U.S. deaths surpass Iraq war total

Search

Another Day, Another Dollar
Joined
Mar 1, 2002
Messages
42,730
Tokens
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- More American service members have now died in Iraq since the end of major combat than during the height of the war.

On Tuesday, a soldier was killed in an attack on a military convoy near Baghdad, bringing the death toll since May 1 -- when U.S. President George W. Bush declared major combat operations over -- to 139.

Between March 20, when the war began, and May 1, 138 U.S. service members died, according to the U.S. military.

The latest U.S. victim is a 3rd Corps Support Command soldier who died in an explosive device attack on a military convoy near the town of Hamariyah, 25 kilometers (16 miles) northwest of Baghdad, U.S. Central Command said.

Two other soldiers were wounded in the attack and were taken to the 28th Combat Support Hospital for treatment. The names of all three soldiers were being withheld pending notification of relatives.

The U.S. postwar death toll reached 138 on Monday with the death of a U.S. soldier from a "non-hostile" gunshot wound, the U.S. military said.

The soldier -- whose name was withheld pending notification of relatives -- was with the 130th Engineer Brigade, according to a spokesman.

Since May 1, 61 of the 139 U.S. service members killed have died in hostile action. Between March 20 and May 1, 116 of the 138 died in combat.

Meanwhile, UK-based charity and relief organization Oxfam said Tuesday it has pulled its 10-member international staff from Iraq because of security concerns.

Oxfam spokesman Brendan Cox said 50 Iraqi staff remain. The agency previously pulled staff from Nasarya for security reasons. International workers have been sent to Jordan.

The decision follows last week's bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad that killed at least 20 people, including U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.

On Monday, the International Committee of the Red Cross said it was reducing the number of non-Iraqi staffers working in Baghdad. (Full story)

Raid on Iraqi town
Overnight, hundreds of U.S. troops hunting criminals and terrorists have detained several people in a raid on an Iraqi town north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

Soldiers from the U.S. 4th Infantry Division raided homes around Khalis Monday night looking for members of a gang accused of crimes in the area.

U.S. forces -- backed by tanks, helicopters and Bradley fighting vehicles -- were hoping to capture the gang's leader, Lateef Hamed al Kubaishat, but he appeared to have eluded capture, The Associated Press reported.

The crime ring is accused of murder, gunrunning and a terrorist attack on a police station, AP said.

Col. David Hogg, commander of the 4th Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, told AP at least 24 members of the "terrorist organization" were captured.

"Their primary focus is probably criminal activity, but they have attacked coalition forces through direct and indirect means," Hogg said.

"As long as he (Lateef) is in place we will not be able to establish the conditions for the Iraqi police to establish law and order in the area."

As U.S. soldiers combed scores of flat-roofed houses, Iraqi informants sat in the back of Humvees -- their eyes hidden behind dark sunglasses -- and helped soldiers identify members of Lateef's gang, AP reported.

Residents of Khalis, 68 km (42 miles) north of Baghdad, were ordered to sit against walls as soldiers searched their homes for weapons and gang members.

The U.S. military said Lateef's gang had claimed responsibility for a bomb that exploded outside the police headquarters in nearby Baqouba on August 10, killing one U.S. military policeman, AP reported.

Lateef is also accused of selling weapons, burning down a courthouse to destroy criminal records and murdering a prostitute whom he accused of providing services to U.S. troops in the area, the news agency said.

U.S. intelligence officers said Lateef was serving multiple life sentences for murder until Saddam Hussein granted amnesty to all prisoners in October 2002 as the United States was making its case for invading Iraq, AP reported.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
When you stand up and utter "Mission Accomplished" you had damn well make sure that no one else is in harm's way.

Besides, once all is over and done, wouldn't you withdraw the troops?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Yes, and W. promises that we aren't leaving until every American soldier is dead. Or something to that effect.

Johnson used false evidence to get us into Vietnam, and it was still more than a decade before we left -- and we lost (not that there is any such thing as a winner in a situation like that.)

Wonder how many years it will take America to realise they've been hook, lined and sinkered yet again? Wonder what their reaction will be?


