799 Pictures - Faces of the Fallen, US Soliders, IRAQ - pics
 

That link has all the pictures of every us soldier that has died in Iraq since the war(799)

Do you still like Bush?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...fthefallen.htm

you expected no one to die in the war? i dont remember reading that in the recruiting office. "JOIN THE ARMY, ITS SAFE AND THERES NO CHANCE OF GETTING KILLED."

Sad.

this is very sad :(

That is really sad. It makes my stomach turn every time I turn on the news and someone else was killed. :(

Go team Bush...:feels-hot

Very sad shit

But more than expected however. I bet this still is not enough for Bush jr to feel vengeanced for imaginary murderous assault on his father. He gonna to kill much more the US and IRAQI guys to feel better. :321GFY

So many young people with their future ahead of them. What a waste.
But I'm sure Bush will justify it somehow. In his own pathetic way.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/22/bush.fall/

Very sad. :(

I think the collateral damage count is about 15X the US soldier death count.

I wonder if Bush & Co will have figured out a reason for the invasion by the time the serious campaigning starts....

:rasta

sad daily news... it`s time to spot this useless war:feels-hot

RIP :(

Too bad bush did not break his neck when he fell off his bike:feels-hot

People die in wars there isn't anything that you can do about that. Fewer people have died in the war then on sept 11.

It is sad that our soldiers die, but damn people the US was attacked and we need to go after every terrorist and rogue regime there is. I was in the Army myself, I knew the risks of what I was doing. Oh BTW, I do support Kerry.

so true

they didn't list my buddies that died in Europe ( NO WAR ) and they died all the time in the1960's. They died from, jumping out of planes, POV accidents, military Vehicle accidents, shooting each while on gaurd duty (had live ammo) German killing' em, all kinds of shit went on.

I never never saw anyone list' em.

I have never seen them list all that are **NOW** killed by accidents and believe me there are a lot more than you would think

so what's you point

True enough.. these are all volunteers.

are you shocked that people die in war?

If the millions of Iraqis are able to form a stable democratic government where they and their children and their childrens children can prosper and live in peace then it will be worth it. If that happens and it influences other nations in the region to do likewise than it's even more worth it. I'm hoping for the best but it's too early to tell if it will turn out to be worth it at this point.

now hears a person that has there head screwed on right.

Thinking of other people.

So many on this board don't. they have an agenda or/and if in the USA are scared 2 fucking death they will bring back the draft.
I know what we called' em when i was that age.

jas1552 my hat goes off 2 you :thumbsup :thumbsup

Yes I do and he has my vote in November again.

What is your point?

Now here's a person who's a child or a dreamer or just not very educated.

Those people died for nothing, it will not make the world a safer place, it will not stop terrorism, there were no WMDs, it will not bring a stable goverment in that area, it will not improve the US economy, more people will die and more will hate the US because of it.

Being patriotic does not mean supporting the wrong actions of the leader.

Supporters of invasion of Iraq, name one positive thing to come out of it.

Sad.

those people chose to join the army...and i dont think it would be very appropriate to throw john kerry into this middle of this mess right now - keep bush in there and let him settle his own problems. :2 cents:

Sadly, I think these fucktards think well we've got 49,000 more to go till we get near Vietnam's tally so we're still good to go.

This is how "Blameless" the coalition think they are.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3739561.stm

Are they scared of the war crimes trials?

To me numbers are numbers, when I see the faces it's pretty sad.

Some are so young.

if you check the causes of death a very large number of soldiers got killed in accidents (a lot of them having to do with vehicles) or died due to health issues.

Now exactly how do you know that? Do you have a crystal ball? Or are you just making assumptions or is this just what you hope?

thats sad :(

if you like the life your living now, we must do things which cost the lives of our military to protect it...

would you rather see death in iraq, or on the streets of the U.S.

Obesity Causes 300,000 Deaths A Year

Do you still like your burger?

Does Bush?

I will bet you that my predictions are closer to the truth than anything that Bush tells you.

People are also forgetting the thousands of Iraqis killed or don't the innocent count? The soldiers had guns and, as rightly pointed out, enlisted in the army. How many Iraqis had guns and enlisted?

1) No more Saddam
2) No more wondering if he had WMB or not
3) A chance of stablibilty in that region instead of no chance at all.
Sorry I was only going to post one thing.

