October 26, 2005
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Hits 2,000 and Rising...
Is it enough to be disgusted at the obscene waste of human life this very ill-advised war has cost on both sides? Is protesting enough if impassioned cries to get our of Iraq land on deaf ears, closed minds, and cold hearts?
In America this is the poor mans war; it was recently reported that a disproportionate number of the U.S. Serviceman being killed in Bushs’ War are from rural America. Those in the city apparently have better things to do with their time and lives. City dwellers seem detached from this War, it has become a side show, an occasional annoyance on the evening news. Life for most of us goes on as it always had, and perhaps that needs to change.
2000 Americans dead and rising, and we may never know how many Iraqis have given their lives for this unjust, un-noble and illegal cause. Was, and is the War worth the sacrifice of so many for so little tangible gain? I say NO, NO, NO!! But how are we now to disentangle ourselves from the morass Bush and his arrogant posse have led us into? We cannot cut and run, for Iraq is already become Afghanistan II only worse for what better proving (and hunting) ground could terrorist hope for then the one we’ve provided for them in Iraq? It is maddening to give prolonged thought to, and maddening still to think that more then half the population of America thought it was a good idea to invade and occupy a sovereign nation.
2000 Americans dead and rising…for what, for what, for what?
V Edward
Each of those 2000 brave who have fallen for their country have certainly not fallen in vain.
Even if there was only a single fatality there that would be too much,but that single person would not have fallen in vain either.
Believe it or not,those living in middle America and who volunteer for their county’s armed forces do so for a variety of reasons,so I disagree with the whole rural poor theory completely.
Why did they die?you ask.
They died to preserve our way of life.
They died to prevent the Islamic Reformation,which is ripping the Middle East apart from coming to our shores.
They died in order to remind those who would harm us that America bites back and that we will look in every nook and cranny,turn every rock if necessary,in order to preserve our lives,the lives of our children and the lives of our children’s children.
Those 2000 brave and now with the Lord,yet their sacrifice will never be forgotten…by Americans or Iraqis…for that matter all the world knows what those fallen heros have accomplished.
They are an example…a shining example…of what the American spirit is all about…for all the world to see.
They have accomplished more than we will ever realize.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 26, 2005 05:37 PMSic. Eagle,
Yes, those are the motivations and goals of the soldiers. However, the incompetent leaders who directed them to Iraq are ensuring that none of those goals will be met.
They died to prevent the Islamic Reformation,which is ripping the Middle East apart from coming to our shores
How does instilling the supreme council for islamic revolution in Iraq achieve this goal? How is overthrowing a mostly stable, although tyrannical, secular government to replace it with civil war, theocracy, and a terrorist graduate school a step forward in the war on terror?
They died in order to remind those who would harm us that America bites back and that we will look in every nook and cranny,turn every rock if necessary,in order to preserve our lives,the lives of our children and the lives of our children’s childrenThis one is laughable. Remeber Bin Laden? I’m sure our soldiers would love to achieve this goal. Unfortunately, they’re in Iraq, which never hurt America, nor had the capacity to do so.
The motivations and sacrifice of our soldiers is not in question. However, the direction, strategy, motivations of the administration that are wasting and degrading these sacrifices is.
Posted by: Brian Poole at October 26, 2005 05:52 PMBrian
Whatever form the future Iraqi government takes is pretty much their business so long as it isn’t a threat to American interest.
Sadam was a threat..pure and simple.
Surely you cannot say he wasn’t…can you?
The war has been mis-managed,and I blame both the civilians in the POentagon and top level military brass for this.
They planned for the war but not for the peace.
However,they learned.
Now.American forces are the best urban fighters in the world…bar none.
The military has adapted and many lessons have been learned.
Bin Laden?
Marginalized..cut off..broke…his time will come very soon.
The problem was and remains the venom spewing from the Wahabbi sects.
I predict that they will soon feels America’s wrath.
Put it this way…if another 11 from that country come here and spill more American blood….there will be hell to pay.
Iran and Syria are the two remaining issues to be solved.
My view has always been that America was trhe victim here…dragged into a religious war by Islamist who are struggling with moderates Islam over the future of their religion.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 26, 2005 06:02 PMMy heart and prayers go out to the parents, wives, children, and loved ones of the 2001 American Soldiers that have been killed in Iraq.
These BRAVE soldiers HAVE NOT died in vain, yet. But if the bleeding hearts get their way, they will have.
