10 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq This Weekend

Sometimes I just feel like shouting "Wake up, people." Ten U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq this weekend.

Among the 10 U.S. deaths announced Sunday were three soldiers killed by a roadside bomb while patrolling south of Baghdad; one killed in an attack south of the capital; and two who died of combat wounds sustained north of the capital, in Diyala and Salahuddin provinces. On Saturday, the military said, four U.S. soldiers were killed in an explosion near their vehicle in Diyala.

At least 3,280 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians.

It's way past time to get the hell out of there.

< Why Nothing Will Happen to Don Imus | The Beltway: Oblivious To Its Irrelevance >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes that was Heinlein (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 08:23:26 PM EST
    at his most fascist.

    The annual death toll in Washington and Baltimore from homicide rivals the annual death toll of US troops in Iraq.

    How careless and downright racist. You unsuccessfully disassociate yourself from the death and destruction wrought on the innocent people of Iraq by YOU and your murderer in chief. The violence in Iraq today in undeniably a direct result of the destabilizing invasion and (thus far) failed occupation.

    I live in CA, which has a few more people than Iraq. If we awoke to 75-150 fellow citizens being blown up by car bombs every day, we would be storming the capital.

    Try and answer one simple question, Jarober:

    What's the difference (to you) between a dead american soldier and a dead Iraqi child? If the answer is none, then please stop posting that pus I drained above.

    WTF? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:12:40 AM EST
    Well, since I served, I can comment. And my comment is that no one who hasn't served should not be allowed to comment.

    After sorting that statement out, I threw it out. If I can't comment on the war, why should I pay for it?

    Gurgling coffee all over myself (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:53:23 AM EST
    Che - You, of course, ignored the remainder (3.00 / 2) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:33:23 AM EST
    of my comment in which I condmened that dumbest of dumb memes, "if you aint doing it you can't talk about it."

    As for paying your taxes, I offer no advice. That is between you and the IRS. I will however, say in that regard: "God help you."

    However, I would ask that if you believe that, should:

    People with no children in school pay taxes?

    People with health insurance pay for Emergancy Room treatment for those who don't?

    People who don't.... of well, you get the idea.

    BTW - Selective adoption of Libertarian beliefs?
    Careful where that leads you.


    OFF TOPIC (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    The adults were talking about the deaths of Americans in iraq, please try to focus.

    The liberal elite (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    media never reports the good news about Iraq; such as the fact that the Chimperors war profiteering sponsors can still sock their blood money off-shore and elsewhere in order to avoid having to put their money where their "defending our Freedoms", chickenhawk mouths are. This is, no doubt, just another example of a patriotism that passeth all understanding, which is why the Right never discusses it.

    Meanwhile, in Afghanistan (4.00 / 1) (#3)
    by scribe on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:10:47 PM EST
    German radio reports six NATO soldiers were killed in various attacks.  My translation:
    Six NATO Soldiers killed in Afghanistan
    Sechs NATO-Soldaten in Afghanistan getötet

    In Afghanistan six NATO Soldiers were killed.  

    As reported by the military press liasion office in Kabul, these  soldiers were killed in an attack in the south of the country.  They were underway in a vehicle, when a roadside bomb exploded.  A further soldier was injured.  The affilation and nationality of the victim is not yet known (later reports stated they were Canadian and British).  In southern Afghanistan another NATO soldier had been killed only a few hours before.  In the south of the country, the troops in action are primarily British and Canadian.

    Nice work, Messrs. Blair and Harper.

    Christ. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:17:14 PM EST
    I'm sure jarobster et al will be happy to volunteer some more British and Canadian sons and daughters to replace them....

    Time to pull out of Baltimore then (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    The annual death toll in Washington and Baltimore from homicide rivals the annual death toll of US troops in Iraq.  

    It's a quagmire; better pull out now.

    They're ::only:: numbers after all. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 05:23:24 PM EST
    Just a "toll", right, jarobster? Not real people. Lot's more where they came from, huh?

    When are you shipping out? Or your son or your daughter shipping out?

    Don't tell me - You haven't volunteered them yet?

    Mispelling? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:24:20 PM EST
    Just a "toll", right, jarobster?

    or just a troll?"


