US Deaths 999 - Cost $200,000,000,000

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
US Deaths 999 - Cost $200,000,000,000
33
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 1:54pm
The number of American deaths in the war is now OVER 1000 and the financial cost is now over $200,000,000,000. How can this administration describe this as a success?

C

Thirteen U.S. troops killed in latest Iraq fighting

Two Italian humanitarian workers kidnapped

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Thirteen U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since Monday, U.S. military officials said, bringing the number of American deaths in the war to 999.

Six soldiers and seven Marines were killed in the fighting. The latest death came Tuesday morning when a soldier from the U.S. Army's 89th Military Police Brigade was killed as a patrol came under attack in western Baghdad. Another soldier was killed Tuesday in a rocket-propelled grenade attack in Baghdad's Sadr City.

Meanwhile, Iraqi police said two Italian women and three Iraqis were abducted by kidnappers dressed as Iraqi National Guard members.

An Italian intelligence source said the women worked for the humanitarian organization A Bridge for Baghdad.

Italian authorities identify the women as Simona Torretta and Simona Pari, both 29, according to media reports.

Fighting in Sadr City erupted between U.S. forces and insurgents in the teeming slum after a few days of calm.

Battles between U.S. troops and militants loyal to Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr killed at least 33 Iraqis in the Baghdad slum district and wounded 200 others, Iraqi officials said.

A spokesman for the 1st Calvary Division -- which is in charge of patrolling Sadr City -- said there were numerous overnight operations, but the official wouldn't provide details.

Tanks, armored personnel carriers and Bradley Fighting Vehicles moved along city streets, and the U.S. military said Air Force F-15 and F-16 jets flew combat support but dropped no weapons.

The fighting erupted when militants attacked American forces carrying out routine patrols, said U.S. Army Capt. Brian O'Malley.

"We just kept coming under fire," The Associated Press reported O'Malley as saying.

U.S. and Iraqi authorities have been trying to hammer out a peace agreement there a week and a half after al-Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani reached a cease-fire in the south central city of Najaf -- where fierce fighting raged between U.S. and Iraqi forces and the Mehdi Army militia for three weeks in August.

An al-Sadr spokesman in Baghdad, Sheik Raed al-Kadhimi, blamed the outbreak of fighting on what he described as hostile U.S. incursions into Sadr City and attempts to arrest the cleric's followers.

In addition, five U.S. soldiers were wounded in a combination of roadside bombings and rocket-propelled grenade attacks Tuesday.

The other U.S. deaths Monday included a Task Force Baghdad soldier killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad.

A soldier with the 13th Corps Support Command was killed in the northern Iraq town of Qayarra when a roadside bomb exploded, the military said.

Another U.S. soldier was killed and one wounded Monday night when a roadside bomb exploded as their military convoy passed by on a road near Baghdad, according to the U.S. military. The soldiers, whose names have not been released, also were assigned to the 13th Corps Support Command.

A U.S. soldier wounded in a Baghdad attack Monday afternoon died a short time later in a hospital, a U.S. military official said.

Earlier Monday, seven U.S. Marines and three Iraqi National Guard members were killed by a suicide car bomb as they patrolled on the outskirts of Falluja, a city west of Baghdad that has been a hotbed of resistance.

It was the largest number of casualties U.S. forces have suffered in a single incident since fighting in the spring near Ramadi.

Cleanup in Najaf

Iraqi and U.S. authorities continue their cleanup in Najaf.

Large numbers of weapons and munitions have been found in the Wadi al-Salem cemetery and buildings near the Imam Ali Mosque since fighting ended August 28, the U.S. military said.

So far, 1,258 weapons have been found and 10,596 munitions recovered, the military said.

Iraqi officials attacked

The governor of Baghdad escaped an assassination attempt unhurt early Tuesday when his convoy was attacked in a western district of the capital.

The convoy of the governor, Ali Al-Haidary, was driving through the Al-Adil district when the attack began, Interior Ministry spokesman Col. Adnan Abdul Rahman said.

Video from the scene showed at least one body being placed in an ambulance.

Masked gunmen Tuesday assassinated a Baghdad hospital official, Iraqi officials said.