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,818
Tokens
Look at those of us in this forum who were never hook line and sinkered in the first place, then look at the visceral, ignorant reaction we got before, during and now after the "war". Know-nothings comprise a big chunk of the population here. You go and attack the place where the oil is because the world is running out and all manner of baloney gets sliced all the live long day about "terrorists" and so forth. There aren't any terrorists in Iraq, except people who hate their occupiers and are now classified as such by those occupiers. Hussein was the only secular leader in the middle east. A brute indeed, but he was our brute, in fact I am fairly sure he is still considered a CIA asset; if they wanted him dead, he'd be dead by now. Bin Laden's the same. It's all just a stage-managed puppet show for the people. And I'm including 911 in that, which I'm sure fills some people's brains with shock and awe.... goodnight.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,509
Tokens
This has turned from a war debate room into an anti war forum. I see all those war hawks posting in other forums, but they dont have anything to say about the current state of the war anymore. It seems they have finally realized they were wrong from the beginning.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Its a bit weird because everyone knows that for our guys to stay there is really dumb, but theres no particular momentum back home to get them out of it before too many get killed.

Meanwhile, day by day, a few more die in a pointless overseas exercise.

At the moment, I guess about 1000 a year will die.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
Danny, in what way were they wrong, specifically?

Eek, I agree with you that occupation of Iraq is turning into a nightmare. There are to many scumbags over there that want to disrupt any sense of order that's restored. They probably want Saddam back. I think Saddam has a plan to avoid capture until the American public gets fed up with the occupation effort to restore order, and demands that the U.S. pull out of there. Then, he'll try to get back in power. I
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,509
Tokens
American,

They said that this war was a good idea. WRONG

They said the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's were looking forward to this invasion. WRONG

They said once we had power and Saddam's regime was put down this would be fairly easy because noone really supports Saddam - they are all just scared WRONG

They Said once we got Saddam's and his medling out of the way we would find WMD's quickly. WRONG

They said we would find overwhelming evidence that Saddam was in some way involved with 9/11 WRONG


There are thousands of others things they were wrong on as well.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
Unfortunately, I have a strong gut feeling that the Iraq situation will get a lot worse before it gets better.

The Busk administration is getting murdered by the media and is facing a public relations nightmare. However, I don't think they'll back down until they bag Saddam or wipe out any chance of his coming back to power there.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
It may come down to whether or not Bush nabs Saddam, Unfortunately this is the political reality in the US. right now. The real issues confronting the average American today are taking a backseat to the hunt for Saddam.


wil.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
774
Tokens
The message the Democrats need to get across is "So what", if he gets Saddam. If he really wants to track down someone, how about Osama bin Laden. The man thats a threat to us NOW. I know I've said this on this board many times and I guess you good folks are getting tired of hearing it but "Lets go after the people responsible for 9-11". Doesn't it amaze you how the attention has been diverted from that? Sad.....very sad.

___________________________________________

http://www.draftgore.com/
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
They're going after Bin Laden, don't worry about that. They've got covert CIA teams on the trail. Bin Laden has a lot of real estate to work with though, and the mountains and caves which he's so familiar with are making this very difficult. Worst of all...this cold-blooded killer is incredibly disciplined and patient.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
774
Tokens
And during the meantime we'll spend a billion dollars a week in Iraq. So we've got the CIA looking for the man resposible for the worst terrorist attack in history and an ARMY looking for a Mid-Eastern dictator that might have posed a threat to us a few years down the road? Now whats wrong with this picture?

Why was Iraq such a high priority? Oil?...Trying to finish what dad started 12 years ago? It wasn't because of 9-11 because Iraq wasn't involved.

Given the severity of the crime, the resources we have and our intelligence capabilities. Its hard for me to believe that in 2 years time the United States couldn't find any man on Earth.

[This message was edited by bunyon on September 02, 2003 at 01:03 AM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
Iraq harbored Al Qaeda cells and allowed them to train there. Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. Doesn't that mean that Iraq played an indirect role in Al Qaeda actions? It might not to you, but it does to me.

But that's not why the Bush boys decided to attack.Bush lacked confidence in the UN after Saddam kept out UN weapons inspectors for four years, making the UN look like nothing more than a debate forum without serious resolve to enforce it's decisions. Powell wanted to go the UN resolution route. Bush, Rumsfield and especially Cheney were hellbent on attacking Iraq. Their rationale was that not acting was more of a risk than attacking. Preemptive attacks were now going to be the policy. And Bush went on to say he would attack unilaterally. That's when the quagmire started.

It doesn't appear now that the risk outweighed the reward. With Saddam out there running around still, I'm not sure what the reward is.

I look for the Bush administration to make some big policy changes soon if things don't get better in Iraq with the elections coming up, just in time to reap the political dividends. An unpopular occupation where soldiers are getting picked off on a daily basis is just too damaging politically so close to an election.

