> Bush's Victory - Iraq combat deaths at 6-year low
Patriot Games
Iraq combat deaths at 6-year low
WASHINGTON — U.S. combat deaths in Iraq have flattened at the lowest
level since the war began six years ago Thursday, and the Navy has not
lost a member to combat in more than a year.
Three Marines have been killed in combat since August, and none since
December, records show. The Air Force hasn't had a combat death since
April, and the Navy since February 2008.
In some weeks, casualty figures for Iraq show, the number of
non-combat deaths for U.S. troops topped those killed in fighting.
In January and February, 15 U.S. servicemembers were killed in hostile
action. That compares with 60 for the same period in 2008 and 149 in
2007. In all, through Tuesday, there have been 4,260 U.S.
servicemembers killed in Iraq, 3,424 in combat, since the war began in
2003.
Lower combat deaths match the overall drop in violence levels
throughout Iraq, military officials and analysts say. In February,
there were 340 attacks with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) — the
top threat to U.S. troops — the lowest number since October 2004,
according to Pentagon figures.
All attacks against coalition forces, including gunfire, mortars and
roadside bombs, have dropped 90% since early 2007, 1st Lt. John
Brimley, a military spokesman in Iraq, said Tuesday.
In Baghdad, for example, insurgent attacks have declined from 243 in
February 2008 to 67 last month, said Lt. Col. Phillip Smith, a
military spokesman in Baghdad. This month, there have been 43 attacks,
compared with 740 last March.
In northern Iraq, where insurgents have some of their last
sanctuaries, attacks have dropped by 70% from September 2007 to
December 2008, said Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling, who commanded U.S. troops
there. He attributed the decline to "relentless" pursuit of
terrorists, Iraqi civilians who joined ad hoc security forces and a
more effective Iraqi government.
"All of these things combined allowed the people to believe they were
seeing progress, and led them away from the intimidation and violence
perpetrated by the extremists and insurgents," he said.
In Afghanistan, IED attacks, although still lower in number than in
Iraq, have become more lethal. IED attacks killed 32 coalition troops
in Afghanistan for the first two months of 2009, compared with 10 in
Iraq.
cineaste
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-03-17-iraqcasualties_N.h...
If murderers came into your house and killed everybody but your son,
would you be celebrating that your son is alive?
So the murder rate in Iraq is down to very low levels. Big deal. I'm
sure the families of those 4000+ dead Americans are thrilled.
Patriot Games
<je...@jeffreyspivak.com> wrote:
>On Mar 18, 8:10 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-03-17-iraqcasualties_N.h...
>> Iraq combat deaths at 6-year low
>would you be celebrating that your son is alive?
Of course I would. I'm sure many Iraqis happily celebrate their
surviving relatives and friends as they helped us kill the murdering
Insurgents and Terrorists.
>So the murder rate in Iraq is down to very low levels. Big deal. I'm
>sure the families of those 4000+ dead Americans are thrilled.
Victory is always thrilling.
The families of our American dead know they died in the most noblest
cause - bringing freedom and liberty to an oppressed people
desperately in need of liberation.
SilentOtto
It's amazing what spreading around a few hundred millions of dollars
can accomplish, eh queer boy?
Heh heh...
Insane lying racist rightard closet queer sheep fucking coprophiles...
Toofuckingeasy.
Get to pasting, Sheep Fucker.
.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-03-17-iraqcasualties_N.h...
Tom Sr.
> Iraq combat deaths at 6-year low
> WASHINGTON — U.S. combat deaths in Iraq have flattened at the lowest
> level since the war began six years ago Thursday, and the Navy has not
> lost a member to combat in more than a year.
Hey, Bob Milby Jr., you silly fool!
Since you blame President Obama for the sucky economy that Bush
caused, logically you should also thank him for what is now happening
in Iraq.
(But then, Bobby, you've never been logical.)
-Tom Sr.
Bob
Thanks GWB.. why is it always the republicans that have to do the heavy
lifting in the US? The left sits back and whines and attacks the people
who get it done while taking advantage of all the benefits of freedom.
SilentOtto
> Patriot Games wrote:
> >http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-03-17-iraqcasualties_N.h...
You thanking him for wrecking our economy or getting more than 4,000
troops killed?
>why is it always the republicans that have to do the heavy
> lifting in the US?
Because they're too stupid to do things the smart way.
> The left sits back and whines and attacks the people
> who get it done while taking advantage of all the benefits of freedom.
Get what done?
Wrecking the economy or getting more than 4,000 troops killed?
Patriot Games
<tomswif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 18, 9:10 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-03-17-iraqcasualties_N.h...
>> Iraq combat deaths at 6-year low
>> WASHINGTON — U.S. combat deaths in Iraq have flattened at the lowest
>> level since the war began six years ago Thursday, and the Navy has not
>> lost a member to combat in more than a year.
