2007: Deadliest year for U.S. forces in Iraq

Have Republicans settled on a reason as to why were are in Iraq? The last I heard it was to control oil prices or was it to allow elections to take place? Imagine my confusion, first they said it was to chaotic and violent to withdraw, and now they are saying the chaos and violence has dropped but we cannot withdraw.

Where's the political solution in the Iraqi Civil War?

You say it's not a civil war? Then why can't the Iraqis cut a deal?

And according to recent polls, the American public considers economic issues MORE important than the war in Iraq. What an absolute waste of the lives of those who gave their lives to serve this country.

Perhaps if the American public actually had to pay for this war, as opposed to it going on their "credit card", they'd understand the economic impact of the war.

"Honor the warrior NOT the war."

Mission Accomplished!
Thanks GW - only 12 more months and you're out the back door. What an absolutely soulless chickenhawk to just let the clock run out on his tenure without any plan whatsoever. History will remember. We will never forget.

'COMMANDERS SPEAK ON THE GROUND'

HAPPY NEW YEAR, HAPPY NEW YEAR.

SAME TIME, SAME BATTLEFIELD, SAME MISSION ACCOMPLISHED WAR ON TERROR.

GONE NO WHERE, GOING NO WHERE, A COMPLETE "PHONY ACHIEVEMENT" BOTH ABROAD AND AT HOME.

2.0 TRILLION DOLLARS IN THE HOLE. BILLIONS, BILLIONS, BILLIONS, BILLIONS ON NO BID CONTRACTS THAT HAVE SHOWN NO PERFORMANCE BUT A LOT OF LIABILITY.

4200 MEN AND WOMEN DEAD! NOTHING MORE JUST DEAD.
58,000 INJURED OR MAMED WITH NO AMERICAN OUTLOOK OTHER THAN POVERITY, AND A GREATER DISPARITY IN AMERICAN LIFE.

A NATION OF SECULAR LAWS AND A CIRCUMVENTED GOVERNMENT.

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM GEORGE BUSH, AKA MR. AWOL SUCKERS!

BECAUSE THIS IS WHY THEY CALL HIM BIG POPPY THROW YO HANDS IN THE AIR AND WAIVE THEM LIKE JUST DON'T CARE.

GIVE ME IMMUNITY OR I WILL VETO AMERICA TO THE BRINK OF POVERTY. TRY ME!

"2007: Deadliest year for U.S. forces in Iraq"

...and the Republic Party minions have busy re-defining what "victory" in Iraq means too.

Their new slogan for what winning means is sitting in Iraq with 160,000+ troops and then claiming that because there aren't as many people blowing themselves up it must mean we're winning.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi's have no government or no military to speak of, 5 full years after we pre-emptivly invaded.

Same ole, same ole from the deaf, dumb and blind.

Doug, there is NO civil war taking place. And Doug, from the time we declared our independence to the time we actually became our own country with our own leader took about 11 years. Read some history, dude.

Jethro, the reasons for being in Iraq always have remained the same: to combat terrorism and those countries that support it. The WMDs added to the concern. Remember, Loons, most Democrats voted in FAVOR of going into Iraq and it had NOTHING to do with "Bush lying" or "cooking the books."

And, Mark, "violence in general MAY HAVE subsided"? Sorry to break the news to you, but violence HAS subsided BIG TIME in recent months.

Roger Morris,

May I ever some humbly snd politely suggest/request that one of your New Year's resolutions include the use (or non-use as the case may be) of your CAP KEY!!!!!

John D. & jethro

I wish that I could take credit for this, but I can't.

This was written for the University of Illinois.

It lists 27 "reasons" that the administration has used for going to war with Iraq. Now this article was written in May of 2004 so I am certain the number has reached 50 or so at least.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html

Despite John D.'s assertions, we went to war with Iraq because we were in imminent danger of being attacked by Iraq with their WMDs and nuclear weapons.

John D. the ONLY reason that terrorists came into the conversation was the administration was saying that Iraq was going to give those weapons to the terrorists.