If we cut and run like the anti war crowd wants us to, it will give the message that the United States is weak and will let ANY two bit outfit push us around. We need to stay the coarse and finish the job we went there to do.
Then only then will these brave men and women NOT have died in vain.
I agree. We cannot leave Iraq regardless of the cost. This Republican War must be won!!! We must encourage all young republicans to enlist at once!!! Only through the drafting of conservatives will we be able to break the enemy’s back.
Posted by: Aldous at October 26, 2005 08:31 PMWe cannot cut and run, for Iraq is already become Afghanistan II only worse for what better proving (and hunting) ground could terrorist hope for then the one we’ve provided for them in Iraq?
Posted by V. Edward Martin at October 26, 2005 05:08 PM
They died to prevent the Islamic Reformation,which is ripping the Middle East apart from coming to our shores.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 26, 2005 05:37 PM
Edward Martin, isn’t that the horrifying dilemma that the US now finds itself in, that it cannot cut and run? And the achievememt of US goals in Iraq is totally outside the hands of the US. You are at the mercy of the Gods in Iraq, that and the deeply divided peoples of Iraq. As it is, Iran is now closer to achieving its objectives with respect to Iraq that the US is. How ironic. Tragically, the people of the US, in their pain and anger at 9/11, allowed themselves to be led into a quagmire. An obscenity moreover, that had nothing to do with Iraq. Furthermore, 9/11 had everything to do with Saudi Arabia, which still has the ear and sympathy of your president and his administration. And for all of this folly, your young people are spilling their idealistic and patriotic blood on a foreign field of which you know little. The lesson of Vietnam demanded that you know why you send your young people to war. Watergate told you not to place too much trust in your leaders. How quickly we foolish people forget what history so eloquently teaches us. Hubris inevitably leads to humiliation. Or to put it another way, whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. But it’s only 30 years since Saigon fell. How short are peoples memories. How easily they will sacrifice the blood of their eager defenders.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 26, 2005 08:49 PMThey died to prevent the Islamic Reformation,which is ripping the Middle East apart from coming to our shores.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 26, 2005 05:37 PM
Eagle, you clearly have no understaning of what the reformation in the Christian faith meant. What Islam actually needs, is a Reformation to bring it into the modern age.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 26, 2005 08:50 PMEagle,
Sadam was a threat..pure and simple.
Surely you cannot say he wasn’t…can you?
Yes I can. Saddam was no threat. He was contained, he had no WMDs, he had no capacity to make more, and he had never attacked inside the US. He was the most watched dictator on the planet. No threat. It’s easy, really.
Posted by: Brian Poole at October 26, 2005 11:46 PMBrian,
Looks like it’s time or an update… You make statements that are just not valid at all…
And it’s the ‘sticking your head in the sand’ attitude that left us vulnerable over the past 20 years.
I’ll be posting something in the next couple of days but to start:
* Saddam was a threat because of his numerous use of terrorists groups during his reign.
* He was not contained, if he was how would he have been involved, as Paul O’Neil has stated, with the production of VX gas at al Shifa, or the plot by the IIS to attack the RFE station in Prague?
* He did have WMDs. He did not have them when we invaded. Where did they go, can you tell me, give me proof of what happened to them? No? Well hell, that’s good enough for me then…
* Capacity to make more, Go back to al Shifa. Or are you going to question Paul O’Neil?
* As for attacking inside the US… Well, there’s still debate on that. Investigations are still ongoing. Suffice it to say he did give refuse and money to terrorists that did attack inside the US, we can prove that at least.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 27, 2005 12:55 AMErg, this will teach me to post from a hotel after driving for several hours…
I meant Richard Clarke, not Paul O’Neil above.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 27, 2005 02:43 AMPaul in Euroland and Brian
I beg to differ.
I have an excellent understanding of both the current Islamic Reformation and the Christian Reformation which paralyzed Europe for centuries.
Both will have one thing in common…..a bloodbath in the name of God (or in Islam’s case,Allah)
Today we have the fundamentalist view in collission with the moderate view in Islam.
To compound the situation,we also have 2 sub-sets of Islam,the Sunni and Shia at odds (since virtually the day the Phrophet died) with each other.
Both sub-sets have fundamentalist in their midst.
Thus we have a struggle for the identy of Islam taking place…actually 2 different struggles taking place within the religion which will take decades to solve,…if at all.
September 11 was a result of radicial Sunni Muslims who had declared war on us a decade earlier drawing first blood.