Abbas al-Husseiny, deputy director of Al-Karama Hospital, was assassinated when three gunmen entered a restaurant where he was eating breakfast, according to police Col. Riyadh Abraheem and Sa'ad Al-Amili, a Ministry of Health official.

The restaurant and hospital are in al-Thahab district, officials said.

In northern Iraq, unknown assailants shot and killed the son of Nineveh provincial Gov. Duraid Kashmoula, Mosul police said. Laith Duraid Kashmoula was driving to work when assailants pulled up next to his car and opened fire with small arms, police said.

He was an employee in the Iraqi government's anti-corruption office in Mosul, the largest city in the northern Iraqi province. The governor's cousin, Usama Kashmoula, was shot dead in an ambush two months ago.

CNN's Kevin Flower, Cal Perry, Faris Qasira, Walter Rodgers and Alessio Vinci contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/07/iraq.main/index.html


Edited 9/9/2004 7:58 am ET ET by car_al

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 2:17pm
How many lives were lost in WWI? How about WWII? How much did it cost the U.S. back then? With the limited knowledge of U.S. History I have (thank you govt. schools), I recall that citizens had to ration goods and physically help the war efforts...What have I been asked to sacrifice from my everyday existence?

We are there. For noble and just reasons. Lives will be lost in the effort but it will prove to be worth it if we support the troops and the Iraqi people.

What is freedom and the safety of your family worth to you?

What do you suggest the U.S. do instead of what we are doing?

God bless our troops and their families.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 2:59pm
"The number of American deaths in the war is now 999 and the financial cost is now $200,000,000,000. How can this administration describe this as a success? "

Simple-because THEY did it.

If 2 American cities had been attacked under Clinton, with 3,000 people killed, and Clinton had attacked an uninvolved third country and gotten another 1,000 Americans killed, the right wing would have impeached him. Again.

By the way-here's what the right wing had to say about invading Iraq when Clinton was president.

http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

Among some of the 10 reasons....

3) It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.

4) Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.

5) Wars of defense are morally appropriate. Foreign wars for purposes other than national defense are not.

6) In war, there is no substitute for victory. Victory, as commonly understood, with respect to an assault on Iraq, has not been defined, let alone declared to be the objective of any such attack.

8) The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.

9) If we "succeed", what have we gained? If we don't begin a war, what have we lost?

10) War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our "allies" join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?

The fundamental issue is whether Bill Clinton's military action against Iraq is important enough to die for. I am prepared to die in defense of God, family, and country---but I don't believe that this preemptive strike against Iraq is worth dying for. Ask yourself: is it worth your life, or that of your spouse, your child, your parent, or your neighbor?



dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 3:07pm
Huge difference!

Dec. 7, 1941 - the Japanese attacked the US at Pearl Harbor and we responded by declaring war on the country that attacked us.

Sept. 11, 2001 - al Qaeda attacked the US and we rightly responded by going after Osama bib Laden (the leader of al Qaeda) and the Taliban in Afghanistan - this was the correct War on Terror. However, before we completed our mission there, this administration decided to pre-emptively attack Iraq. This Iraq War, which we started, was based on the premise that Iraq had WMD and would one day attack us, it was not in response to al Qaeda's attack on the US.

However, I agree with you that the only sacrifices for this war are those by the US military.

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 3:58pm


No, that is the Democrats' assertion of what this war was based on-Dem slogans are not facts. NO ONE claimed Iraq would attack the US-what the administration claimed was that Iraq was a supporter and harborer of terrorists(true), that it could eventually provide terrorists with WMD's (true-while no huge WMD stockpiles have yet been found, Saddam had WMD capabilities and has used WMD's against his own citizens), and that Saddam had defied 12 years of UN resolutions and had been given his last chance, with the full support and agreement of the UN, to disarm (true). Nor did President Bush claim that Iraq was linked to 9/11, but that 9/11 taught us that we could no longer wait until threats became realities to act.

