Skip to comments.
Reporting on the 2,000th American Death in Iraq
Special to FreeFrepublic ^
| 23 October, 2005
| John Armor (Congressman Billybob)
Posted on 10/23/2005 12:22:39 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Since Cindy Sheehan is cranking up to "celebrate" the 2,000th American death in Iraq, the sycophants in the American press cannot be far behind. They are marshalling their adjectives and adverbs to pretend that this war is the worst ever. Most will not, however, mention a word about the costs of prior wars.
We can't let facts interfere with a good, anti-war article, now can we?
John / Billybob
To: Congressman Billybob
Thanks for the post, C.B.! These stats are LETHAL to the entire left/CRAT insane ideaology.
2
posted on
10/23/2005 12:28:41 PM PDT
by
Two Thirds Vote Aye
(9/11/2001 - The greatest clxxxon legacy to date.)
To: Congressman Billybob
We probably lost more men in thirty minutes on Omaha Beach than we have in Iraq.
Oooooh but that was a DEMOCRAT war, one that left the Soviet Union sitting pretty.
3
posted on
10/23/2005 12:31:43 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
To: Congressman Billybob
Answer: The Media, Peaceniks and Democrats in Congress.
Question: Who are Al Quada's best allies in the world right now?
4
posted on
10/23/2005 12:32:15 PM PDT
by
Tzimisce
To: Congressman Billybob
5
posted on
10/23/2005 12:35:06 PM PDT
by
mmercier
To: Tzimisce
Would be nice to know how many of the 2,000 are not combat related. Traffic accidents etc.
6
posted on
10/23/2005 12:35:15 PM PDT
by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: Congressman Billybob
7
posted on
10/23/2005 12:38:30 PM PDT
by
injin
To: Congressman Billybob
8
posted on
10/23/2005 12:39:54 PM PDT
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: ncountylee
Would be nice to know how many of the 2,000 are not combat related. Traffic accidents etc. 438 are non-hostile 1558 are hostile see: http://icasualties.org/oif/hnh.aspx
9
posted on
10/23/2005 12:40:42 PM PDT
by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker!)
To: Carry_Okie
Oooooh but that was a DEMOCRAT war, one that left the Soviet Union sitting pretty. So does that mean that this one is a Republican war?
To: Non-Sequitur
So does that mean that this one is a Republican war? In some respects, but my point was about the MSM propaganda that was the topic of the article.
11
posted on
10/23/2005 12:44:34 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
To: FreedomCalls
That's absolutely repulsive. These pukes are crawling out of the woodwork.
12
posted on
10/23/2005 12:46:52 PM PDT
by
Just Lori
(Tony Schaeffer, Curt Weldon, Able Danger....... PAY ATTENTION.)
To: Carry_Okie
In some respects, but my point was about the MSM propaganda that was the topic of the article. But getting back to your first point. Since you classify them by party, are Democrat wars bad wars and Republican wars good wars?
To: Congressman Billybob
I was told years ago: "the most common use of mathematics in general, and statistics in specific; is as a means of deception". Thank you for highlighting an uncommon analysis. Too bad that many Americans will only get the USA Today headline splash. ABC/CBS/CNN and even FOX already have their stories in the can. With plenty of room to add in the additional dozens if something "spectacular" happens.
Keep up the good work.
To: Congressman Billybob
How many lives were lost to terrorism in the past decade? Anybody keeping track?
Whatever the cost of the war in lives, dollars, etc., the cost of doing nothing in the face of tyranny and terrorism is much higher.
To: Non-Sequitur
Since you classify them by party, are Democrat wars bad wars and Republican wars good wars? Don't be silly. I was pointing out that, in the eyes of the MSM, Iraq is "bad" because it started with a Republican president in charge while WWII was "good" in all respects, regardless of the outcome because socialists were in charge. If you need further explanation than that, you aren't going to get it.
16
posted on
10/23/2005 12:52:34 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
To: Carry_Okie
If you need further explanation than that, you aren't going to get it. Probably not. I just don't have your...slant on things. I just think of wars as American wars, regardless of who's in office at the time.
To: Non-Sequitur
One of these days you'll more easily recognize pointed humor, else you will suffer from a "serious" problem.
;-)
18
posted on
10/23/2005 1:00:17 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
To: Congressman Billybob
19
posted on
10/23/2005 1:02:08 PM PDT
by
Just Lori
(Tony Schaeffer, Curt Weldon, Able Danger....... PAY ATTENTION.)
To: Congressman Billybob
20
posted on
10/23/2005 1:03:53 PM PDT
by
Just Lori
(Tony Schaeffer, Curt Weldon, Able Danger....... PAY ATTENTION.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson