U.S. deaths in Iraq exceed 9-11 count

MrBrian

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

sponger

that sucks.

flywallyfly

This story implies that the two events are related but in reality are distinct from each other, unless you are Bush and the neocons. 9/11 has nothing to do with the Iraq War except it was used to fool Americans into backing it. Although they have no connection to each other, both sets of 3000 deaths are extremely sad.

MrBrian

flywallyfly wrote:

This story implies that the two events are related but in reality are distinct from each other, unless you are Bush and the neocons. 9/11 has nothing to do with the Iraq War except it was used to fool Americans into backing it. .

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.

sponger

MrBrian wrote:

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.

flywallyfly

MrBrian wrote:

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.

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.

MrBrian

flywallyfly wrote:

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.

sponger

If Bin Laden is alive and is reading that article, then I'm sure he relates those deaths to 9/11. I'm sure he realizes that without his help, Bush would never have been able to orchestrate the brainwashing necessary to gain support for the war in Iraq.

norm

Merry fuckin' Christmas.

How can W and Cheney live with themselves after killing over 6,000 Americans and countless Iraqis and others?

The Waiting Trophy Man

cutback wrote:

Merry fuckin' Christmas.

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.

sponger

I'm just waiting for the day when alternative fuels wipe that whole part of the world off of our maps.

the face

cutback wrote:

Merry fuckin' Christmas.

How can W and Cheney live with themselves after killing over 6,000 Americans and countless Iraqis and others?

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.

MrBrian

the face wrote:

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?

the face

cutback wrote:

Merry fuckin' Christmas.

How can W and Cheney live with themselves after killing over 6,000 Americans and countless Iraqis and others?

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...

miller8966

Thankgod we didnt have this type of press in ww2...we would all be speaking german right now.

Auf Wiedersen!

newagehippie

miller8966 wrote:

Thankgod we didnt have this type of press in ww2...we would all be speaking german right now.

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........

miller8966

newagehippie wrote:

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........

sometimes war is needed.

gue_barium

miller8966 wrote:

Thankgod we didnt have this type of press in ww2...we would all be speaking german right now.

Auf Wiedersen!

The freedom of the press was as alive and well, maybe moreso, during ww2, as it is today.

miller8966

gue_barium wrote:

The freedom of the press was as alive and well, maybe moreso, during ww2, as it is today.

Yes but it was not as anti-american as it is today.

gue_barium

miller8966 wrote:

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.

Abuskedti

miller8966 wrote:

Yes but it was not as anti-american as it is today.

This is a beauty..