying low and letting the Sunnis and Shi'ites fight it out among themselves.

So tell us all Johnny - what is your definition of "success" in Iraq? How many more American soldiers have to die before we get your idea of "success"??

How much closer to "success" in Afghanistan would we be if we had NOT pulled out our forces and gone to Iraq instead?? Obviously, you are blind to the fact that the Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan - thanks to your friend W taking his eye off the goal of victory in Afganistan and instead going after Saddam!!

"your right- those benchmarks are not being met- they will continue to not be met while there is this little thing called an insurgency in the country is stopped."

heartburn, close, but you have it backwards. The insurgency won't be stopped until those benchmarks are met.

heartburn,
How cute! You lecture me on leaving off part of your ghoulish quotation and then you pull off the same sleight of hand yourself. Here's what you left off of the "war is lost" quotation my friend:

"As we've learned from reading the memoirs and press accounts and interviews following that war -- at the time there were 24,000 Americans killed in Vietnam -- President Johnson had to make a decision. The secretary of defense, the secretary of state and the president knew the war was not winnable.

But President Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch. And so he surged in Vietnam, sent tens of thousands of new troops to Vietnam. After the surge was over we added to the 24,000 dead Americans 34,000.

Now, I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense -- and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday." - Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

It seems this goes round and round every day. The same arguments and insults. I can't believe that the Repub hardliners here can't seem to ask themselves the real question of why we are in Iraq. Plain and simple. The Bush folks have got them wound on a yo-yo of fear. As Republicans, if the amount of money being spent each day in Iraq was being spent here in this country, they'd be crying "pork barrel" and "tax and spend". Instead of enriching American lives, they are happier sacrificing them.

Posted by: janet | November 6, 2007 3:27 PM

Janet-

Big difference- The illustrious senator from Nevada intended on saying the war is lost...

My parsing did not change the context or original message - yours did.

Now that was cute-

your truly; Sick, Sick human being.

As the surge has worked the driveby media has been extremely quiet. Patraeus said it would cause deaths until they take and hold areas which they are doing well.
But, the drivebys only like leads that bleed. Pictures of flag draped coffins are obligatory.The drivebys have a mantra Bush lied people died yotta, yotta, yotta,
As a journalist by training and education I'm glad I don't have to be employed in a socialist news room delighting liberals everday I couldn't live with myself. Get a life reporters.Jerry White, Springfield, IL

It is good news that American soldier deaths are way down. We will probably only lose five hundred men a year in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. If we are out of Iraq by 2012 we will only have about six thousand dead. That seems to be a small price to pay for ten years of war to acccomplish, what was it again. I have forgotten.

As a journalist by training and education I'm glad I don't have to be employed in a socialist news room delighting liberals everday I couldn't live with myself. Get a life reporters.Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Posted by: Jerry White | November 6, 2007 4:47 PM

A journalist by training? Where would that be from, Pat Roberson U? I particularly like this piece of yours, Jer, Regular Pulitzer prize material:

Driveby media people use embattled to denote criticism from liberal Democrats in Nord's case loud mouth Nancy Pelosi who just trashes Bushies for a hobby.
Nancy is not very smart as the Armenian bill or the trip to Syria shows. Nancy is an out of control freelance canon always acting like a Princess. Nord is doing a good job.
Democrats want all Republicans out of government because it goes along with political correctness run amok we don't want to see anybody but liberals or we'll just cry. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Posted by: Jerry White | November 6, 2007 4:25 PM

"Jerry, Jerry. Come on Jer, open the door. We know you're in there, we're not here to hurt you, Mr. White, we just need to measure you for this handsome white jacket. Please open the door."

Jerry "Driveby" White, you've become a caricature of yourself. I suppose you prefer 'drive-in' media...just drive up to the WH take out window and get your news handed to you in a paper bag. So enjoy your "the surge is working" happy meal.

[quote]
Letting terrorist countries exist is not an option.

Posted by: John D | November 6, 2007 2:38 PM
[/quote]

Geographically Challenged Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", tell us when the USA is going to invade terrorist supporting countries like Saudi Arabia and North Korea?

Foreign policy advice from people who think World War II lasted 4 years (it was 6); who think Japan first attacked China in 1937 (it was 1931); who think that WWII Japan was run by someone named "Hirahito" (it was Tojo, and that's not even the emperor's name); and who think that the Lend Lease vote was "back in the 1930" (hopeless grammar combined with bad history).

The world hasn't seen such an outpouring of expertise since medieval alchemists proclaimed they could convert lead into gold.

Bruce-

You're still quite historically challenged. I never said that Japan first attacked China in 1937. (That would be wrong as well, since Japan first attacked China in modern times in 1894). I said that World War 2 started with the 1937 attack on China, There was a gap of roughly 5 years between the Japanese conquest on Manchuria in 1931-32 and the attack in 1937, so for the most part the 1931 war is NOT considered pat of World War 2. The 1937 attack on China led to a continual state of war between those two countries from 1937 right up to the Japanese surrender in 1945. China was considered very much an ally during wWorld War 2 (as evidenced by their seat on the UN Security Council), so the Start of World War 2 is on July 7, 1837. Not 1931. and Certainly not 1939. (Unless your are completely euro-centric)

As for the Tojo/Hirohito thing....again you are quite wrong. Tojo was only Prime Minister from October 1941 until July 1944. So as we have established, he was not running Japan when the war started in 1937. Secondly Hirohito (more properly called Emperor Showa) was, in fact, an active participant in the running of Japan prior to 1945, including the decisions to go to war.

Bruce, do they have histoy books somewhere at RNC headquarters? Do we need to send you some? I'd recommend "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan", by Herbert Bix.

I obviously meant to say World War 2 started on July 7, 1937, not 1837.

Don't get bent out of shape by the typo Bruce.

So both Jerry White from Springfield AND Crazy John Devola are journalists?

Well, you could know me over with a feather.

that would be 'knock'

Is it a requisite of conservative "journalists" that they be incapable of forming even a single cogent sentence?

Dyslin and White: Seperated at Birth.

Lufwaffa, Schlachtschiffe, Flugzeugtrager, Schwere Kreuzer, Unterseeboot, Achtung Panzer, Konigstiger, Wehrmacht = Al Qaeda

Brucebot logic 101

You same folks complained about the Bush administartion and phony statistics they used for showing 50 consecutive months of employment growth, but you don't see this a phony.

Here are stats by month:

http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

Jan-07 83
Feb-07 81
Mar-07 81
Apr-07 104
May-07 126
Jun-07 101
Jul-07 78
Aug-07 84
Sep-07 65
Oct-07 38

Do you see the drop since the full effect of the surge? Why is it you libs cannot handle good news such as reduced casuality figures.