Skip to comments.
Soldiers return from hostilities fighting for life
Knight Ridder ^
| Sun, Aug. 24, 2003
| By Joseph L. Galloway
Posted on 08/31/2003 3:51:10 PM PDT by Lessismore
MORE THAN 1,000 WOUNDED IN IRAQ HAVE BEEN TREATED AT D.C. HOSPITAL
WASHINGTON - Almost every night, American soldiers come home from Iraq the hard way.
Planes land at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, and ambulances ferry the injured to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where doctors and nurses stand ready to rush them into the operating rooms.
More than 1,000 injured American soldiers have flowed through Walter Reed since the war in Iraq began in March, and 300 others have arrived from Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion in October 2001. Since early July, two months after President Bush declared major combat over, there have been just two days when the hospital has not had soldier casualties.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; US: Maryland; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: casualties; iraq; walterreed; welcomehome; wia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
To: Lessismore
>>Since...President Bush declared major combat over...<<
This phrase is required by every news service in every article on the war. You guess what the purpose is.
2
posted on
08/31/2003 3:58:05 PM PDT
by
Jeff Chandler
(This tagline has been suspended or banned.)
To: Jeff Chandler
They make great lemmings don't they? But when they lose, they will all lose big time.
3
posted on
08/31/2003 4:16:19 PM PDT
by
Prince Caspian
(Don't ask if it's risky... Ask if the reward is worth the risk)
To: Lessismore
Not to seem callous since I have relatives in combat, but we lost 3,000 civilians in combat two years ago. We will lose more in the future.
The media does a grave disservice to those who have died by insinuating this needs to end by bringing our people home.
We win this now, or else this country ends with a whimper. The entire world, friend and foe, wants this United States to be reduced to dependent status. They do not consider the price they will pay as a power vacuum is created.
For my part, I pray for my loved ones. I hope they return safely, but if not, I will not denigrate their service by demanding we not win this war.
4
posted on
08/31/2003 4:20:18 PM PDT
by
OpusatFR
To: Jeff Chandler
>>Since...President Bush declared major combat over...<< This phrase is required by every news service in every article on the war. You guess what the purpose is. Well, it was a rather boneheaded quote to spout in the first place.
One of the reasons why the conventional war was such a cakewalk was because a strategy of attrition was the Baathist plan all along.
To: Jeff Chandler
bump
6
posted on
08/31/2003 4:21:16 PM PDT
by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: StatesEnemy
One of the reasons why the conventional war was such a cakewalk was because a strategy of attrition was the Baathist plan all along.They weren't all that smart. Uday and Qusay were shot to death, cousin Chemical Ali and other top Baathists have been trapped like rats, and Saddam's being hunted in Mosul as we speak. Surely that wasn't in any grand plan.
7
posted on
08/31/2003 4:31:07 PM PDT
by
xJones
To: xJones
They weren't all that smart. Uday and Qusay were shot to death, cousin Chemical Ali and other top Baathists have been trapped like rats, and Saddam's being hunted in Mosul as we speak. Surely that wasn't in any grand plan. No... but at the same time, if a year from now there is still daily US body counts, Bush is gonna have a fight on his hands to retain the POTUS.
And if the Dems win, we will pull out of Iraq.
Game, Set, Match.
To: StatesEnemy
"One of the reasons why the conventional war was such a cakewalk was because a strategy of attrition was the Baathist plan all along. "
not according to reports from people on the iraqi frontlines in interviews with telegraph, boston globe and LA times.
9
posted on
08/31/2003 4:39:39 PM PDT
by
Pikamax
To: Pikamax
not according to reports from people on the iraqi frontlines in interviews with telegraph, boston globe and LA times. Well the post "major combat" has racked up more US casualties then the "war" (not to mention thrown a wrench in our "nation building" efforts).
Ask yourself - honestly - do you actually believe that we will carve out a peaceful, democratic Iraq? I think the whole exercise is egotistical folly on our part. You aren't gonna change these people. They are tribally minded, patriarchal driven, and religiously intoxicated.
