America's Bloody October in Iraq

[Nickdfresh]

98 U.S. GIs Killed in Iraq This Month
Saturday, October 28, 2006 9:59 AM EDT
The Associated Press (http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=13196444&ps=1010&cat=&cps=&lang=en)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — The U.S. military said Saturday that a Marine had been killed in restive Anbar province, raising to 98 the number of American forces killed in Iraq during October, the fourth deadliest month since the war began in March 2003.

The Marine, assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5, died Friday from "wounds sustained due to enemy action," in the western province, the military said in a statement.

The name of the Marine is withheld pending notification of the family.

There have been only three months in which more U.S. forces died in Iraq: 107 in January 2005; at least 135 in April 2004, and 137 in November 2004.

At least 2,811 members of the U.S. military now have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,254 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

[DEMON CUNT]

If you voted for Bush, you voted for this.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tB1zX7JyGSE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tB1zX7JyGSE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[sadaist]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


At least 2,811 members of the U.S. military now have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,254 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.


Dang. 2,811 in 3 1/2 years. There have been many, many battles where we lost that many in a matter of hours. It was just before the right here, right now 24 hour up-to-the-second news.

I wonder if during WWII if the public's view of the war would have been different if every day we were told of the casualties as a running total.

"7,213 soldiers killed yesterday, bringing the running total to date to 137,648".

[LoungeMachine]

This isn't even close to being WWII mensa

:rolleyes:

Which soveriegn nation did we invade, overthrow, and occupy without a declaration of war in the 1940's?

Get off the FOX.

It'll rot your brain

[sadaist]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
This isn't even close to being WWII mensa

:rolleyes:

Which soveriegn nation did we invade, overthrow, and occupy without a declaration of war in the 1940's?

Get off the FOX.

It'll rot your brain



Just wondering if the public view would have been different had the media been the same then as it is now.

Korean War = 37,000
Vietnam War = 58,000

Wasn't it great when we finished the job in both of those wars and were victorious?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by sadaist
Dang. 2,811 in 3 1/2 years. There have been many, many battles where we lost that many in a matter of hours. It was just before the right here, right now 24 hour up-to-the-second news.

I wonder if during WWII if the public's view of the war would have been different if every day we were told of the casualties as a running total.

"7,213 soldiers killed yesterday, bringing the running total to date to 137,648".

In WWII, they were actually fighting for something tangible, objectives that were obvious and actually explained to the American people. Like taking over North Africa or liberating Italy for instance...

Maybe you can explain to me what we're fighting for in Iraq, specifically, since our allies are a bunch of pro-Iranian tyrants with ties to death squads that use the US military as their giant armored goon squad so they don't have to negotiate with their Sunni blood enemies. Something your "cut-and-run" spouting mongoloid Republican politician won't or can't recognize because they're too intellectually lazy or dumb..

BTW, if you really want to compare it to WWII: We fired incompetent civilian leaders/generals in WWII. We have yet to do so in the Gulf War II. There was also a draft in WWII and the civilian population was asked to make sacrifices. Pretty much every male between the ages of 18-40 was serving in some capacity, or else they were a coward or 4-F, and made fun of in either case. And yes, I'm getting tired of Chickehawks using selective WWII analogies to describe The Iraq War when they know little about either.

BTW, the average US soldier has seen far more hours/days of combat than his WWII predecessor. Maybe you can pitch in and help out?

If you want an analogy for Iraq, Vietnam fits the bill much better, or perhaps a British Colonial war of Pacification in some backward place the closest example?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Nickdfresh/chickenhawk.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by sadaist
Just wondering if the public view would have been different had the media been the same then as it is now.

Korean War = 37,000
Vietnam War = 58,000

Wasn't it great when we finished the job in both of those wars and were victorious?

What fucking history books have you read shit-for-brains? "We finished the job?"

We were victorious in Vietnam? News to me!

And Korea was sort of a tie.

Because the media's view was that the military/gov't was lying constantly about Vietnam, and Korea was unpopular, which is why Eisenhower stepped and ended it in 1953 after taking office, on a campaign promise no less...

And why don't you go out to the public library, or your local book store, and read about them, because again you know obviously little about either.

[sadaist]

Originally posted by sadaist

Wasn't it great when we finished the job in both of those wars and were victorious?


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What fucking history books have you read shit-for-brains? "We finished the job?"

We were victorious in Vietnam? News to me!

And Korea was sort of a tie.

Because the media's view was that the military/gov't was lying constantly about Vietnam, and Korea was unpopular, which is why Eisenhower stepped and ended it in 1953 after taking office, on a campaign promise no less...

And why don't you go out to the public library, or your local book store, and read about them, because again you know obviously little about either.


I thought that you, of anyone here, would know sarcasm. And what I asked about WWII was if public opinion would have been different had the media been different.




“The CNN Effect”

For the first two years of World War II, censors at the Office of War Information banned the publication of photos of dead American soldiers or sailors.

The policy was eased in 1943 to help prepare the public for the losses that lay ahead. The first US casualties seen at home were pictures of the dead on a beach in New Guinea in Life Magazine September 1943. “Graphic” images were still forbidden.

By the Vietnam era, television had replaced newsreels. The coverage was not yet live from the battlefield, but videotapes were flown back to the United States and telecast upon arrival.

When Gulf War I began on Jan. 17, 1991, CNN and ABC were broadcasting live from Baghdad. The coalition air component staff in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was watching CNN. When it went off the air abruptly, they knew the Iraqi International Telecommunications Center had been taken out.

Live television coverage of war became the norm. Casualties were no longer distant and abstract. The impact on public opinion was called “the CNN effect.”

http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2003/0603casualties.html

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by sadaist
I thought that you, of anyone here, would know sarcasm. And what I asked about WWII was if public opinion would have been different had the media been different.




“The CNN Effect”

For the first two years of World War II, censors at the Office of War Information banned the publication of photos of dead American soldiers or sailors.

The policy was eased in 1943 to help prepare the public for the losses that lay ahead. The first US casualties seen at home were pictures of the dead on a beach in New Guinea in Life Magazine September 1943. “Graphic” images were still forbidden.

By the Vietnam era, television had replaced newsreels. The coverage was not yet live from the battlefield, but videotapes were flown back to the United States and telecast upon arrival.

When Gulf War I began on Jan. 17, 1991, CNN and ABC were broadcasting live from Baghdad. The coalition air component staff in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was watching CNN. When it went off the air abruptly, they knew the Iraqi International Telecommunications Center had been taken out.

Live television coverage of war became the norm. Casualties were no longer distant and abstract. The impact on public opinion was called “the CNN effect.”

http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2003/0603casualties.html

So, do you think this is good, or bad?

[sadaist]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So, do you think this is good, or bad?

I think it's good that we are allowed to have much more freedom of the media. But I also think that the media can tend to overdo certain stories or issues. News today has to be extremely hardcore & sensationalized or people won't watch. That's why the murders & rapes are always top stories in local news.

News has become more about entertainment & ratings than anything else.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by sadaist
I think it's good that we are allowed to have much more freedom of the media. But I also think that the media can tend to overdo certain stories or issues. News today has to be extremely hardcore & sensationalized or people won't watch. That's why the murders & rapes are always top stories in local news.

Well I do agree. But one cannot blame the media for failures of politicians. I know many attempt to do this as far as Vietnam goes while ignoring what an 18-year political and military clusterfuck it was, and how the Media was actually being very mild in reagards to criticism of gov't policies there until late in the War, to the point of almost cheerleading...


News has become more about entertainment & ratings than anything else.

That's why I rarely watch local news, and decided I could never work in the local media. I think this is less true in the nightly news casts, although it is becoming more so with the promotion of bubbly zeros like Katie Couric into positions that are way over their head. I also try to read my news in papers and magazines to get far more information than a one or two minute TV "news package" can bring...

And BTW, if you can find it, there is a "Why We Fight" (http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/whywefight7.html) episode (US WWII Propaganda films) that shows US soldiers being stitched up into body bags. Its point --War is costly, and this won't be easy. Quite unlike the Admin spin from the outset of the Iraq War drive...

BTW, I wrote a paper and read several books on the "CNN-Effect," it is an effect the military can just as easily exploit to mislead as one that gets the facts and portrays the military in a bad light as some charge.

[Steve Savicki]

:( up to 100 now: http://www.yahoo.com/s/241786

[Nickdfresh]

C'mon Neocon pussy-hawks! Can only talk about Clinton and Kerry when over 101 US servicemen have died in Iraq this month (a two-year high!).