LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Meanwhile, Bush reached an unwelcome record. By 64%-31%, Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they "strongly disapprove" of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.

sohotrightnow wrote:We are winning the war! Bring em on!

OAKS wrote: Mission Accomplished, heh

The noticeable drop in U.S. and Iraqi deaths in recent months follows a 30,000-strong U.S. force buildup, along with a six-month cease-fire order by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, among other factors. There were 39 deaths in October, compared to 65 in September and 84 in August.

At the end of the day - the combined number of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan in over 4 years of combat wouldn't surpass a few days during WW1, WW2, or the Civil War.

I suppose you got these "facts" from the NY Times or some other liberal rag. Please check www.foxnews.com. I don't see anything about it being the deadliest month in Iraq mentioned on that site. The liberal media strikes again! No wonder their ratings are down the tubes! All they do is spread lies! We are winning the war! Bring em on!

U.S. credits troop buildup, but residents and observers say homogenization has brought relative calm.

By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 1, 2007

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's civilian body count in October was less than half that at its height in January, reflecting both the tactical successes of this year's U.S. troop buildup and the lasting impact of waves of sectarian death squad killings, car bombings and neighborhood purges.

October also marked the lowest monthly death toll for American troops, 36 fatalities, since March 2006, when 31 were killed, according to icasualties.org.

American commanders credit the buildup, which reached full strength in June, with slowing sectarian bloodshed.

They say the decision to send 28,500 more troops to Iraq has made a difference by allowing them to send soldiers to live on the fault lines between Sunni Arab and Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad, and to conduct sweeping offensives in provinces east and south of the capital against strongholds of Shiite Muslim militias and Sunni militants linked to foreign insurgents.

Sonny wrote:

OAKS wrote: Mission Accomplished, heh

And the flip side of the discussion is that the surge is working. Casualties in Iraq per month are on a rapid decline.

The noticeable drop in U.S. and Iraqi deaths in recent months follows a 30,000-strong U.S. force buildup, along with a six-month cease-fire order by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, among other factors. There were 39 deaths in October, compared to 65 in September and 84 in August.

At the end of the day - the combined number of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan in over 4 years of combat wouldn't surpass a few days during WW1, WW2, or the Civil War.

But the AP would have you believe we are losing soldiers faster in Iraq then we did during the Battle of the Bulge with their constant reminders of "grim milestones." I guess if the message fits the liberal media's agenda...

Beta wrote:In WWII you could point out where the Nazi's were on a global map, along with Japan.

Not so much with Iraq...it's on a surface street map...under mosques, hospitals, etc etc.

Sonny wrote:

U.S. credits troop buildup, but residents and observers say homogenization has brought relative calm.

By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 1, 2007

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's civilian body count in October was less than half that at its height in January, reflecting both the tactical successes of this year's U.S. troop buildup and the lasting impact of waves of sectarian death squad killings, car bombings and neighborhood purges.

October also marked the lowest monthly death toll for American troops, 36 fatalities, since March 2006, when 31 were killed, according to icasualties.org.

American commanders credit the buildup, which reached full strength in June, with slowing sectarian bloodshed.

They say the decision to send 28,500 more troops to Iraq has made a difference by allowing them to send soldiers to live on the fault lines between Sunni Arab and Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad, and to conduct sweeping offensives in provinces east and south of the capital against strongholds of Shiite Muslim militias and Sunni militants linked to foreign insurgents.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-violence1nov01,1,2958691.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

But it (impeachment) became a partisan issue yesterday once Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) moved to table Kucinich's resolution. Hoyer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have said they will not back such symbolic gestures, for fear of burnishing Congress's current do-nothing image.

During the subsequent vote, Republicans were far along toward helping kill the resolution when they began switching their "yes" votes to "no's," clearly hoping for a public debate that would have showcased the Democrats' most vocal lefties.

But in the end, Hoyer settled for sending the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. There it is destined for oblivion.

Sonny wrote:

Beta wrote:In WWII you could point out where the Nazi's were on a global map, along with Japan.

Not so much with Iraq...it's on a surface street map...under mosques, hospitals, etc etc.

Which makes the accomplishments of our military over there even more impressive. Never before have we faced an enemy like this and never before has the US Military covered so much terrain with such little casualties.