Radicial Shia Muslims (Iran) nearly have the technology to develop a nuclear bomb and the new president of Iran calls for Isreal to be wiped off the map.
Saddam,when he was in power,beside being a one man weapon of mass destruction,cleverly played one off against the other.
He deflected Islamic criticism about his regime by advocating for the Palestines and the suicide bombers there.
He was an “Arab”,remember?And he gave $25,000 to each family of suicide bombers there.
He propped up Arafat and was the major reason why the central issue of the whole region…Isreal…could not be solved.
He was one of the major central figures,along with the radicial Sunni Wahhabi and radicial Iranian Shia in keeping the flames of hatred alive against Isreal.
Any moderate Shia or Sunni who would even breathe peace with Isreal was or will be killed.
Thus the premise for me calling it the Islamic Reformation.
Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 27, 2005 07:28 AMRhinehold,
I’ve debated the previous article you wrote several times and you never bothered to defend it. Your new points look about the same.
Saddam was a threat because of his numerous use of terrorists groups during his reign.
Were these terrorist groups targeted at us? How many Americans did they harm? Is it worth 2000 lives to curtail his involvement, especially considering that terrorism has not decreased with the end of funding by Saddam?
He did have WMDs. He did not have them when we invaded. Where did they go, can you tell me, give me proof of what happened to them? No? Well hell, that’s good enough for me then…They aren’t in Iraq, they weren’t there when we invaded, and they haven’t been used by anyone, or even attempted to be used by anyone, as would be expected if he was dealing them out willy-nilly. I think it’s been pretty well established that he didn’t have WMD at the time we invaded. Even if he did, and this is a gigantic if, because of our invasion, they are now in the hands of terrorists, instead of under the control of a nation state who may use them to threaten enemies with, but knows that if there is any link to him if WMDs are used on america, we would nuke him or take him out for payback. Terrorists have no such fears. My point is that even if the mythical WMDs existed, they would be better off in Saddam’s hands than wherever they are now. But that’s all moot because he didn’t have them. They were destroyed in the 90s. I think that when going to war over something, the burden of proof should be on the war advocate, so you don’t have to say, 2000 dead later, “oops we made a mistake, sorry about that.” So I think you should tell me—Where are they?
Capacity to make moreAll I ever heard is that he had the desire and infrastructure to make more, if the sanctions were lifted, which was not happening. That there were weapons of mass destrucion-related project activities. Not exactly convincing. He didn’t have materials, it would have been extremely difficult for him to obtain materials, especially with the amount of scrutiny he was under.
As for attacking inside the US… Well, there’s still debate on that. Investigations are still ongoing. Suffice it to say he did give refuse and money to terrorists that did attack inside the US, we can prove that at leastHe gave garbage to terrorists? That doesn’t sound so bad. (sorry, cheap typo shot). Aren’t you the guy on the other side who was saying that until investigations are complete, we really don’t know anything? Investigations in progress don’t impress me. I’ll grant you that he supported some terrorism. But to what degree? $25,000 is not enough to make somebody’s family rich enough to inspire them to go blow themselves up. How much of a role did he have in those terrorist acts of which you speak, and how much impact will eliminating him have on terrorism? If the answer is “not much”, and I haven’t seen anything to suggest otherwise, then was it worth the cost? I don’t think so. Posted by: Brian Poole at October 27, 2005 10:17 AM
Whatever form the future Iraqi government takes is pretty much their business so long as it isn’t a threat to American interest.
SE, that’s what we’re trying to tell you. The Islamist government in Iraq is a threat to American interests. It’s complete idiocy to defend it at this point.
Unfortunately, President Bush set up the chaotic conditions necessary for al Qaeda to move in and set up Iraq as a terrorist school, live-fire training ground and base of operations — oh, and as a bonus they get to kill Americans without even leaving the Middle East. But they’ll get here eventually. Zarqawi’s students have already spread to about 40 different countries and are already responsible for attacks in Jordan and Egypt.
I’d say pull the troops out now, except that they’re the only thing keeping al Qaeda from taking over Iraq like they did with Afghanistan. We’d just have to go back later.
I don’t understand why President Bush is being such a pussy about Iraq. Triple the number of US troops there, eject al Qaeda with overwhelming force, seal the borders and put a squad on every street corner until Iraq is stable, uncorrupt, and able to defend itself — oh, and rip up that piece of crap constitution and replace it with a document that creates a free-market liberal democracy and guarantees equality for women and protection for minorities.
Sadam was a threat..pure and simple.
Saddam was not a threat to the United States. Left alone, Saddam may have become a threat decades down the road — or he may have gotten run over by a bus or died from whatever killed Arafat. But he was not a threat in any meaningful time frame.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 27, 2005 11:06 AMAnd Rhinehold, al Shifa is the “aspirin factory” in Sudan that Cinton bombed in 1998 — a couple months before he spent a week blowing the crap out of every single suspected WMD site in Iraq. “Any more would just be bombing for bombing’s sake,” CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinny reported to Clinton.
So, yeah, I think I have a pretty good idea what happened to the WMD (if any) that Saddam didn’t destroy himself in 1993.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 27, 2005 11:14 AMI don’t understand why President Bush is being such a pussy about Iraq. Triple the number of US troops there, eject al Qaeda with overwhelming force, seal the borders and put a squad on every street corner until Iraq is stable, uncorrupt, and able to defend itself — oh, and rip up that piece of crap constitution and replace it with a document that creates a free-market liberal democracy and guarantees equality for women and protection for minorities.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 27, 2005 11:06 AM
Surely you can’t believe that such a tactic would work AP? The majority of the shia in Iraq, who are the majority grouping in the country, are followers of ayatollah al Sistani, who by comparison with Khomeini, seems like a moderate. Nevertheless, there is no way he would tolerate a western liberal constitution being imposed on Iraq. Bear in mind, it is not the majority shia who are creating the greatest problems now, for the coalition. But try to impose a settlement on them, and well, you ain’t seen nuttin yet!
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 27, 2005 12:29 PMAP
Tsk..tsk..tsk..
And you were doing so good too…
I just finished reading a book called “On Killing” by colonel someone or other.(When I get home I will post the name and title)
He says that for every 1 soldier sent into battle,only 1 is capable if killing….2 at the most.
The rest don’t kill.
for a variety of reasons.
If we have 150,000 peersonel there now,using his math,we have 15,000 “killers”….that is why the special ops peole are so important…they are off the chart percentage wise as killers as opposed to a guard unit there.
What we need is a larger amount of killers and a lesser amount of everything else.
Bat that one around for a while.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 27, 2005 01:09 PMAP
Sorry…speed typing…the correct ratio is 10-1…..for every 10 combat personnel,1 is classified as a killer…sorry..
Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 27, 2005 01:11 PMMore American have died in our first three years in Iraq than died in our first FOUR years in Vietnam.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 27, 2005 02:31 PMElliot Bay
Did you flunk stats in college or what?
On the other post you put up phony numbers too…
And now this…
Which three years are you talking about?The years when we had advisors there or when troop levels were the same ….at 132,000?
Cite your source please.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 27, 2005 03:01 PMEagle,
This wil be my last response to you until you are capable of following the “critique the message, not the messenger”. I posted a fact, and you respond with a personal insult.
ElliottBay
More American have died in our first three years in Iraq than died in our first FOUR years in Vietnam.
I’m with Eagle on this, except for his insults, I would like to know what 4 years your talking about.
The first 4 years we had advisors or the frist 4 years after we took over the war. In other words from 1958 - 1962 or 1964 - 1968.
As some or most of youall know, I have mentioned at times that two of my nephews have been deployed to Iraq. The one in the Marines has been wounded recently and is currently home on leave. It is still uncertian if he will be returned to active duty or if he’ll be discharged.
While that decision is up to the doctors, he personally wants to be sent back to Iraq. And he’s not the only wounded GI that wants to go back.
If things are as bad over there as the liberials say, why would someone that’s been there and wounded want to go back? Sure hope youall can answer that with out personal attacks on our servicemen.
Elliot
I apologize if you were insulted.
It was supposed to be taken humourously,not personally.
Nonetheless,in the future I will respect your request.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 27, 2005 04:59 PMRon,
I can think of a lot of reasons, and I have never heard anyone on this board or elsewhere, except for Guliani, make a personal attack on our servicemen.
Maybe he has friends there that he feels he is abandoning. Maybe he wants to help the Iraqis. Maybe he feels a sense of duty to finish the job he started. I could think of other reasons, and am sure that everyone who is there has their own personal reasons for being there. However, none of these reasons mean that the invasion of Iraq is a good idea, or that we are accomplishing the strategic goals that the invasion was supposed to achieve.
Posted by: Brian Poole at October 27, 2005 05:04 PMUS troops were introduced in Vietnam in numbers starting in late 1961, although there were a few there before that. Although they were called “advisors”, they actively directed, took part in, and unfortunately died in combat operations. So I chose 1961 as the first year.
