Death toll if we are forced by our candidates to stay till 01/2013

[bpeale]

As of today, on the web, the death toll of just our people in Iraq is 3806. If you divide that by the 56 months we have been there, it comes to 68 soldiers dieing every month in Iraq on average. If you extrapolate this out into the future (2013), that means 5168 MORE soldiers will die. How do we choose which 5168 soldiers to kill? Who makes those kinds of decisions? Is Iraqi oil worth the deaths of 5168 more soldiers? This whole thing makes me sick. This means that no matter how many troop drawdowns you have 68 soldiers will die every month. I wonder if our boys think of that and what their odds are of making it home alive. I think GWB intends to keep them there until they are all dead & it sounds like are candidates are in agreement with that. Which soldier is going to be the LAST ONE to die for a mistake??? I'm sick now. You think about it for yourselves now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. You are assuming that American soldiers will continue to die at the same rate

The rate may decrease or increase.

[bpeale]

3. that's why i used averages over all the months of the war so far

[againes654]

2. And what if we go to war with Iran

what would the death toll be then? But what is really important is which candidate is most electable right?:sarcasm:

[bpeale]

4. yeah. it seems so petty somehow

[bpeale]

7. i guess if you wanted to put that into numbers

attacking Iran would create a bloodbath in the middle east. you could safely up those figures to three times my average of 68 ... or roughly 204 per month. that's a lot of death.

Edited to add: using 204 and running it out to 2013, we would be sending 15,500 of our military service people to their deaths. would THAT total still be acceptable to war supporters? if their kid was there would it be acceptable then? where do you draw the line?

[againes654]

11. That is sad

[Algorem]

5. When's Chelsea enlisting?

Wouldn't want the family to look hypocritical and all.

[AndyA]

6. This is absolutely unacceptable. It should not/cannot be tolerated.

This war was based on LIES.

No weapons of mass destruction. No aiding and abetting of terrorists. No super secret plans to attack America. No connection to the events of 9/11/2001.

So why the hell are we there? Why the hell are we STILL there??

And why the hell has the Democratic Congress, elected to END THE WAR, still not been able to do it?

It sure makes you wonder if the Dems really want the war to end...

[eagleswing963]

8. Simple AndyA

Edited on Mon Oct-01-07 03:43 PM by kpete
Pelosi Throws in The Towel
by buhdydharma
Mon Oct 01, 2007

Nancy Pelosi admits no legislation passed in the House will end the occupation because the Republican minority in the Senate will block it.
Bi-partisanship won't work.

Nancy Pelosi admits re-deployment is the only answer, but has stopped trying to achieve it.
She has stopped trying to send bills to the Presidents desk.

Nancy Pelosi admits she can defund the occupation. But she won't.

Nancy Pelosi has given up on ending the Iraq War.

Democrats have lost the balls IMHO. They want to whine "we don't have enough seats!"...

[bpeale]

9. who do we have to grab up by the shorthairs to make them listen to us?

[eagleswing963]

10. Every Damn one of them sir

Every damn one of them.

Make it clear to this biatch and every Dem that you will not vote for them in 08. Another Dem will take their place and you will bust your nuts to make it happen!

It may be a losing fight, but better then bending over and taking it!