Uh-oh looks like Congress got "tombstoned" -what's wrong with this report?

[underpants]

Read below. I am reminded of Sam Kinison "Say it! SAY IT!"



Kevin Kamps, left, and Matthew Zawisky, right, members of Essential Action, a Washington-based anti-war organization, hold down an inflatable tombstone with the names of the U.S. servicemen who have been killed in the 100 days since President Bush (news - web sites) declared an end to major combat in Iraq (news - web sites), during a demonstration in front of the Capital Building, Friday, Aug. 8, 2003 in Washington. Since Bush announced an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1, 56 soldiers have died in combat. The total combat casualties in the war has climbed to 170, 23 more than died in the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

[DagmarK]

1. And in Gulf War 1 -- the Iraqis actually FIRED BACK!!

More casualties in this war that was never a war since the Iraqis didn't even shoot back -- or anything that could be considered "shooting back".

Amazing when you think about it......

[underpants]

2. I'd say the Iraqis fired back more in this one

That's not what I was going for.

In Gulf1 a vast majority of the casualties were probably friendly fire. The Iraqis just beat feet out of Kuwait(you'll have to forgive me if this is wrong as I was in the Army in Germany and our information was very limited).

[arcane1]

3. this article cooks the casualty books a bit

depends on what the meaning of "combat" is.... :eyes:

[underpants]

4. Right they are finding ways to keep the number low

51 in "combat" since "Mission Accomplished"
170 "combat" total

and I believe 253 TOTAL.

To not report all three numbers is SPIN!

[arcane1]

5. correction:

to not report all 3 numbers is a treasonous lie!!!!

:grr:

[underpants]

7. Okay...............

Not to be grizzly about this but what about the suicides?

[SoCalDem]

6. If it happened in Iraq or in that area in support of the war

it's combat related.. IMHO..