Three US soldiers killed in Iraq - Page 3

Foolosophy · #21 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABoyNamedSue

Oh no! Not THREE! Aaaagh!

Remember a time when soldiers were honored? Wow, have times changed.

as long as it is not you or any of your family or relatives then YOU CAN LIVE WITH THE DEATHS

Herkdriver · #22 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Oh yes the enemy is defeated and we have won long back in Iraq.

Three US soldiers killed in Iraq

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Three American soldiers were killed by small arms fire near the northern Iraqi oil city of Kirkuk on Wednesday, the US military said.

The attack took place in the mainly Sunni Arab town of Hawijah west of Kirkuk, the military said.

"The names of the deceased are being withheld pending next of kin notification and release by the (US) department of defence," a statement said.

The deaths raised to 4,090 the number of US troops killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, according to an AFP tally based on the independent website www.icasualties.org.

Wednesday's attack produced the highest single loss for American troops since four marines died in a mine attack in the former Sunni rebel bastion of Anbar province, west of Baghdad, on May 4.

However, US troops last month saw their lowest level of losses since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The number killed in May dropped to 19, with the previous low being in February 2004 when 20 died.

Iraqi security authorities also reported a sharp decline in the number of Iraqi nationals killed last month -- 563, down by almost 50 percent compared to April and March.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080604...l_080604112852

I don't want to seem flippant, but in war, typically.....

folks die

It's a sobering reality.

One can say they died for nothing, or one can say they died for something.

I think those young men died for something myself. It isn't my place to speak for them however, and I certainly don't want to disparage their service in any way.

Bobcat1 · #23 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

Where did I say this? I didn't start the thread. Your comment about other deaths was before anything I said.

My apologies then.

Quote:

If there is no need for war then there is no need for any anticipated risk.

First off, you beg the question by assuming there is no need. Isn't that what we should be discussing first? Secondly, there is no need for motor vehicles, either, yet we assume the risk anyway, for the common good.

Quote:

This subject matter has been discussed over and over. I feel it does not make the world a better place. It certainly doesn't make the world a better place for those who died.

Fighting terrorists and facists is not for the good of mankind?

Quote:

Where did I even mention the death toll and sow me one person, just one who said the death toll trumps any discussion.

These are your words, used to counter Tarheeler's argument:

Quote:

Tell that to anyone who lost a son in the war.

The obvious implication here is that war is inherently evil because it kills people. I'm telling you are wrong. War is no more evil than automobiles are. How people conduct both is what's evil.

danarhea · #24 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobcat1

Odd, how people point to other wrongs, to justify their own transgressions.

Sounds to me that you are admitting that it was wrong to go into Iraq. However, Afghanistan WAS the right war. It is unfinished, and what I look for in a new leader is somebody who will finish the job, and take out bin Laden.

Foolosophy · #25 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Sounds to me that you are admitting that it was wrong to go into Iraq. However, Afghanistan WAS the right war. It is unfinished, and what I look for in a new leader is somebody who will finish the job, and take out bin Laden.

THere are no RIGHT wars - they are all failures of diplomacy and reflect human frailty and fallability

Bobcat1 · #26 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Sounds to me that you are admitting that it was wrong to go into Iraq.

No, you misread my quote. I was referring to Tuatara's logic when she wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara
You mean like how many times the number of deaths from 911 were used propaganda purposes to jump start Afghanistan and Iraq.

She was claiming that the right used death tolls to justify war.

Quote:

However, Afghanistan WAS the right war. It is unfinished, and what I look for in a new leader is somebody who will finish the job, and take out bin Laden.

I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

danarhea · #27 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolosophy

THere are no RIGHT wars - they are all failures of diplomacy and reflect human frailty and fallability

bin Laden executing 911 was not about diplomacy, but the cold blooded murder of 3000 American citizens. He needs to be held accountable for his actions.

Foolosophy · #28 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobcat1

I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Really?

Have you enlisted to join the US forces?

Have any of your family members done so?

Bobcat1 · #29 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolosophy

Really?

Have you enlisted to join the US forces?

Have any of your family members done so?

Both my sons are currently serving.

Foolosophy · #30 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

bin Laden executing 911 was not about diplomacy, but the cold blooded murder of 3000 American citizens. He needs to be held accountable for his actions.

This is true.

But how are the citizens of Iraq and Afganastan responsible for 9/11?

The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals that studied in Germany and learnt to fly in the USA.

Why didnt the USA bomb Saudi Arabia?

there have been almost 910,000 civlians deaths in Iraq and many in Afganastan - MUCH MORE THAN THE 3000 who died on 9/11.

How do you justify these deaths?

And Bin Laden still runs around dragging his Kidney dialyses machine with him.

The 9/11 attacks were criminal in nature - they should have been dealt with in that light.

It wasnt as if the USA was attacked by another state and retaliated.

Its made the situation worse - created more terrorists - lost the USA a lot of world respect and sympathy (which is had after 9/11).

There are only two groups who have gained from the USA invading Iraq.

AND WE ALL KNOW WHO THEY ARE DONT WE FOLKS!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ten U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq on Tuesday	sam1one	Latest World News	5	10-18-2006 08:30 PM
Five American soldiers killed in Iraq	rashed	Terrorism	2	10-11-2006 01:39 AM
Four American soldiers killed in Iraq	rashed	Terrorism	19	08-19-2006 04:33 PM
2000 US Soldiers killed, what do we do going forward	Hard-Driver	Political Opinions & Beliefs	5	10-26-2005 03:42 PM