UN Resolution 1441 states that Saddam was a threat with WMD's to the world and to his neighbors, and that he had one final chance to submit to inspections or face the consequences. Saddam CHOSE the consequences, let us not forget-if our intelligence was wrong and Saddam truly had no WMD's, he could have easily avoided the whole action by cooperating with the UN-he chose not to. We couldn't take the risk that our intelligence "might" be wrong. I for one am glad we didn't-the world is a much better place without a Saddam led Iraq, and once things settle down in Iraq (that is if John Kerry does not get elected and allow the terrorists to chase us out of Iraq and take over) I suspect we will soon see freedom spreading in the Middle East. That is the only way to truly win the war on terrorism, and our troops' lives and our dollars will not have been spent in vain.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 5:10pm
exactly what I mean...There is no country to "declare" war on. Al Qaeda is spread out ALL over the world, being funded by all kinds of individuals, countries and groups. Osama is about to be caught...but of course Bush will not get any kind of credit for this, he will probably be blamed of "politicizing" the capture!

Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups have declared war on US. Not our fault that it's not going to be a "neat and clean" war that ends with a surrender and peace treaty (see how well that worked with Iraq back after the Gulf War). There will be no end to this war. Afghanistan will have to be supported until they can control their own future. Same with Iraq. Free and democratic run countries in the middle east as our allies will help to end terrorism as a weapon of Islamic radicals.

BTW, WE didn't start the war in Iraq...Saddam violated 17 U.N. resolutions in the decade following the Gulf War, misled weapons inspectors, fired repeatedly on U.S. planes patroling the "No Fly Zone", threw inspectors OUT of Iraq, gassed thousands of their own people (with banned weapons), and threatened to use WMD's on our troops if we came. The U.N. threatened "severe consequences" but didn't follow through (maybe it had something to do with the "oil for food" scam so many were getting rich off of).

SOMEONE had to go and noone else had the courage...(Well, France, Germany and Russia didn't want to do it b/c they had lucrative (illegal) oil deals with Saddam)

Hey, it sucks. I live in a military town and know the heartache...but I also know first hand the pride and conviction these soldiers have about knowing they are doing the right thing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 5:13pm
***smile***

BUSH/CHENEY 2004

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 5:29pm
"NO ONE claimed Iraq would attack the US-what the administration claimed was that Iraq was a supporter and harborer of terrorists(true),"

This is nonsense. No one has provided any credible proof that Iraq harbored terrorists. Saddam was a nationalist concerned with the survival of his own miserable hide. He detested bin Laden because he saw him as a potential threat to his own survival and bin Laden detested Saddam because he was a secularist.

We make the same mistake with terrorism we made with communism for so many years, we are viewing it as a monolithic entity and completely discounting nationalism. Nasser's failure to create a pan-Arabic movement illustrates how wrong this is, however the neocons in office don't study history, they are so self-centered they think history begins with them. 1,000 American servicemen have paid the price for this.

"that it could eventually provide terrorists with WMD's (true-while no huge WMD stockpiles have yet been found, Saddam had WMD capabilities and has used WMD's against his own citizens),"

Iran and North Korea both have WMD, North Korea IS a nuclear power and Iran will be very shortly. In addition, Iran allowed the 9/11 hijackers to pass through their country on the way here without passports. So any claim that Iraq was a WMD and terrorist threat is dwarfed by Iran and North Korea.

So if what you say is true, what this administration DID do is allow any WMD Iraq might have had to be scattered to rogue states and/or terrorists and as far as terrorism they attacked THE WRONG TARGET while allowing Iran and North Korea to continue to amass WMD.

I'm sure bin Laden is chanting "4 more years".

"Nor did President Bush claim that Iraq was linked to 9/11, but that 9/11 taught us that we could no longer wait until threats became realities to act.


Bush mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence 4 TIMES during his acceptance speech, he never mentioned bin Laden even once. You tell me who is trying to link 9/11 and Iraq.

"UN Resolution 1441 states that Saddam was a threat with WMD's to the world and to his neighbors, and that he had one final chance to submit to inspections or face the consequences."

And it seems to me that the UN weapons inspectors reported that Iraq had no WMD. And it seems to me that we chose to ignore this and charge into war anyway.

