2,460th U.S. Soldier Killed in Iraq

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by KenH, May 24, 2006.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    U.S. soldier killed in Iraq

    Wed May 24, 3:06 PM ET


    A U.S. soldier died when his patrol was attacked by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades in Iraq, the military said Wednesday.

    The soldier's convoy was conducting an anti-roadside-bomb operation south of Balad, which is 50 miles north of Baghdad, when Tuesday's attack occurred, the U.S. command said.

    The killing raised to at least 2,460 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died since the beginning of the war in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

    - LINK
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Rocko9

    Rocko9
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both are tragic. Just because one is more does not lessen the tragic loss of one of our troops. I also fail to see how this kind of twisted logic is suppose to make anything better.
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    These numbers for FOUR YEARS of war in Iraq
    compare to the
    death toll among unborn Americans.
    The comparison is:
    18 hours of 'free love' carange among
    unborn Americans to four years
    of US soldiers in Iraq.

    This country finds it alright to sacrifice
    half a million unborn babies a year
    on the alter of Moloch but wrong
    to let a handful of soldiers die to
    help a now friendly country.

    At the first sound of the Last Trumpet
    of the Church Age - i'm outta here :eek: [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  5. Rocko9

    Rocko9
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not alright to sacrifice any life that is preventable at the hands of the irresponsible whether that life is the life of an unborn child or the life of a soldier why would one want to lay lives at the alter of any false god but that is exactly what we are doing in both cases and how can one condone either one?
    Only some in this country think it is O.K. to continue with abortion and some think it is O.K. to continue laying our troops lives on the line with out end and both are wrong but those who have a moral conscience are right to destest both.Amen! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  6. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Boggles the mind how few are being killed.
     
  7. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    If we used this logic, we need to ask why we are at war with terrorists in the first place. After all only about 3,000 people died on 9/11. This is just a fraction of the people who die each year in automobile accidents. In fact, if you consider the number of people who have died on the roads since the war in Iraq has begun, the people who died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are almost insignificant.
     
  8. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    or, to turn this around a bit, who are the armed n uniformed foreign militants who've been terrorising the Iraqis n refusing to leave since the fall of Saddam's regime?
     
  9. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    You want to elaborate and clarify this remark?
     
  10. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    "2,460th U.S. Soldier Killed in Iraq"

    Even though US casualty rates have dropped dramatically, Iraq is still a dangerous place.
     
  11. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The purpose of an army is to kill people and break things.
     
  12. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still safer than most large American cities.
     
  13. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's like comparing grapes and watermelons - if you eat 6 grapes and he eats 3 watermelons, who has eaten more pieces of fruit and who has eaten more fruit?

    As I said there:

    I guess it's a matter of perspective and skewed statistics. The raw numbers say that California is more dangerous. However, Los Angelos alone has something like 8 million people while US and British personnel are what? Under two hundred thousand? According to the US 2000 Census(linkie) California has more than thirty-three million people.

    That's 2,394 out of 33,871,648 (0.00706%) compared to 905 out of 200,000 (0.45250%). California is safer.
     
  14. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    How many US servicemen were killed in Los Angelos, Detroit and Washington DC combined?
     
  15. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    How many US Servicemen are normally killed in Peacetime in training accidents?

    Or, auto accidents driving to and from their home bases?

    Over a four year period?

    And, don't forget the ones murdered in "friendly" countries...

    OK You don't think we should be there...

    Alright, fine. I'll give you that...

    And, even though I am highly irritated that we went to such lengths to be Politically Correct and not 'occupy'...

    I don't think you can find any other 4 year period of conflict where the losses have been this low...

    WE have a noble goal and a vested self interest...

    WE have some of the most highly trained and motivated troops ever...

    It's a painful process. But, I believe neccesary.

    SMM
     
  16. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0

    How are you defining "occupy"?

    What about the ten years of the Northwest Indian War? Or the seven years of the Second Seminole War? Or the fourteen years of the Philippine-American War? The current war in Afghanistan?
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    If we used this logic, we need to ask why we are at war with terrorists in the first place. After all only about 3,000 people died on 9/11. This is just a fraction of the people who die each year in automobile accidents. In fact, if you consider the number of people who have died on the roads since the war in Iraq has begun, the people who died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are almost insignificant. </font>[/QUOTE]Your same logic applies and even more so to WW2. Only a few thousand people died at Pearl Harbor... no big deal. Maybe we should have played nice and let it go. After all, almost 300,000 American servicemen died in WW2 to defeat a maniacal ideology premised on a particular racial/ethnic/religious RIGHT to dominate the rest of the world... a philosophy which found its clearest expression in hatred for the Jews.

    The Islamofascists and their terrorists spawn parallel the Nazis in ideology, aim, and practice. They are just as evil and threatening if not more so.
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0

    How are you defining "occupy"?

    What about the ten years of the Northwest Indian War? Or the seven years of the Second Seminole War? Or the fourteen years of the Philippine-American War? The current war in Afghanistan?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Apply your own logic that proved that California is safer than Iraq. None of these approached the troop levels we have/need in Iraq. None of these enemies was as organized or sophisticated as those we face in Iraq.
     
  19. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, I'll give you a point or two for digging up conflicts that didn't have modern weapons.

    IMHO, Afghanistan, is a part of the war on terror...

    But, even WW1 and WW2 had a higher casualty rate...

    Now, how many people died as a direct result of our inaction in a single decade or two while we allowed Hitler and Stalin to go unchallenged?

    We know there were around 6 million Jews alone while we tried to stay out of the conflict...

    There were Generals who felt we shouldn't trust Stalin and Lenin.

    But, the Russians were allies (like France and Germany?), and it wasn't politically correct to question them.

    How many died in the Russian Purges? 20 million if that few?

    So, please don't tell me that having and acting on a noble cause isn't worth some sacrifice.

    Especially seeing, as poor a proponent as we are, as we are about the only Super Power that seems to care at all about Freedoms of any kind...

    Edmond Burke said something along the lines of:
    'All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

    SMM
     
  20. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Our military personnel and their families appear to be just about the only ones making sacrifices - certainly not our leaders in the federal government, certainly not those receiving taxpayer money as federal spending exceeds tax revenue by $591 billion a year.

    President Bush is trying to replicate President Johnson's guns and butter program. That program resulted in serious stagflation in the 1970s. I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen again in the 2010s.
     

Share This Page

Loading...