Of course all of this ignored the FACT that North Korea admitted to having nuclear weapons at the time and they admitted to being willing to sell them to the highest bidder. Of course we didn't attack North Korea. Care to tell us why John?

That's right, Johnny D, you're there in Iraq right now and know for sure that violence HAS susbsided BIG TIME, and not writing from your darkened basement, where you're receiving all the world's knowledge.

Little Johnny D,
Al-Qaeda did not exist in Iraq before we invaded. Why do you lie? You are a horrible journalist.

PS Democrats who voted for Iraq invasion were WRONG.

I was wondering how the Democrats who write for the Swamp would "spin" the good news of the surge. They do it by focusing solely on the deaths of our soldiers, and not on what our soldiers accomplished.

1944 was the "deadliest year" for the U.S. army in World War II. It was also the year our nation essentially won WWII. 1864 was the "deadliest year" for Union army forces in our Civil War. It was also the year the war was essentially won.

I can see the Swamp headlines of the D-Day invasion: "June 1944 Deadliest month for U.S. forces in Europe".

According to this website, December was the lowest month of 2007 and the second lowest since the invasion in March, 2003.

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

Also, since the full effect of the surge, the US casuality rate has dropped dramatically.

The 12-months ended Dec, 2007 is the lowest casualty figure in the last 10 months.

Decemeber, 2007 casulatty count was only 19% of December, 2006.

Also, the period of October - December, 2007 is the lwoest three month casuality total of the entire war.

Why is it you lefty Bush haters can't handle that our military is having success?

Same ole, same ole from the deaf, dumb and blind.

- John D

Couldn't have said it better, referring to your own comments. Maybe your man Bush will attend his first military funeral during his (thankfully) final year in office, or would you prefer to insulate him from the human cost of his folly?

Doug Z,

Amen! Roger M, nobody pays attention to the guy screaming and shouting, and your posts give that appearance.

'2007: Deadliest year for U.S. forces in Iraq.'

Finally some good news for the defeatest libs...Ahhhhh, the liberal glee of death tolls as our troops risk their lives to protect our freedoms.

May GOD BLESS our TROOPS!

Paulo

JOhn D - which revisionist history books would you reccomend?

How about the "Domino Theory" for rationalizing the Vietnam war?

As for the 11 years it took to elect our own initial leader - big difference here.
1) We started the Revolution against the Brits.
2) The French didn't stay and try to set up a form of government for us.

There's no stream of thought that you won't deny though, so continue down the path of blindly following the emperor and his new clothes. I do enjoy your resolve, and I encourage you to enlist to truly show your patriotism...? no? okay then - the sons & daughters of the non-elected will continue to keep your freedoms protected.

The reasons for the invasion were twofold: to establish a ‘beachhead’ of democracy in the middle east and to focus the attention of the post-communism free world, especially Americans, on a new quest to spread our ideology to the heathens. The idea of placing a freely elected, secular society in the midst of all those countries run by sheiks and dictators, I guess, was to give some kind of beacon of hope, a city on the hill, blah, blah, blah, to the region that would over time put a big, secular smile on the face of Islam. I assume this would be done through osmosis. Or perhaps it was just a convenient place to put all our troops next time someone messed with our oil deliveries. Having a target for the American people to focus their energies on would, presumably, save us from ourselves lest we degenerate into the ole pleasure seeking, amoral abyss.

Bush and his minions, liars, fools or both, just might have succeeded if they had known as much about controlling the Iraqis as they did about controlling American public opinion. Unfortunately they didn’t and the American people caught on to the scam before Bush could get a handle on events in Iraq. I wonder what the outcome of this war would have been if you had people in charge who actually knew what hey were doing.

So, John D, you may be technically correct in that it’s not a civil war, but then what do you call a war involving secularist, religious factions, tribes and differing ideologies? They haven’t invented a word for that one yet. And even if violence has subsided how long are we to be stuck there?. There were no WMDs, there’s no links to terrorism and they knew it. John D, like most of the American people, you were suckered and if you don’t face up to that then they’ll do it to you again.