The total deaths for 1961 - 1964 were 433. If you start counting in 1962, the 4-year total is 2240, just slightly more than the current 3-year total in Iraq. If you start counting from the formal “introduction” of combat troops in Vietnam (mid- to late- 1964), the casualty number were MUCH higher, but then so were the number of American combat troops stationed in Vietnam - over 500,000. Here’s the the source for US casualties by year , and here’s a source for US troop deployments by year.
Ron, Godspeed and a quick recovery to your nephew.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 27, 2005 06:36 PMElliot Bay
You prove my point.
US troops didn’t ramp up until after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution during the Johnson(D) Texas administration.
This is after Kennedy D) massachusetts committed advisors.
As you know,it was Nixon (R) California who ended that conflict.
Let’s looks at the stats 1966-1969 for starters.
No personal insult here either.Just the facts.
WWIII was started under Clinton (D) Arkansas.
Except he didn’t know a war had started.
Bush (R) Texas,or his successor McCain (R) Arizona or Guilliani (R) New York will end it.
Sorry: Res Ispe Loquitor
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 27, 2005 06:54 PMElliot,
Your right it all depends on what four year period you use.
Thanks, My nephew is diong fine and will have an evaluation to determine his future, or lack of it in service. He wants to make a career in the Marines. His father was a retired Gunny.
Eagle
There were enough mistakes about Vietnam by BOTH parties to go around. Kennedy and Johnson may have been President, but they were OVERWHELMINGLY supported by the Republicans (and the Democrats, for a while).
And if you’re going to bloviate and use Latin phrases, you could at least spell them correctly. It’s “Res Ipse Loquitur”.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 27, 2005 07:22 PMElliot
You are correct…there was plenty of blame to go around….but ground forces were committed in an undeclared war and then vastly increased by democratic admininstations…but many Republicians too were at fault.
I flunked spelling in school…in both Latin and Englisn.Will try French next.
By the way,isn’t bloviating an insult?
I know you’re quoting O’Reilly there,but doen’t that mean being pompous,a blowhard or something insulting?
Just wondering
Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 28, 2005 07:08 AMEagle,
“Bin Laden?”
“Marginalized..cut off..broke…his time will come very soon.”
I suppose you have proof that any of this is true?
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 28, 2005 09:22 AMCleary then a case eagle, of qui haeret in litera haeret in cortice. Bonne chance a la Francaise! Vivres Jacques Chirac, non?
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 28, 2005 10:23 AMAndre
Yes,I have proof…I have his shoe in my car.
Please.
The facts speak for themselves.
Prove to me otherwise.
Paul
J’aime beaucoup le francais.J’etudie le francais pour douze anne in ecole mais je ne sais pas how to spell pourquois j’oblige everything.
Sicilian Eagle—
I reject the notion that American had to die in Iraq to preserve our way of life! Saddam was not a threat to the U.S. or any other nation for that matter; he had been effectively neutered at the end of the last Gulf War. Please tell me, how the man or his Armed Forces a threat to the America way of life.
There was no, I repeat no Islamic Reformation taking place in Iraq, Saddam was firmly in control of the masses. And I admit that countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, and to a lesser extent Jordan and Syria are seeing a rise in Islamic Fundamentalism, I do not agree that American troops were not sent to Iraq to quell it. If you are referring to the Bush Administration’s ever changing goals for the region one of which was to bring democracy to the oppressed masses; it was doom to failure from it inception, the newly written Iraqi (interim) Constitution notwithstanding.
Since the threat was never Saddam (he was an irritant at best), it lie to the East in Afghanistan, U.S. serviceman were not, and are not dying “to preserve our lives, the lives of our children and the lives of our children’s children.” Their lives were in fact wasted for no tangible (or intangible) greater good worth losing 2000+ lives over.
Platitudes, however noble, are not a comfort to those who have lost loved ones in a War we never should have started. The War in Afghanistan was just, noble, and needed; the War in Iraq was unjust, un-needed, and showed the world how absolute power corrupt absolutely.
Ron Brown—
When do we declare Mission Accomplished (this time for real)?
Rhinehold—
I find it astounding that you can still think Saddam’s Iraq was threat after all that has been written, said and revealed about how much of a non-threat Iraq was when we invaded unjustly.
Actually, boys and girls, the war in Viet Nam was not considered an “American” war until Ia Drang. That was November of 1965. Start counting from there.