I think they either come up with Saddam's head on a platter, or they withdraw within a few months and let the UN or coalition forces try to maintain order there. I do think something big will happen there in the next 2 or 3 months.

We'll see.

By the way, who do you think they'll find first....Bin Laden or Enrique Villalobos? That's about a pick'em if you ask me.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
774
Tokens
American posted....Iraq harbored Al Qaeda cells and allowed them to train there. Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. Doesn't that mean that Iraq played an indirect role in Al Qaeda actions? It might not to you, but it does to me.

I have seen no credible evidence that they (Iraq) were involved in any way. I'm sure not taking Bushs word for it.
____________________________________________

American posted....
By the way, who do you think they'll find first....Bin Laden or Enrique Villalobos? That's about a pick'em if you ask me

If either of the 2 are hiding in Crawford, Texas. That will be the one they find first.....LOL

American, have a good one my friend. I've got to catch some Zzzzzs.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
Iraq harbored Al Qaeda cells and allowed them to train there. Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.

American,

The US also harbored Al Qaeda cells (in NY, Fla. etc.). What to do with zee Americans? Bomb them?
It's time to shock and awe ourselves into realizing that a government or people cannot be responsible for all that occurs within its borders.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
Your lies are old, but you tell them pretty good.

Yes, they had Al Qaeda cells in the U.S. The CIA and FBI are guilty of not acting preemptively to stop these guys when their intelligence told them that something big was coming up. Who says the U.S. government isn't responsible? They were negligent about handling the threats properly and their was no cooperation between the two agencies, which allowed these Al Qaeda fruitcakes to slip through the cracks.

If you were to say protecting and sealing one's borders is practically impossible, I would agree with that. Just because some within happens within a country's borders doesn't mean it's state sponsored...terrorism, child molestation, drug use, murder,... whatever. But poor, innocent Saddam knew goddamn well about those Al Qaeda running around in his police state, and he supported them, idealogically and undoubtably financially as well. He harbored them.

He threw out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998. He's been in violation of UN resolutions for some 11 years. Explain to me again how Saddam is an innocent victim here.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
Your lies are old, but you tell them pretty good.

Thanks, confucious.

As far as telling anything goes, you tell it "well" and not "good".

Secondly, I never once argued for Saddam's innocence. No one is arguing here that he is an innocent man. Drop that idea from your head because it doesn't help your argument and runs the risk of making your entire premise irrelevant.
Now, on to the more pressing issue at hand: The US has also sponsored terror abroad. This is the problem. Either you believe that there is no fine line between good and evil and thus believe that states must, at times, support the lesser of the two evils; or you believe that there is no fine line, in which case the US is just as evil if not the most evil of all regimes.
Seen from this clear cut Bushite definition of good/evil (which is, sophomoric and flawed logic), never mind the good deeds of the US govt., if they have ever supported a dictator, they are guilty of being an "evil" nation, perhaps even a rogue state.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
Now we're getting somewhere. I don't look at it as bad versus good. I feel that all men share the same black heart, whatever flag they serve. Everyone's a bad guy. Name one country that isn't guilty of some unjust act, treachery or abuse. Everyone has blood on their hands. It's human nature.

The terrorists attack and kill innocent people. The U.S. counters by attacking, which results in killing innocent people. It's just two groups defending their interests as far as I can see. There are no white knights here. I never thought there was.

But I'll tell you this. I'm proud to be an American, and I feel very fortunate to be born as such. I will not be engulfed in self-hate because my country is the world's super power. I will NOT apologize for being American. I will not apoligize for what my country wants, or for what it stands for.

The real question....how are we all going to get along together peacefully on this little planet?

[This message was edited by American on September 02, 2003 at 03:26 PM.]
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
I agree. At the same time, blind pride will only cause others to hate. Be sure of this: It is not our freedom they desire. For if this were so, those who attacked almost two years ago to date simply would've continued living in the US, forged visas, passports and all.

So, what makes a man hate so much so as to attack a symbol of US military (Pentagon) and financial (WTC) dominance?

The most obvious answer would be the way we obtain and maintain that dominance (both militarily and financially). And since every man has a black heart as you so poetically state, US aquisition of wealth and power is based on the subjugation and oppression of others. Period.

Proud? Sure. I'm proud to be a US citizen, because this allows me to act as conscience, to criticize both the saint and the sinner from within its own head.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,157
Messages
13,564,700
Members
100,752
Latest member
gamebet888host
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com