To: OpusatFR
For my part, I pray for my loved ones. I hope they return safely, but if not, I will not denigrate their service by demanding we not win this war.Thank you for expressing this so well.
To: StatesEnemy
Major combat as in planes dropping bombs--not ground war.
Sheesh, is everyone that dumb and they just don't get it or do they just repeat nonsense for the sake of ??? (I don't know why--why do they repeat this nonsense??)
12
posted on
08/31/2003 5:13:58 PM PDT
by
olliemb
To: olliemb
Major combat as in planes dropping bombs--not ground war. Sooo... Ground wars aren't major combat? This is one 11-Bravo that would disagree (I'm sure there is a line of us)
To: StatesEnemy
Yes, we will be successful. How many people died when we were attacked in Africa? How many people died in the Cole bombing? How many people died in the Khobar towers? How many people died in the first World Trade Center? How many people died in Mogadishu?
Please, quit making such ridiculous statements--oh, my, see how many soldiers have died and we were told major hostilities were over. Oh, my, well, then, Jethro, let us pull a Mogadishu or a Lebanon and run with our tails between our legs.
Quit being so spineless and quit whimpering--we will not lose our resolve. You obviously have lost yours or perhaps you never had a resolve.
The only way we will lose if the democrats get in and pull us out and leave the Iraqis stranded.
14
posted on
08/31/2003 5:19:11 PM PDT
by
olliemb
To: StatesEnemy
Do you have trouble reading or comprehending? I said major combat as in bombs from planes--of course we are still at war, we just are not bombing from planes.
15
posted on
08/31/2003 5:21:21 PM PDT
by
olliemb
To: StatesEnemy
BURP!!! Excuse me??? Who the Beep, Beep, Beep??? Tribally minded??? Who Isn't??? Patriarchal driven??? What Country isn't??? Relgiously Intoxicated??? Like Arkansas??? They have a right to be free and we have a duty to protect Americans from Middle Eastern Terrorist... now we are in the heart of it May 31st, 2003 member.
16
posted on
08/31/2003 5:22:51 PM PDT
by
Porterville
(I spell stuff wrong sometimes.... get over yourself, you're not that great.)
To: olliemb
The only way we will lose if the democrats get in and pull us out and leave the Iraqis stranded. Stop acting like an idealist. The Dems winning is a very good possibility if we are still in the same 'one step forward, 2 steps back' situation in Iraq.
You do remember '92, Yes?
To: olliemb
And the wind , whispers, "liberal" ....
18
posted on
08/31/2003 5:23:56 PM PDT
by
Porterville
(I spell stuff wrong sometimes.... get over yourself, you're not that great.)
To: StatesEnemy
You aren't gonna change these people. They are tribally minded, patriarchal driven, and religiously intoxicated. Great line, may have to appropriate that as my own...LOL!
This same "tribal-mindedness" was part of the discussion during a Fox News Sunday segment, concerning the fact Churchill was part of how the Iraq borders are the way they are today. Prior to WW1, Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. They administered the area, known today as Iraq, as three separate territories to reduce tribal fighting. Following WW1, Churchill served on a commission that ended up giving Iraq the international borders it has today.
Similar thing happened to Yugoslavia after WW2 and look what we have today. Split apart to follow the religious tribalism of old. Is it likely this same thing will happen to Iraq? Should we bow out?
19
posted on
08/31/2003 5:25:02 PM PDT
by
T-Bird45
To: StatesEnemy
You do remember '92, Yes?
Yeah, and do you remember the 8 years of Clinton? Yes?
I do believe it was people who were whining and complaing who were republicans who voted for Perot and therefore gave the presidency to Clinton with less than 50% of the vote.
Yes, I do remember, the 1992 elections. Are you out there campaigning for the president or not?
20
posted on
08/31/2003 5:30:02 PM PDT
by
olliemb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 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