The so-called "War On Terror" has always been about two things for this pathetic administration.

1 - Scare the little Republicans (Lil Johnny Droid, Prozac Paulo, TrickleDown Terry, RNC Bruce, Crazy Jerry White) into volunteering to give up more of their civil rights.

2 - A reason to dump tons of money into the pockets of their cronies in the Military Industrial Complex (Halliburton, Blackwater etc).

Mission Accomplished!

Too good! Dogjudge cites a “study” stating that the administration used 27 different reasons for going into Iraq.

Gee, there were 24 different reasons on the war resolution in October 2003 signed off by both parties, and 17 UN resolutions…and these were just the reasons “PC” enough to put on the resolutions, although many more were mentioned by members of both parties in the debates leading up to the war.

Truly enlightening study.

Doug, there is NO civil war taking place. And Doug, from the time we declared our independence to the time we actually became our own country with our own leader took about 11 years. Read some history, dude.

Jethro, the reasons for being in Iraq always have remained the same: to combat terrorism and those countries that support it. The WMDs added to the concern. Remember, Loons, most Democrats voted in FAVOR of going into Iraq and it had NOTHING to do with "Bush lying" or "cooking the books."
___________________________

Little juanieed is so cute. Where to start destroying his mononicity?

There is no civil war taking place? You're wrong, plain and simple, unless you can cite facts explaining how citizens from the same country trying to out genocide each other doesn't constitute a civil war.

11 years? So you are saying we need to be in Iraq 11 years. So if year 12 occurs, will you declare the illegal occupation a failure? Never the less, 11 years at how many billions of dollars a year is fiscally conservative how exactly?

Reasons for being in Iraq have always remained the same? Nope, sorry again loser. First it was refusing to cooperate with UN inspectors. Then it was aluminum tubes from Niger. Then it was WMD's in general. Then it was to defeat Hussein. Then it was to bring democracy to Iraq. The target changes every day. Now the surge is to let democracy flourish. Did you hear the Constitution is being delayed three months, at a minimum? The bu$hco agenda is always the same. Move the goalposts, and blame those who point out the facts. Yawn.

Jim A,

Nice whippin of John D.

When it comes to our local wing nuts,little johnny,Paulo,Brucie and Big T,why worry about how we got there or if we have a plan or 4,000 dead,the main point is always,how can I convince someone,anyone,that my crazy position is correct.

"Conservatives" my ass. Lepers,yes.

May GOD BLESS our TROOPS!

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | December 31, 2007 3:51 PM

Yes Paulo,even the ones in the war we're supposed to be fighting.Remember,dead or alive.Your party has failed the Military,and the American people.

If it was up to nuts like Paulo,Terry,Brucie,and little johnny,we would still be in Nam,58,000 deaths weren't enough for those who fight wars snugged tightly in their beds!!!

updated 11:46 a.m. CT, Mon., Dec. 31, 2007
KABUL, Afghanistan - U.S. military deaths, suicide bombings and opium production hit record highs in 2007. Taliban militants killed more than 925 Afghan police. But U.S. officials here insist things are looking up.

The Afghan army is assuming a larger combat role, and militants are unlikely to mount a major offensive next spring, as was feared would happen a year ago. Training for the Afghan police force is increasing.

Still, six years after the 2001 U.S.-led invasion, violence is pervasive in wide swathes of southern Afghanistan — in Helmand, Uruzgan and Kandahar provinces — regions where the government has little presence. Militants moved into Wardak, one province south of Kabul.

John D,

Where ya been, buddy?

Survived the Electro-Shock and nurse Ratcheted OK I hope??

I see John D is making more brain-dead comments. He also wants to rewrite history. The reasons given at the time were WMD's(never found) and Saddam's role in 9-11(proven untrue). It has nothing to do with fighting countries other than Iraq. John D should be careful about deaf, dum, and blind. To him add loss of memory.

The so-called "War On Terror" has always been about two primary things for this pathetic administration.

