the surge is NOT working more troops dead in 07 than any other year

R

Robdawg

Junior Member
Five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq on Monday, making 2007 the deadliest for the American military in the Iraq war.


According to a CNN count of Pentagon figures, 854 U.S. service members have died so far in 2007. The next highest death toll was in 2004, when 849 were killed.

The total number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq stands at 3,857, including seven civilian contractors of the Defense Department.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/06/iraq.main/index.html


Halliburton Company HAL (NYSE)
$40.12 +0.36 (0.91%) 1,956,050
 
It depends what you mean by "working".

Bush fans have continuously lowered the bar for "success", so that now they view a reduction in violence to 2005 levels, and a weak, dysfunctional yet allegedly relatively stable non-democratic government in Bagdad to be the hallmark of success. And a wonderful result for the investment of a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.
 
Cypress said:
It depends what you mean by "working".

Bush fans have continuously lowered the bar for "success", so that now they view a reduction in violence to 2005 levels, and a weak, dysfunctional yet allegedly relatively stable non-democratic government in Bagdad to be the hallmark of success. And a wonderful result for the investment of a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.
Click to expand...
Whatever happened to "give it until September" anyway? Here we are in November already and it seems that NONE of the administration's lackeys are admitting that it was just another boondoggle.

Accountability's not in their dictionary, I suppose.
 
Cypress said:
It depends what you mean by "working".

Bush fans have continuously lowered the bar for "success", so that now they view a reduction in violence to 2005 levels, and a weak, dysfunctional yet allegedly relatively stable non-democratic government in Bagdad to be the hallmark of success. And a wonderful result for the investment of a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.
Click to expand...

What are you saying it wasn't a good deal?
 
Cypress said:
It depends what you mean by "working".

Bush fans have continuously lowered the bar for "success", so that now they view a reduction in violence to 2005 levels, and a weak, dysfunctional yet allegedly relatively stable non-democratic government in Bagdad to be the hallmark of success. And a wonderful result for the investment of a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.
Click to expand...

Stop lying, the Iraq war has cost well under that - about $350 billion.
 
Before "The Surge" it was predicted that US casualty rates would increase during the initial stages. This was expected, predicted, and falls well within their projections.

The idea that this suggests that it is not working is simply not justified with the smaller number of Iraqi casualties. Now, that such is due to "the surge" can be debated. It is far more likely due to the cease fire we paid for than it is due to more US troops in Iraq.
 
The most current estimates of the war's cost generally start with figures from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which as of January 2006 counted $323 billion in expenditures for the war on terrorism, including military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just this week the House approved another $68 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the total allocated to date to about $400 billion. The Pentagon is spending about $6 billion a month on the war in Iraq, or about $200 million a day, according to the CBO. That is about the same as the gross domestic product of Nigeria.

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and self-described opponent of the war, puts the final figure at a staggering $1 trillion to $2 trillion, including $500 billion for the war and occupation and up to $300 billion in future health care costs for wounded troops.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/page/2/
 
have no money for healthcare, no tax cuts for American working families, no money for education, bush vetos a bill to ensure kids, but we can spent a trillion dollars on an illegal war that did nothing to make us safer if anything put us more at risk and we bombed and killed citizens of a country that never attacked us.

I was in Massachusetts last week and there was a poster in the town square that said something like, no matter how big the flag is you can not cover the blood on our hands.
 
Robdawg said:
have no money for healthcare, no tax cuts for American working families, no money for education, bush vetos a bill to ensure kids, but we can spent a trillion dollars on an illegal war that did nothing to make us safer if anything put us more at risk and we bombed and killed citizens of a country that never attacked us.

I was in Massachusetts last week and there was a poster in the town square that said something like, no matter how big the flag is you can not cover the blood on our hands.
Click to expand...

figures it would be someone in Massachusettes calling the War in Afghanistan illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top