Do you really believe invading Iraq, killing thousands of innocent Muslims and abusing Muslims will stop Muslim terrorists.

You remember those people, the type of people who believe strapping a bomb to themselves and walking into a shopping centre is a pathway to heaven.

Invading Afghanistan was right and did send the right message to terrorists. Invading Iraq was wrong and sent the wrong message.

How many did Saddam kill? How many died from malnutrition because Saddam kept all money including oil for food money for himself and his "friends"? How many have been saved from death from malnutrition since the war? How many would Saddam have continued killing had he not been removed? Is this number less than, greater than, or equal to the number that will end up being killed in the war? If a stable democracy does take hold are the millions of lives improved immediately and billions over many generations worth the thousands of US and Iraqi deaths?

Another thing going back to your previous post where you say there were no WMDs. How do you know that? Just because none (except the one sarin filled artillery shell and one mustard gas filled artillery shell) have been found? You don't know. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Hell I didn't even mention all the maimings carried out by Saddams thugs. I guess those should be taken into account as well.

So the reason to invade Iraq killing thousands was to stop Saddam killing thousands?

Abscence of proof is not proof of existance either. What is true is Bush did not have a clue where they were or proof they existed. He invaded on a hunch. Great President you got your self this time.

Stop clutching at straws and come up with a good reason for killing thousands of innocent people please.

oh no not another political thread. its saturday night, geez.

And I did not mention all the wounded either.

Good point, midnight to 4 oclock on a Saturday in the US and all these youngsters are sat at a computer.

My excuse is it's 8.00 in the morning here, I'm 50+ and just got home. :1orglaugh

I didn't mention motives and can't say for sure what Bush's motives were. His motives might or might not be what he said they were. All that matters is actions taken and the results of those actions. Why it's done (while it might be nice to know) we can't know for sure unless we're mind readers and doesn't seem very relevant anyway.

As for WMD: We know he had them because he used them in the past. We know he didn't account for them all. We don't know where they are now or what happened to them. The burden of proof was on Saddam. He had to prove he didn't have them. Not the other way around. He didn't live up to his obligations under the ceasefire agreement and several UN resolutions.

Admirable, but naive...

The US has spent 80-odd years systematically ensuring the instability of middle East. At times it has read like a cheap thriller, such as during the Iran-Iraq war when the US provided financial and practical assistance to both sides. So first you have to believe that there has been a complete 180 degree turn in US foreign policy for the region.

Second, almost every Arab country is ruled more harshly than westerners are used to, not only because there is no tradition of democracy, but primarily because most of these countries are divided into religious and tribal groupings that can only be held together with a firm hand. Iraq is one of the most divided of all: not exactly an obvious place for experiments in social engineering to have an likelihood of success.

IMO the biggest lie we have been told about what we are doing in Iraq, is the claim that we are there to bring democracy to the country. The reason is simply that 60% of the people are Shi'ite moslems who have Iran as their spiritual home. The idea that the US would allow Iraq to fall under the sway of Iran is ludicrous. That would put the 2nd and 4th largest oil reserves into the hands of anti-American, moslem extremists. There is no way, if the US has any say, Iraq will be allowed democracy in any sense that we understand the word.

good post jayeff

So it seems you are happy Bush went to war and killed thousands on reasons he does not give.

Hans Blix was searching for WMDs and came up empty handed all the time, Bush went in because another year of Blix coming up empty handed would of made Bush look like a war monger.

But way too intelligent for some here.

They think Bush is going to change 3,000 years of culture in a few years. Naive is not quite the right word to describe that.

I think it's clear that there has been a change in mid east policy after 9/11.

No country has a tradition of democracy until they start one. There have been polls that showed Iraqis want democracy even if they don't trust the US to give it to them. I am optimistic that it can work. Whether it will work or not no one can say but for the sake of Iraqis we should all hope it does.

There are ways to set up a system so that no single group has all the power. There has been at least one poll showing only a small minority want the type of government Iran has so I don't think that would be much of an issue. The poll results are below.

the story - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...raq-poll_x.htm

part 1 of the poll results - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-findings2.htm

part 2 of the poll results - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...indings2-2.htm

sad... thats a big list