1 - Scare the little Republicans (Prozac Paulo, TrickleDown Terry, Lil Johnny D etc) into volunteering to give up more of their civil rights.

2 - A reason to dump tons of money into the pockets of their cronies in the Military Industial Complex (Halliburton, Blackwater etc).

Mission Accomplished, Wingnuts!

It's the same as it was with my generation in the 60's and 70's, young kids dying for nothing. That's what it really comes down to.

Raver,

Yeah, we have created a resurgent narco state in Afg.

Look, it's time we acknowledge the fact that conservatives like having Usama bin Laden around because he 'supercharges' their propaganda.

Happy New Year!

Crazy Duck,

You make the point 3,902 deaths versus 58,000.

Has the situation in Iraq gotten better over the past six months?

Why is it you loons cannot handle US military success? Because if our military succeeds, then President Bush succeeds, and that just ruins the little paradigm you loons live in.

I was wondering how the Democrats who write for the Swamp would "spin" the good news of the surge. They do it by focusing solely on the deaths of our soldiers, and not on what our soldiers accomplished.
Posted by: Bruce | December 31, 2007 3:15 PM

Bruce, you are truly heartless. You admit you don't care how many die for this stupid, ill-conceived corporate war as long as you see some kind of supposed 'accomplishment'. You truly don't understand what it is like for these soldiers (and their families) to sacrifice their lives...for what, who knows. Even you can't define victory. And you certainly haven't sacrificed either.

Has the situation in Iraq gotten better over the past six months?

Posted by: Terry | December 31, 2007 9:13 PM

Unlike what wing nuts do and go for diversion,i'll answer your question.

Yes,the situation in Iraq has gotten better due to the fact that the military has escalated troop levels.

Now,answer some of my questions without going into your wing nut shell.

1.How did the "Conservative" party with total control of govt,manage to drive up our national debt by almost 5 trillion dollars in 7 years.

2.Did you support the Vietnam war?

3.Did the Republican party lie about the cost of the Medicare prescription drug program they passed?

We'll start there.Please,leave the excuses at the door.

It's "nice" to know that the Loons on the Left continue to be examples of why the U.S. education system is off track. Oh where do I begin?
1. France may not have helped us set up our government, but France also had troops here to help defeat the Brits and to provide some stabilizing support for the young U.S. And before you Loons say anything else, yes, France's motives were moreso out of the country's rivalry with England than it was being great friends to the U.S.
2. The Bush administration never linked Saddam with 9/11. That is spin brought to you Loons by your leftists blogs, a media that distorts comments and your own perverted fantasies.
3. Korea happened over 50 years ago and we are still there. Bosnia/Kosovo happened 10 years ago and we are still there. WWII happened over 60 years ago and we are still in Europe. Yet, the Loons want out of Iraq NOW, let Iran and Al Qaeda take it over and create an even worse situation.
4. Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq before we invaded. You folks ever hear of a guy name Al Zarquawi?
5. Loons want us UNILATERALLY to do something in Darfur because of civil war and genocide, but not Iraq.
6. There is no civil war in Iraq. You do have Sunnis working with Shi'ites. You have a government of Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites. You have all three elements working with the U.S.
7 I could go on but in the end it is fruitless. There is no force great enough on Earth to teach Lefty Loons the facts as Lefty Loons have a unique inability to learn and think rationally. Sort of like roadkill.

Paulo any time you'd like to discuss YOUR "support of the troops" I'd LOVE the opportunity.

Having served in the AF from '67 to '71 I have more than a few memories of people in Congress who talked a great story but refused to vote to declare that "conflict" a war. There are a tremendous number of reasons why that's important.

If you bother to look beyond the tip of your biased nose, you'll see that more and more of the troops and more and more of their families are FED UP with the Republicans and their spin of this quagmire known as Bush's fiasco.

When you're sitting in a foreign country and the commander in chief has NEVER, I repeat NEVER, been able to come up with an exit strategy it becomes more than a little demoralizing.

It's folks such as yourself that allow this war addict to continue to feed his habit.

Of course you wouldn't understand that. You just want to put a yellow ribbon on the back of your vehicle and tell us how that is somehow supporting the troops.

At this point in time, true support of the troops means getting them out of there and home safely.

Everyone knows the surge is working so Mark why mention the death stats to gin up Bush hatred.
The Democrat Party and the left wingnuts in America along with the driveby media are invested in defeat.
The American people want and will get victory. Some 46,000 Americans died in auto accidents in 2006 it is arguably safer in Iraq than it is behind the wheel of your car but, you liberals don't believe logic just your feelings.
I like Mark how you use the term War critics like they know more than the rest of us because they care more than we do. The truth is they are elitists who don't realize we are at War with a group of Islamic Jihadists who are human animals who kill and hide behind innocent children and women and even cut people heads off on TV now these are real cowards.
Despite all efforts by the liberals and the drivebys we will be successful in Iraq. In this age of instant gratification it's hard to believe Rome wasn't built in a day.
President Bush and our brave men and women in uniform deserve our support and gratitude for a job well done. Obviously, it will require more sacrifice but, it will keep us free so you libs can post on the Swamp. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

DD,

If its all about casulaities, then WW2 was a complete failure as over 400,000 American troops died.

Crazy Duck,

1. Like I said before the Republican party 2001-2006 spent like drunken sailors. However, I wonder where you get your figures, the attached chart shows national debt at about $5.5 Trillion in 200 and at $9.0 Trillion now, for a difference of $3.5 Trillion.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

2. When JFK got VietNam going I was about 3 years old, so I really didn't have a strong opinion.

3. The Republican party had bad assumptions on what the prescription drug plan would costs - President Bush's biggest failure was pushing this legislation. Do you think FDR lied when he developed the costs of Soc Sec? Do you think he figured that this would be $45 Trillion liability in the year 2007-08?

Jerry White,

Got to love your nonsense.

"Everyone knows the surge is working . . ." Really? You want to tell us why? Deaths are down, granted. That wasn't the reason for the surge. The surge was to allow the Iraqi government to enact the various goals set by the Bushies. So how many of the 18 goals have been enacted? I'll save you the time. NOT ONE. Ergo, the surge is NOT working.

"The Democratic party and . . . are interested in defeat." Simply put. You're a liar. Give us ONE example where any reputable media source (As opposed to Fox, or Rush, or Ari Fleischer who have come out and actually lied about the Iraq war to support Bush's fiasco), or any reputable person in Congress has said that they want the US to lose in Iraq.

Safer in Iraq than behind the wheel of a car? That statement is a PRIME example of how little you folks understand ANY reality or logic. Would you really like me to refute it for you?

Yeah we have to worry about the Islamic Jihadists. Especially those in Afghanistan or Pakistan. You know the one's that your President has ignored and left them to continue to promote their hatred. Instead he goes into an innocent country.

"Successful in Iraq". Really. I'll bet you $1,000.00 for charity that you cannot enumerate President Bush's definition of success in Iraq that would then allow the troops to come home. If you can't define success in Iraq, you certainly are going to be able to accomplish it.

Please don't try to put the troops on the same level as President Bush. The don't need to be downgraded in such a fashion. He's a coward, as are most of you folks. You talk about more sacrifice.

How about showing us some of that sacrifice. How about YOU and YOUR'S pushing for a draft so that the horrors of this war are spread more equally amongst the folks such as yourself who support this war? How about YOU pushing for a TAX INCREASE to pay for this war you support so much so that your children and their children won't have to pay off the BIGGEST debt in American history so that the Republicans can talk about their tax cuts, but how they don't pay the bills?

John D -
Thanks for taking my post to heart and mindlessly plowing through it . You addressed everything....except the part where you were asked to contribute to your fullest and most loyal patriotic duties? Don't wish to wear the flag and serve the country? Why not? You certainly have no problem parroting the message of your Commander-In-Chief.

Such devotion should be right there on the front lines. Tell the people why we're there. Go ahead and knock on the doors of Iraqis with this noble charge of yours.