U.S. Troops Wounded May 1, 2003 - 542
U.S. Troops Wounded Today- 24,912
U.S. Troops Killed May 1, 2003 - 139
U.S. Troops Killed Today-3,351
Bush’s Overall Job Approval May 1st 2003 71%
Bush’s Overall Job Approval Today 28%
2007-05-01 07:18:49 · 10 answers · asked by NONAME 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
stepped on the Third Rail-
That is an old lie you are using and has been debunked 2 years ago when that first crap was reported by FOX NEWS.
stepped on the Third Rail! STOP LIEING YOU ARE CAUSING MORE AMERICAN DEATHS
2007-05-01 07:25:26 · update #1
No, they are definitely not correct!
Bush's approval should have been 1% now.
Hey, "stepped on the third rail" . I do not even know why I am replying to your post , since you are affected by stepping on the stird rail. Your stats are completely wrong. Never mind immoral. Did you count Iraqis into it? Even without Iraqis you do not make sense! Dc homicide rate is actually 37 in 2006. US troops is 560 per 100k
2007-05-01 07:22:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, but this is taken out of context the mission Bush referred to was the War which was essentially over, with the fall of the government. This was the most efficient and effective war ever to be fought, taking a mater of weeks.
The rebuilding and reestablishment of government has been the long road, I'm sure partly of the efficiency of the war which required less troops then in the past and a lot less initial fighting. But partly due to the fact citizens are afraid to stand up and help out, because they don't know if we will be around to protect them.
Before you say we shouldn't have to, keep in mind we still have troops in Germany from WWII, Korean from the Korean War, and Japan from WWII. Why should Iraqi, a country that desperately needs the stability we can bring be any different?
What is worse not helping someone you can, or abandoning them after you try?
2007-05-01 14:41:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How many innocent women and childern or old people are there in Iraq wounded or who have died? How many more deaths will it take before enough people say enough killing it is time to heal? When will people realize that the reason the terrorists are in Iraq is that they are told we are infidels on sacred land. Once we leave that sacred land what happens to their excuse? Once we are no longer, with the rest of the world I might add, buying their oil, how long before they start making nice and begging us to come to the vacation spots along the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea? They want to live in the 14th Century and our presence there is preventing that from happening. So let's let them settle their own differences as they have done for over 3000 years and we take care of our own business at home. We have plenty to handle right here.
2007-05-01 14:35:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in Washington D.C.(among others) is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our nation?s capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Maybe we should pull out of DC
I served my country. What have you given? Your opinion??? Pick up a rifle and stand a post. Then criticize the freedom you have to run your nasty manpleaser.
BTW we lost 27,909 Marines and Navy at IWO Jima. One battle in World War II. We should have just given up. Good thing we decided to stick it out huh?
Ok The stats may or may not be wrong...The point is that this is just another attack on our leadership. Is it not? It's almost as if we are protecting the enemy. These people are gathering oil workers and lining them up and shooting them, they are chopping of reporters heads, they are raping women because they are a different religion. We are their only hope. Do you disagree? If you care about the deaths of people, why doesn't the senseless killing the insurgents carry out on a daily basis factor into your equation? Do you think we will leave and rose gardens will pop up all over Bagdhad?
2007-05-01 14:22:55 · answer #4 · answered by stepped on the Third Rail 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Step on the third rail posted a answer copied word for word from this site which list no source whatsoever.
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/2005/iraq.html
I found 26.9 / 100 000 in 2003 from this website.
http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=profile&category=Health+Status&subcategory=Deaths+due+to++Firearms&topic=Firearms+Death+Rate+per+100%2c000&link_category=&link_subcategory=&link_topic=&welcome=0&from=none&area=District+of+Columbia
2007-05-01 14:37:14 · answer #5 · answered by truckin_with_christ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like to see the numbers for the same amount of time during World War Two. That would be interesting to see.
2007-05-01 14:27:54 · answer #6 · answered by mikehunt29 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps his mission was to initiate a quagmire that would drain the American military and create a huge budget deficit...
2007-05-01 14:22:47 · answer #7 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your wounded count is off
The VA posted 55K last week
2007-05-01 14:27:13 · answer #8 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the republican base would vote a chimpanzee in office if it had republican stamped on its forhead..oh wait they did vote for one..BUSH!!!
2007-05-01 14:25:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No there not correct, you omitted all the dead terrorists.
2007-05-01 14:22:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