    Purposeful ambiguity ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:42:16 PM EST
    I thought trolls (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jen M on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    just spouted bad language and all caps and stuff

    Nice to know you really care (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:41:18 AM EST

    You forgot to include (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jen M on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:38:13 AM EST
    the Iraqui death toll in your comparison to Balimore and DC. The

    making $hit up (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 10:12:11 AM EST
    American deaths in iraq in 2005- 846   
    Wounded 5947

    269 homicides in Baltimore in 2005

    195 slayings in 2005 in DC

    total for DC and Baltimore=463

    so this commenter thinks almost 846 American deaths in iraq rivals 463. What utter BS.

    and of course he completely ignores all the iraqi civilian deaths because those brown people just don't count as human according to bushlickers.


    Sigh (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 08:00:35 PM EST
    I tried to get into West Point at 18; I was classified 4F, due to very, very bad myopia.  Since Lasik didn't exist at the time, that was that.  I'm well over the age where people are allowed in now, and my daughter is well under the age where people are allowed in.

    Which doesn't really matter; the argument that "you can't favor the war unless you volunteer" is a terribly bad one - and, carried to its logical extreme, leads to the world Heinlein described in "Starship Troopers" - i.e., the only ones with the franchise would be veterans.

    I seriously doubt that's what any of the commenters here have in mind, so let's just toss the "chickenhawk" argument where it belongs - on the trash.  or, would you prefer that I question your anti-war motives by noting that you can't be serious - otherwise you would be in jail right now for having mounted some kind of actionable resistance?

    West Point will probably take you now (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:31:26 AM EST
    They offered our daughter a spot without even interviewing the sleeper till noon clothing for carpet Princess of American democracy.  She would rather eat dirt, maybe you can go in her place?  She wouldn't care.

    You know, someone will. (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:38:14 AM EST
    And hopefully she will mature and understand that.

    She's already matured nutcase (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:44:25 AM EST
    She's going to school to be a pediatric occupational therapist.  They don't teach that at West Point for some reason.  Think of it as helping all the children learn how to somehow live a life after Bush and Cheney have blown their arms and legs off ;).

    That's (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    very well put.  The distilled sadness of it all.  Forget politics.  Support for this is incomprehensible to me as a father.

    How long will we remain complicit, how long?


    What is the serial number on that excuse, (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 08:25:32 PM EST
    jarobster? How many other peoples sons and daughters (sorry... numbers) are you willing to 'volunteer' to die for you and Bush?

    I can't say I'm surprised West Point didn't accept you. That myopia certainly does cloud your vision.

    My brother is over there now - a civilian employee. So are many other brothers and sisters.

    Excuses aside - if you believe in it, why aren't you there? Does the myopia stop you from seeing your way clear to do what you ask others to do in your name?

    I can (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 09:03:09 PM EST
    Well, since I served, I can comment. And my comment is that no one who hasn't served should not be allowed to comment.

    I am sure that will be acceptable.

    Also no one who hasn't taught should be allowed to mention education, and unless you have been, or are, an elected offical, just be quiet about politics.

    Seriously people. That is one of the dumbest arguments put forth by the Left, and only tends to demonstrate their desire to shut down debate. AKA - censorship.


    Misrepresenting (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by glanton on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 09:50:10 PM EST
    is so easy to do, and so many swallow it, and you've learned the old t-points very well.

    Thing is, the chickenhawk tag doesn't apply both ways and there's a reason for that.  To be against a war and not fight in it makes sense to anyone north of Terri Shiavo.  

    On the other hand, there is something particularly vacuous about those who are enthusiastic for war but who would never enter one themselves.

    The Bush Admin, from the CIC on down, is filled with people who both A)supported the Vietnam War; B)were of fighting age; and C)got out of fighting.  So too leading pundits such as O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Walt Williams.  Now these ba$tards, they are responsible for Iraq, Vietnam's contemporary analogue.

    And so.  Now, too, you've got lots of fighting age people supporting this war, too.  Which today means, I'll blog support, you go fight for it.  Proven chickenhakws pulling the strings, budding chickenhawks coming into their own.  It's touching, really.


    glanton (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:20:42 AM EST
    To be against a war and not fight in it makes perfect sense.

    But, if you are going to attack those who are for it but who are not fighting in it that makes no sense beyond trying to make a vacuous point in an effort to shut the opposition up.

    In our society we have open discussions about everything. And everyone is invited in. To try and limit that is, of course, censorship.

    Tell me, if you want to restrict those who are for the war, will you agree that we must have no more demostrations against the war?

    As a group that is definiely on the edge, the Far Left, of all the groups, should be careful in demanding someone not be allowed to speak. Once a fire starts it goes in the direction the wind blows. What you may see as a gentle breeze around your warm campfire can rapidly turn into a gale force wind producing a wildfire that destroys what we all hold dear. Free speech. Yours and mine.


