Reply
Thu 8 Apr, 2004 05:03 am
The Department of Defense has identified 620 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
ARSIAGA, Robert R., 25, Specialist, Army; San Antonio; First Cavalry Division.
CASON, Ahmed A., 24, Specialist, Army; McCalla, Ala.; First Cavalry Division.
CHEN, Yihjyh L., 31, Sgt., Army; Saipan, Marianas Protectorate; First Cavalry Division.
GARZA, Israel, 25, Specialist, Army; Lubbock, Tex.; First Cavalry Division.
HALLAL, Deryk L., 24, Pfc., Marines; Indianapolis; First Marine Division.
HILLER, Stephen D., 25, Specialist, Army; Opelika, Ala.; First Cavalry Division.
JOSTES, Forest J., 22, Cpl., Army; Albion, Ill.; First Cavalry Division.
McKEEVER, David M., 25, Specialist, Army; Buffalo; First Armored Division.
MITCHELL, Michael W., 25, Sgt., Army; Porterville, Calif.; First Armored Division.
MORENO, Gerardo, 23, Sgt., Army; Terrell, Tex.; First Cavalry Division.
RAMOS, Christopher, 26, Pfc., Marines; of Albuquerque; First Marine Division.
SERIO, Matthew K., 21, Lance Cpl., Marines; North Providence, R.I.; First Marine Division.
SHEEHAN, Casey, 24, Specialist, Army; Vacaville, Calif.; First Cavalry Division.
THIRY, Jesse L., 23, Cpl., Marines; Casco, Wis.; First Marine Division.
Shouldn't be too long before the President's American victims exceed the numbers who died on 9/11. The foreign dead already outstrip that target by thousands.
Well folks, with 620 dead and counting by the day, I wonder how much longer the Bush cabal will be able to control photos of caskets being carried off C-17's?
That image should cause even the Bush loyalists to pause.
You seem to be implying that this number of casualties constitutes proof that this war should not have been embarked upon.
That makes no sense to me. Although every person's death is extremely sad, the level of casualties you have reported is small compared to the number of casualties in most other wars we have fought, including ones that are generally considered to have been just.
How many allied troops, or, for that matter, how many soldiers on all sides, died in World War 2? Do you believe that we should have stayed out of that one and allowed the Nazis to rule the world?
Another faulty conclusion from Brandon as he tries to carry water for Bush and company.
Isn't it amazing folks, the peculiar conclusions reached by the Bush loyalists when the hard and cold facts of the growing American dead are dared to be mentioned?
article about
sgt. chen third on the list posted by titus.
pueo, that is one of the saddest stories I have ever heard.
I felt the same sadness looking at the line of dead children posted on Al Jazeera-- their little bodies riddled with shrapnel. I know their mothers are weeping - just like Sgt Chen's Mom.
pueo:
Thank you for putting a human face on the victims of Bush's war for oil and legacy.
your welcome titus, i posted that because i saw sgt. chen's name on the list. i believe that we have opposite views on the why's and how's regarding the conflict in iraq, but i continue to read your threads whenever i can.
Titus wrote:Another faulty conclusion from Brandon as he tries to carry water for Bush and company.
Isn't it amazing folks, the peculiar conclusions reached by the Bush loyalists when the hard and cold facts of the growing American dead are dared to be mentioned?
I find it absolutely fascinating that your response consists of a statement that my reasoning is faulty, and name calling, but not the slightest attempt to address my argument. I suspect this means that you cannot counter my argument, and are not inclined to debate very honestly.
It get's old, instead of addressing your argument you are disparaged as a loyalist of sorts.
Why do partisan Bush loyalists pretend to be something they're not?
Very peculiar.
Titus wrote:Why do partisan Bush loyalists pretend to be something they're not?
Very peculiar.
This does not constitute winning an argument. Name calling, bringing in unrelated details, and changing the subject prove nothing. Only addressing the points raised proves something.
Craven de Kere wrote:It get's old, instead of addressing your argument you are disparaged as a loyalist of sorts.
Your honesty in supporting fair play for those you disagree with is very commendable.
"This does not constitute winning an argument." brandon
Once again Brandon, your premise is skewed. Everything posted on this forum does not constitute an "argument." Sometimes, members simply post their opinions and no one is obligated at anytime to respond to your fervent demands.
Believing forum members are in some way compelled to meeting your needs is highly narcissistic and dysfunctional. [/color]
Titus wrote:"This does not constitute winning an argument." brandon
Once again Brandon, your premise is skewed. Everything posted on this forum does not constitute an "argument." Sometimes, members simply post their opinions and no one is obligated at anytime to respond to your fervent demands.
Believing forum members are in some way compelled to meeting your needs is highly narcissistic and dysfunctional. [/color]
What I believe is that when I post an argument, and someone does respond to it, but responds only with name calling, it probably means that he is unable to counter any of my points. I don't know if you noticed it, but here on the Politics board, there is a certain amount of debate going on..
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace