U.S. deaths in Iraq exceed 9-11 count
MrBrian
Posts: 2,672
24 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, according to an Associated Press count on Tuesday.
The U.S. military announced the deaths of two soldiers in a bomb explosion southwest of Baghdad on Monday. The deaths raised the number of troops killed to 2,974 since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, according to an Associated Press count on Tuesday.
The U.S. military announced the deaths of two soldiers in a bomb explosion southwest of Baghdad on Monday. The deaths raised the number of troops killed to 2,974 since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I think in terms of the avg american, relating things to 9/11 is a good way of measruing the magnitude of something. It's something that they'll understand.
If you just say "3000" dead they may not see it as much, but if you say "more dead than on 9/11" is suddenly becomes more apparent.
This is true. I don't think americans really understood the magnitude of 9/11 until somebody related the toll to pearl harbor.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
That is a good point. I just believe it isnt a good thing to relate the two events as if they are connected, ie 3000 soldiers have died fighting for what happened to the 3000 dead from 9/11.
Yeah you are right, it is'nt good, but that's just the way it is. I mean did'nt they do a few surveys with soldiers and most of them themselves think the two are related?
Now when you have the people getting shot at thinking this I think it say's quite a bit.
It's sad but true.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
How can W and Cheney live with themselves after killing over 6,000 Americans and countless Iraqis and others?
they don't have hearts(well i guess cheney does, with all those heart attacks). but neither one has a conscience, that's for sure.
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Last time I checked George W didn't fly those planes into buildings...And we know the number. We can count. It sucks. But on the other side of the coin, for four years of war in two different countries, the armed services are doing a hell of a job of returning most every one home in one piece....In 6 years of war in Vietnam, 56,000 dead. So it's all a matter of how you look at it. Yes it sucks. Could be worse.
over 100.000 dead iraqis, I don't think it can get worse for them. let's not forget the long term problems they'll face for many years to come due to all those chemicals the US dropped.
But this is the thing, what does iraq have to do with planes flying into buildings?
I was responding to this....This guy just added the 9/11 figures up with the Iraq numbers and pinned them on Bush. Im no fan of George W but to blame him for 9/11 even implicitly is just below the belt...
Auf Wiedersen!
Agreed! I am not in agreement with W or the war, but let's put it in perspective.
If this would have happened 50 years ago, nothing would have been said, it would not have been a blip in the history books. Communication is a great thing, but just because you here about one thing doesn't mean it is worse than things that happened in the past and were never publicized. People dying in war is stupid, selfish, and shows the downfall of humans as a whole. It is how it has always been, and unless we change it , it always will........
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
sometimes war is needed.
The freedom of the press was as alive and well, maybe moreso, during ww2, as it is today.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yes but it was not as anti-american as it is today.
Although a cherished right of the people, freedom of the press is different from other liberties of the people in that it is both individual and institutional. It applies not just to a single person's right to publish ideas, but also to the right of print and broadcast media to express political views and to cover and publish news. A free press is, therefore, one of the foundations of a democratic society, and as Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." Indeed, as society has grown increasingly complex, people rely more and more on newspapers, radio, and television to keep abreast with world news, opinion, and political ideas. One sign of the importance of a free press is that when antidemocratic forces take over a country, their first act is often to muzzle the press.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
This is a beauty..
The only way the two events are involved is the fact that Bush used the fallout from 9/11 and won over (half of) the American Public by inducing fear that terrorists were in Iraq and we had to go after them. So yeah, Bush is the only reason they're related. We all should be angry that we lost 3,000 more by Bush's intentional and incompetent war. Instead of making a difference to our loss of 3,000 people as a result of 9/11, he sent in our willful men and women who we lost in addition to the loss of 9/11. And what has he accomplished from it? Nothing.
It's become a "controlled-speech" zone.
This is what the Bush administration has done. From threatening to throw journalists in jail or to have them fired, the media in America is well controlled. The great journalists in the past who have "gone after" the story to find the truth are no more. They've been either silenced, fired, have become frustrated or just gone. The mainstream we hear and read are exactly what the gov't wants us to read. There are no scandals or secrets to uncover, because people want to keep their jobs. A muzzle has been put on free speech, and in that regards, a muzzle has been put on free press.
Well Jean you live in america right? ANd you seem to be getting facts, am i right?
But oh no! its the big bad bush administration trying to stop you from getting those facts.
And what other countries are you talking about Jean? I have io in demand..i can see the BBC news; shit i can even open up the ny times and be fed all the liberal garbage i need.
Countries I'm talking about are those who go to the public to get news, political news from the People. The protestors in the streets, the opinions of those who have them. Protestors of Bush or the War are hidden here and get little, if any, publicity. They're kept under wraps. "Liberal" biased news still isn't facts. I'm talking about journalists who can get through the BS and dig deep to expose the well-kept secrets. It's what journalists did in the old days, which is their job, but now get threats of jail-time.
You couldnt hurt national security in the old days either for a news story......
'in one piece' you say? So the 50,000 wounded U.S service personnel don't count then?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm
So when exactly are you going to put your money where your mouth is and join up Miller?
Or maybe not.
So you believe that the mainstream media in America is Anti-American?
That is the most ridiculous statement I've read on the message board. Even Dino's posts don't top that one.