    How can you believe this war is worthwhile (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    and promote it when you know how short on troops we are and how badly WE NEED YOU?   How can you with conscience not offer your services this minute to your ragged worn out tired forces you claim to champion?  How can you just sit on your ass like this in the middle of this hell when it is obvious exactly where your services are fully needed right now?

    Who said anything about limiting speech? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 12:08:19 PM EST
    Unless I missed it, nobody on this board has called for the chickenhawks to be forced into silence.  All understand it is their right to speak.

    What I would personally like to see however is a social and political climate whereby chickenhawks are widely jeered for their comments and actions, like they are jeered here.  Actually, the ideal would be a climate where politicians knew they were risking incredible scorn for broaching the very idea of killing and dying en masse. Because it is the most serious thing a politician can do and should be handled with great trepidation.

    So that these politicos would only make such a call when it was clear beyond all doubt that there was no other solution, that the safety of the nation actually hung in the balance.  And these politicians would have to make that case and convince people.  And they would tell the truth, because they'd know if they got caught lying, or even for that matter artificially augmenting their case, that there would be h*ll to pay, because in such a climate the media would hold them accountable and there would be no slick apologists to cover their arses.

    You know, it's really this simple.  Those who write on the Internet their convictions that the war in Iraq represents a fight for very Civilization; those who so emphatically post "the prayer rugs are coming, the prayer rugs are coming!"; those who electronically posit this Iraq War as a classic, Lord of the Rings-style clash of Good and Evil---well, I don't believe for a second that they truly mean what they say.  I think, in other words, that not only are they full of it, but that the only way they can avoid knowing it is to not think about it at all.

    Because if they meant what they said, they would themselves be willing to kill and to die for the Iraq effort.  As opposed to sipping coffee and ranting on screen.

    It is like Vietnam in that way. The people in power and the supporters stateside all know that their very lives and limbs, and those of their loved ones, are far too precious to be risked in the conflict at hand.  But yet they support the risking of others.

    That is about as disgusting, about as rankly indecent as it gets.  And that's what a chickenhawk is.  I don't blame you for using straw men, bringing up censorship and Starship Troopers scenarios and, really, whatever you can do to avoid the fact that Bush's "mission" in Iraq is not worth killing for or dying for.

    Now, say something snarky.  I doubt you even read what I just wrote all the way through, and thought about it, even though I do this for you and every other poster before I start typing in response. And I'm quite sure you won't respond to what I have written in a way that actually shows you have thought about it.  Because to do so would be to question yourself and the Leaders and the Profiteers you trust so unquestioningly.


    You're right.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    I don't care enough about the war to do something drastic enough to stop it, such as getting myself locked up...and you don't care enough about the war to go fight in it.

    We're both a couple pikers....at least I'm a peaceful piker.


    LOL (none / 0) (#39)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    That's pretty good.  Sort of like Thoreau with a sense of humor.

    Silly Argument (1.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 10:53:49 PM EST
    I'll extend - given the "chickenhawk" ground rules, let's do the following:

    -- only women can comment on abortion
    -- only people in the legal profession can talk about the law

    That should slow comments down on this site a lot.

    You seemingly (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by glanton on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 11:01:08 PM EST
    don't understand what chickenhawk means.  To enthuse for a war you know full well is not worth your very life, or the life of anyone you love.

    But then.  More likely, you do understand.  After all, it's not so terribly complex.  Maybe it's not possible for you to look it in the face and still keep spewing the things you spew and so, in the end, it is easier to keep parroting the talking points such as you have just posted.


    Life is all about choices isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:06:25 AM EST
    I choose to read the words of smart lawyers because I'm not one and don't play one in real life.  I am willing to learn about things in that area and understand how they are in real life and I find laymen's terms.  Sometimes because of that my comments may have some relevancy based in reality.  Men can comment on abortion but that doesn't mean that their comment has real life relevancy.  Pregnancy is only a hypothetical for them so they can shape their comments around any hypothetical they want to choose chock full of whatever denials they will never have to face during that particular daily grind.  Same works when it comes to soldiering for good ole US of A.  It isn't that you can't comment, it's just that your comments usually aren't relevant to the soldier's real life dealings and all that that entails.

    Enthuse? (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 11:23:13 PM EST
    How do you know that I'm "enthused"?  There's a difference between believing a war is worthwhile, and being happy about it.  In hindsight, I'm convinced that the mistake was made by fighting in 1991 (I believe that post 1991, a second war with Iraq was inevitable at some point).  I don't get to jump back in time and undo 1991 any more than you get to jump back in time and undo 2003 though, so the question I ask myself is, what's the best way forward from here?  IMHO, a precipitous departure will lead to a regional war, absurdly high oil prices, and a far more dangerous world situation ( I don't expect rational behavior from any part of the world if a war involving Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia breaks out).  