"I for one am glad we didn't-the world is a much better place without a Saddam led Iraq, and once things settle down in Iraq (that is if John Kerry does not get elected and allow the terrorists to chase us out of Iraq and take over)"

We had a great president once who claimed "we have nothing to fear but fear itself". We now have a pygmy president and party trying to get re-elected by appealing to naked fear in order to mask their foreign policy and domestic failures. I wish we could return to the "traditional values that made America great." such as "we have nothing to fear but fear itself".

"I suspect we will soon see freedom spreading in the Middle East."

And you base this on what? The fact that Iraq is on the verge of fracturing and the Shiite areas are on the brink of becoming a theocracy? If we wanted a laboratory to test whether democracy would work in the Middle East we could have tried it in Jordan for a song. Instead we've turned Iraq into a cesspool of terrorists and jihadists, and all we have to show for it is over 1,000 American dead. I'm really curious as to where democracy is budding in the Middle East. Any tinpot dictator knows we are going to be bogged down in Iraq for years and are not a threat to anyone. And Castro used the start of the Iraq war to launch a crackdown on Cuban dissidents.

"That is the only way to truly win the war on terrorism, and our troops' lives and our dollars will not have been spent in vain."

Well, you are right there, but we've blown it big time. I don't even think regime change in this country will change anything at this point. Our invasion of Iraq will be studies years from now for it's stunning ineptness and stupidity and for the long term damage done to this country's national interests.









dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 5:44pm
Saddam gave cash rewards of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Saddam ignored the terrorist camps training on the Pakistan border.

Mistake with Communism? Where is communism today? Failed. And replaced with a new government in Russia.

The tough "no exception" policy in Iraq led to the voluntary disarmament of Libya. That's nothing to sneeze at!

Iraq had it coming a long time and the longer we waited the more dangerous he would become.

I completely agree about Iran and North Korea. They should be taken out next.

I'm glad I believe in freedom and the God-given right to it, and proud that my President has the conviction to stand up and make tough choices. Any war is a gamble and no outcome is certain. We have got to try. Because something is difficult does not mean it is not worth doing. Even at a great cost.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 7:22pm
"Saddam gave cash rewards of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel."

Why do you feel we need to sacrifice the lives of 1,000 of our servicemen, not to mention the 7,000 wounded to fight Israel's battles? We give them millions in aid each year, should we halt this and just put our military under their command? When this country maintained an evenhanded approach in the Middle East we got the Israeli/Egyptian and the Israeli/Jordanian peace treaties. We haven't gooten much of anything along those lines in the past 4 years.

"Saddam ignored the terrorist camps training on the Pakistan border."



Pakistan borders Afghanistan and Iran, not Iraq.

"Mistake with Communism? Where is communism today? Failed. And replaced with a new government in Russia."

That was a complicated idea, obviously too complicated. Sorry.

"The tough "no exception" policy in Iraq led to the voluntary disarmament of Libya. That's nothing to sneeze at! "

Libya has been under sanctions since the 80s, which obviously worked. Given how thinly stretched our military is, I doubt that Libya feared an attack of any type from us. Obviously even Syria and Iran don't.

"Iraq had it coming a long time and the longer we waited the more dangerous he would become"

Given the fact that he was LESS dangerous a year and a half ago then he was in 1991, this is nonsense. Saddam is 66 years ago, and Iraq is a dangerous place. Time and patience would have taken care of him and spared 1,000 soldiers lives.

The Soviet Union was a pretty good example of this. We could have decided that they "had it coming" after World War II and they certainly became more dangerous as time went on, unlike the basket case Iraq was. Fortunately the neocons didn't hold power then and so millions of people avoided being killed because the Soviet Union "had it coming".

"I completely agree about Iran and North Korea. They should be taken out next."

Uhh-care to tell us by who? North Korea has a million man army. Our armed forces are bogged down in Iraq and will be for at least 10 years. At this point we couldn't even if we wanted to.

"Any war is a gamble and no outcome is certain. We have got to try."

War always unleashes the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is why for sane leaders it is the option of LAST resort, not first. This one was no exception. Bush has done damage the long term interests of this country that will last for years, if not decades.

As a statesman infinitely wiser than Bush once said,

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable

events." -- Sir Winston Churchill










dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 8:08pm
<>

Communism failed?? Whew! Thank goodness for that! Oh.......wait.......I think someone forgot to tell China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and Laos.....

Pages