>caused,
No. I blame the Democrats who took over Congress in 2007 for the
trashed economy. Buckwheat was one of them but he has to share with
all of them. I blame Buckwheat and the Democrats for doing NOTHING to
help.
>logically you should also thank him for what is now happening
>in Iraq.
He hasn't done anything in Iraq...
Iraq is Bush's victory. 100%
Afghanistan will be Buckwheat's victory, or humiliating loss, however
it turns out.
Patriot Games
<silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 18, 9:10 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>It's amazing what spreading around a few hundred millions of dollars
Nobody has any idea what you're slobbering on about...
Patriot Games
<silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You thanking him for wrecking our economy or getting more than 4,000
>troops killed?
Paid for by Democrats. FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.
>>why is it always the republicans that have to do the heavy
>> lifting in the US?
>Because they're too stupid to do things the smart way.
Every Democrat in Congress voted to go to Afghanistan (except one
stupid nigger).
>> The left sits back and whines and attacks the people
>> who get it done while taking advantage of all the benefits of freedom.
>Get what done?
>Wrecking the economy or getting more than 4,000 troops killed?
Democrats wrecked the economy when they FAILED to STOP the gas price
increase of last year.
If you think Bush got our troops killed then you agree that Democrat
Johnson got TEN TIMES as many killed in Vietnam?
SilentOtto
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:50:42 -0700 (PDT), SilentOtto
>
> >On Mar 18, 9:10 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> >It's amazing what spreading around a few hundred millions of dollars
>
> Nobody has any idea what you're slobbering on about...
That's because you're a rightard moron and don't know shit about the
subjects you post about, queer boy.
Heh heh
SilentOtto
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT), SilentOtto
>
> >You thanking him for wrecking our economy or getting more than 4,000
> >troops killed?
>
> Paid for by Democrats. FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.
They could cut off funding, but they couldn't make Bush withdrawal the
troops.
Being a venal, corrupt, imperial president serving at the head of a
venal, corrupt Republican administration, he'd have left the troops
there and hoped he could get political capital from their deaths.
And, racist, rightard redneck assholes, like you, would have cheered
him on.
Democrats weren't going to risk the lives of the troops on the chance
that Bush would leave them in Iraq to die.
> >>why is it always the republicans that have to do the heavy
> >> lifting in the US?
> >Because they're too stupid to do things the smart way.
>
> Every Democrat in Congress voted to go to Afghanistan (except one
> stupid nigger).
Who's talking about Afghanistan, queer boy?
But, now that you bring it up, Bush even fucked that one up when he
had bin Laden cornered like a rat at Tora Bora, but contracted out the
death blow to Afghani warlords instead of committing the 10th Mountain
Division to close the trap.
He didn't want to commit the 10th Mountain Division because he was
already planning on deploying them to Iraq, and as a consequence, bin
Laden managed to escape.
What a total fuck up.
And, racist rightard cock suckers, like you, cheered him on.
> >> The left sits back and whines and attacks the people
> >> who get it done while taking advantage of all the benefits of freedom.
> >Get what done?
> >Wrecking the economy or getting more than 4,000 troops killed?
>
> Democrats wrecked the economy when they FAILED to STOP the gas price
> increase of last year.
How were they supposed to do that?
Hang the crooked CEO of Exxon Mobile and the Wall Street investors who
were bidding up the price of oil so they could try and make a quick
buck?
> If you think Bush got our troops killed then you agree that Democrat
> Johnson got TEN TIMES as many killed in Vietnam?
Yep.
Johnson fucked up big time when it came to Vietnam.
But, remember that more than a third of the troops killed in Vietnam
happened under Nixon's watch, queer boy.
Liberals disavowed Johnson's commitment in Vietnam and refused to
support him when he ran for re-election, which is why he bowed out of
the '68 campaign.
That started the shift of racist, redneck, warmongering Dixiecrats to
Nixon and the Republican party.
Racist rednecks have been Republicans ever since.
Did you racist redneck rightards pull your support for Bush when it
was clear that he had lied us into Iraq and fucked it up to boot,
queer boy?
Nope...
Racist redneck rightards, like you, cheered him on.
Heh heh...
Patriot Games
<silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 18, 6:41 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> If you think Bush got our troops killed then you agree that Democrat
>> Johnson got TEN TIMES as many killed in Vietnam?
>Yep.
>Johnson fucked up big time when it came to Vietnam.
>But, remember that more than a third of the troops killed in Vietnam
>happened under Nixon's watch, queer boy.
You've been CAUGHT LYING, again...
American Vietnam War-Related Deaths by War Years and Post-War:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/vietnam/casualties.asp
Lyndon B. Johnson
November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969
1964 206
1965 1,863
1966 6,143
1967 11,153
1968 16,592
Total: 35,957
Richard Nixon
January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974
1969 11,616
1970 6,081
1971 2,357
1972 641
1973 168
1974 (178) 89
Total: 20,952
Vietnam Total: 58,193
Johnson: 62%
Nixon: 36%
You said: "more than a third of the troops killed in Vietnam happened
under Nixon's watch."
YOU LIED.
Patriot Games
<silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 18, 6:38 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:50:42 -0700 (PDT), SilentOtto
>> <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 18, 9:10 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> >It's amazing what spreading around a few hundred millions of dollars
>> Nobody has any idea what you're slobbering on about...
>That's because you're a rightard moron and don't know shit about the
>subjects you post about, queer boy.
SilentOtto
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT), SilentOtto
>
> >On Mar 18, 6:41 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> >> If you think Bush got our troops killed then you agree that Democrat
> >> Johnson got TEN TIMES as many killed in Vietnam?
> >Yep.
> >Johnson fucked up big time when it came to Vietnam.
> >But, remember that more than a third of the troops killed in Vietnam
> >happened under Nixon's watch, queer boy.
>
> You've been CAUGHT LYING, again...
No...
You've been CAUGHT being a MORON.
> American Vietnam War-Related Deaths by War Years and Post-War:http://www.militaryfactory.com/vietnam/casualties.asp
>
> Lyndon B. Johnson
> November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969
>
> 1964 206
> 1965 1,863
> 1966 6,143
> 1967 11,153
> 1968 16,592
> Total: 35,957
>
> Richard Nixon
> January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974
> 1969 11,616
> 1970 6,081
> 1971 2,357
> 1972 641
> 1973 168
> 1974 (178) 89
> Total: 20,952
>
> Vietnam Total: 58,193
> Johnson: 62%
> Nixon: 36%
Yep.
>
> You said: "more than a third of the troops killed in Vietnam happened
> under Nixon's watch."
Yep.
> YOU LIED.
Nope.
BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA....
I don't know how they do math in racist redneck closet queer country,
Sheep Fucker.
But, in Michigan, where I come from, 36% IS MORE THAN A THIRD.
Goddamn, rightard...
You're such a dumb fuck, Sheep Fucker.
How are you going to try and worm your way out of that bit of
rightardedness?
Heh heh...
Insane NUMERICALLY CHALLENGED lying racist rightard closet queer sheep
SilentOtto
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT), SilentOtto
>
OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!...
Not only did you prove your a fucking idiot in your other post...
You REPEATED your STUPIDITY in this one!
36% is MORE than a THIRD, you stupid fucking rightard.
BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
Sooo....
You gonna run away now or are you going to try and weasel somehow?
Heh heh
Insane lying NUMERICALLY CHALLENGED racist rightard closet queer sheep
fucking coprophiles...
Toofuckingeasy.
Get to pasting, Sheep Fucker.
.
Baldin Lee Pramer
> Vietnam Total: 58,193
> Johnson: 62%
> Nixon: 36%
>
> You said: "more than a third of the troops killed in Vietnam happened
> under Nixon's watch."
>
> YOU LIED.
36% is more than 1/3.
Pramer
Patriot Games
<silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 19, 2:23 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT), SilentOtto
>> <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 18, 6:41 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> >> If you think Bush got our troops killed then you agree that Democrat
>> >> Johnson got TEN TIMES as many killed in Vietnam?
>> >Yep.
>> >Johnson fucked up big time when it came to Vietnam.
>> >But, remember that more than a third of the troops killed in Vietnam
>> >happened under Nixon's watch, queer boy.
>> You've been CAUGHT LYING, again...
>> Lyndon B. Johnson
>> November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969
>> 1964 206
>> 1965 1,863
>> 1966 6,143
>> 1967 11,153
>> 1968 16,592
>> Total: 35,957
>> Richard Nixon
>> January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974
>> 1969 11,616
>> 1970 6,081
>> 1971 2,357
>> 1972 641
>> 1973 168
>> 1974 (178) 89
>> Total: 20,952
>> Vietnam Total: 58,193
>> Johnson: 62%
>> Nixon: 36%
>> under Nixon's watch."
>But, in Michigan, where I come from, 36% IS MORE THAN A THIRD.
But its NOT even close to Johnson's 62%... YOU tried to place the
blame on Nixon - YOU LIED.
Patriot Games
But its NOT even close to Johnson's 62%... YOU tried to place the
Patriot Games
Duh...
SilentHomo tried to place the blame on Nixon - HE LIED.
SilentHomo tried to suggest that Democrats funded the Iraq War because
Bush wouldn't withdraw troops if Democrats defunded the Iraq War using
the Democrat's defunding of Vietnam under Nixon.
SilentHomo's argument FAILED.
When Democrats were funding Vietnam Johnson killed nearly TWICE AS
MANY, when Democrats defunded Vietnam Nixon began withdrawals and
drastically reduced the KIA count.
SilentHomo's argument FAILED.