    That leaves me with the position I have - that amongst all the bad choices, trying to stabilize Iraq is the best of a bad lot.  Which is different from what the left proposes - that seems to be "screw 'em all, just leave, and who gives a damn what happens afterwards".  Whether you like it or not, we are now responsible for Iraq.  I don't see anything like responsible behavior in just letting it rot.

    You seem to think the (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 11:53:14 PM EST
    Iraqi people are children who are incompetent and incapable of taking their own affairs into their own hands.

    That is a childish, obnoxious, patronizing and insulting attitude to take.

    They want you out because you have fu*ked up their country so thoroughly and killed so many of them and driven so many of them out as refugees that it will take them years, decades perhaps, to repair the damage wrought by the invasion and occupation.

    Their society has been utterly destroyed, their infrastructure has been demolished, up to three quarters of a million of their children and women have died as a direct result of the adolescent gun-ho attitude you project, all they want is you out of the friggin' way so they can fix what you've broken so badly, and you have the gall to think that leaving will cause the place to rot?

    Have you entirely lost your mind? Has it ever entered your shriveled little brain that it's no friggin' wonder they don't want you around?

    Jeezus..... You're in their fuc*king way! What don't you get?
    If a single conclusion can be drawn about the U.S. presence in Iraq, it's this: The longer we have been there, the worse it's gotten. We've now reached the point where, with Americans "protecting" Iraqis from themselves, nearly one in five of them have nonetheless either fled their country, been forced into internal exile, or died in the mayhem. If you were projecting into the future, it would be far more logical to assume that, with us present, this situation would only worsen.
    You've spent 4 years utterly destroying the place and the people, and now you think it will rot when you're finally given the boot? So you want a little more time, a lot more money, and you're willing to 'volunteer' how many more people (except you and your family) to death or maiming because you're too friggin' insecure to even say I'm sorry - I fu*ked up?

    Pull your head out, for chrissakes. Jesus!

    Take a look in a mirror - if you can stand the sight. In-fu*king-credible.

    To enthuse (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    Is not to be joyful.  For example the public en masse, wikth a few fringe exceptions, supported the World War II effort until it was complete.  And if you go mback and read the editorials and glance through the War Posters etc. you will see that there was enthusiasm for the war.  Not happiness that it was happening.  But a real conviction that we needed to be there, and a willingness to shout that to the rooftops.

    If you don't like the word, that's fine.  Words are tricky.  What I'd rather do, than quibble over the word, is see you actuall confront what I wrote:

    To defend and support a war you know full well is not worth your very life, or the life of anyone you love.

    You indicate that you're being practical, wondering where we go from here.  I wonder, did you support going in in 2003 or not?  I'd be a little surprised, I confess, to learn that you had spoken against the Repub Administration for pushing us there.

    More likely you supported them then, and support them now, and are playing the familiar game of changing goalposts.  No more talk about the fauz reasons we went in, sayeth the Republicans.  What we need to do instead is be practical about the fact that we're there.  

    How nice.  At no point do your guys have to take it on the chin for setting in motion all this death and destruction.  By extension, at no point do all of their supporters have to feel guilty for enabling it.

    But deep down, you know it isn't worth your life, or the life of your loved ones.  You know it.  And yet you defend it with all the guile you can muster.  That's what a chickenhawk is, jarober.  Not all the strawmen you can evoke will change this.


    How come (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:40:56 AM EST
    the media never talks about the number of terrorists killed?

    Terrorist Counter (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:48:12 AM EST
    The perfect job for you. An big promotion from the ranks of the 101st keyboard commandos. Keep in touch.

    We would........We would in a heart beat (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:51:00 AM EST
    but once again PBJ we can't identify their bodies because we haven't figured out how to identify the terrorist uniform, or where to find the terrorist mark or tattoo or whatever the hell that it is that signifies that when they were alive they were a terrorist, or they had terrorist potential, or that one day they thought about doing something terrorizing.  Dead people tell no terrorist tales.  Not even the really real terrorists that already died on 9/11.

    they arent (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Jen M on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:44:26 AM EST
    allowed to

    Don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 10:15:26 AM EST
    the 70 "terrists" killed in night bombing raids back in January, ppj.

    How could you neglect to mention a feather in your man's cap like that one?

    Or don't they "count"?