What I’m about to say is going to be harsh and I’m expecting some harsh retorts about “insensitivity” and such…but…here goes.
It’s amazing to me that everyone is sooooo upset about 2,000 dead soldiers in Iraq. Yes, it’s very sad and disheartening. But I have to ask…
Who in this column was “frothing at the mouth” when 800,000 Tutsi tribespeople were slaughtered by the Hutus in Rwanda?
Who in this column was “frothing at the mouth” when 200,000 Somolis were starved to death in a stupid civil war between some warlords who used hunger as a weapon against their enemies?
Who in this column IS “frothing at the mouth” as 75,000 Darfourians have been slaughtered by the Janjaweed in Sudan and more are murdered each and every day…10’s of thousands gang raped…and a million displaced (running for their lives)…simply because they have black skin?
Who in this column IS “frothing at the mouth” about the MILLIONS that die each and every year from the AIDS pandemic? Who in this column IS “frothing at the mouth” when when you find that below equatorial Africa, in many places 1 in 3 adult women are infected with the disease?
Truly, my heart goes out to the mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, wives and children of our Iraqi casualties.
But…
I must also take a step back and put things in perspective.
There ARE other places in this world than Iraq.
Posted by: Jim T at October 28, 2005 03:54 PMIn America this is the poor mans war; it was recently reported that a disproportionate number of the U.S. Serviceman being killed in Bushs’ War are from rural America.
There is a simple sociological reason for this report, the military is overwhelmingly comprised of southerns and midwesterns. In an all-volunteer force, the concept of patriotism and sense of service drives higher enlistments in southern and mid-western areas. This is not to say that poeple from urban areas are not partiotic, it is different and difficult to explain. It is also not a red-state, blue-state thing either.
I would like to point out to all the naysayers, five years ago, some 20 million + Iraqis had no hope, no thought, no concept of voting on a constitution of their making. The Washingotn Post ran a story a couple of days ago about how Sunni organizers are pushing involvement in the POLITICAL process as the best route for obtaining their goals. You see, people in a Democratic society don’t need to blow each other up to achieve goals, they can vote on it, debate it, lobby it. THAT is progress.
The sacrifice of 2000 Americans for that change is worth it and I would bet everyone one of them would say so
Posted by: Matt Johnston at October 28, 2005 04:58 PMSo, yeah, I think I have a pretty good idea what happened to the WMD (if any) that Saddam didn’t destroy himself in 1993.
You don’t include the entirely of the quote that he felt that they had destroyed, optimisticaly, about 85% of their WMD. That’s still a lot left, enough to do some serious damage. Did we know or have any good idea where that was when we were working to get Iraq to fulfull it’s 12 year old promise to destory it all themselves?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 05:55 PMWho in this column IS “frothing at the mouth” as 75,000 Darfourians have been slaughtered by the Janjaweed in Sudan and more are murdered each and every day…10’s of thousands gang raped…and a million displaced (running for their lives)…simply because they have black skin?
Well, I would have to say that on this count I was, the article in question posted here:http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/002039.html
And of course, I am upset about the others as well. Though, I support invading Iraq in 2003 so I’m hardly the person to act, I imagine. I am completely upset that we are still there and have been unable to execute the war as we should have, but that is besides the point.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2005 06:00 PMRhinehold,
Good for you! The story of the people of Darfour and the Sudanese government backed Janjaweed needs to be screamed at the top of our lungs.
And often.
Posted by: Jim T at October 28, 2005 06:23 PMEven though I support the war effort I hate to see our young men and women go to war. But sometimes it’s necessary. And I know there some of yaall that disagree with this war. And yaall have that right.
But I’m not writting this to argue the point.
The one constant fact of war is people die in it. The last count I’ve seen is 2,001 of our young people killed in Iraq.
Sometimes I get the idea that there are those that are gloating over this. I haven’t seen it on this blog I’m glad to say.
As the mother of a serviceman I would hate to see anyone gloating over his death, and hate to see it over the deaths of the others.
My husband says that I let too much get to me when it comes to this kind of thing. But the one thing I don’t understand it why someone would gloat over the deaths of some mothers children.
Also as the proud mother of a serviceman, my heart is with the mothers that has lost their son’s or daughters in this war.
It seems many americans have forgotten the death toll in Iraq. Many don’t even care.
Start caring.
They are doing it for our country and for us all.
Send them your prayers as I do.
Posted by: Tabatha Jo at November 28, 2005 03:03 PM
