" November U.S. death toll in Iraq has approached the highest for any month since the U.S. invaded the country in 20 March 2003.

About 133 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq only in November —the second time to topple 100 in any month. However, April was the deadliest, as 135 U.S. troops died in battles in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, same city where 133 U.S. troops died this month.

The Pentagon's official death toll for Iraq stood at 1,251 on Monday.

A key factor that increased combat casualties was the latest U.S.-led assault in Fallujah.

Combat injuries also increased this month as a result of fierce battles in Fallujah.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington said on Monday that it has received 32 additional casualties from Iraq over the past two weeks. All 32 had been treated earlier at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the Army's main hospital in Europe.

Speaking to a Pentagon press conference last week, Rumsfeld said that the kinds and amount of weapons that were found in Fallujah over the past weeks showed that the Iraqi resistance fighters pose a serious threat.

"No doubt attacks will continue in the weeks and months ahead, and perhaps intensify as the Iraqi election approaches," Rumsfeld said, referring to national elections scheduled for Jan. 30. "

Very sad. Hope Bush can take responsibility on the other side.

Source : http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_s ... ce_id=5847

Well, it is a war and during a war people usually get killed, right?

Way to go?

Can someone post the number of Iraq deaths, both military and civilian.

Yes! In your face previous record holder!!

USA! USA!

It's a war that was declared over by the Bush administration 18 months ago.

You, of all people, should know better than to post this.

This "joke" stopped being funny 18 months ago.

For those interested, here's the site documenting U.S. casualties: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... _nov04.htm

http://www.iraqbodycount.org documents civilian casualties.

Is it true that non combat fatalities don't count towards the grand total?

I think any solider who offs themselves in the midst of war should have their death count.

Very sad. At least we know what our men and women are dying for...erm...thats right, we dont

True, but I think thats a little harsh. If your house and family were to be blown up and killed in a "war," and I said "Sorry buddy, but thats what happens in war" I would assume you would be a little offended

"Only dead see the end of war"

Plato

The lack of sympathy would be offending, yeah. But I am talking about the general situation and that is that people there are in war and during a war people die, therefore I don't see anything surprising here. Actually Americans should be happy we are not living many decades ago when the wars weren't all technical with the most modern techniques and missiles etc., when the wars were actually men vs. men. The losses would have been much higher.

I see what your saying. Are you in support of the war? What about others in Germany?

I am in a definite minority over here. The rest, you can guess

Im guessing you are FOR the war?

A lot of people don't understand the nature of the losses and make comparisons to old days of higher body counts. What they are either forgetting or leaving out is that family sizes used to be much larger.

Benjamin Franklin as one example had something like 15+ siblings. Over time the family size got less extreme with the amount of kids but still even 50 or 80 years ago families were larger. When a family of 6 kids loses one, it is a tragedy to them but they are much more capable of healing over it than a family of one or two kids who loses one, which is the situation we face today. War in the era of low birthrates is a different thing from old fashioned wars.

As to miilitary quotes, here's a good one that is appropriate to Iraq and the problems of this never ending war:

"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Indeed

Even though I was certain from the beginning that the weapons of mass destruction haven't been in Iraq in first place.

^^^Interesting :wink:

Keep in mind, Bush keeps Germany's economy alive with the war.

He wastes so much money on it, that the Euro exchange rate just keeps rising in comparison to the US-$.

Thats why you are for this war? So you could think its unjustified but still support it because it keeps your economy "alive"?

I think the war is unjustified by the reasons that Bush gave to people. It is not. And I do not believe that the primary intention was to "liberate the nation". There are plenty of nations to be liberated worldwide and yet, somehow, the USA doesn't care about them.

I support the war for other reasons, than the one I have mentioned. The economy thing is just a bonus that results from the war and to be honest, I am also happy that Kerry lost, because he would have most likely gotten Germany into rebuiling Iraq. I say: "If you bombed it, then you should rebuild it, not we". With the economical problems we have to face right now, something like that would just hurt the country even more.

As for the war itself, I supported it because I have always been convinced that Saddam has to go one way or another. So at least he has gone this way. Better than if he hadn't gone at all. And despite having no WMD in Iraq, I am still pretty convinced of the fact that Iraq is a part of the terrorism network and supports the terorists in one way or another. Maybe not as evidently as it may seem. The Saddam thing has been a primary reason, though, for me to support the war. Right now, however, the war started to seem a bit pointless, but the USA wouldn't look good if they took back the troops, therefore it's understandable that they are still there hunting down the couple of rebels that are still there and pretending like there are still big goals to be reached over there.

Excuse me, but that's bullshit. You could make a valid case that the U.S. casualties number is high, but this is most definitely not it.

We have 1200 people dead In Iraq.

In WW2 50 million people died, half a million of whom were American.

In WW1 millions of people died, over 100,000 of whom were American.

In Civil War the casualties eclipsed 600,000.

In the more recent Vietnam War 60,000 Americans died.

The higher birth rates will not make up for these numbers.

The modern warfare IS focused with minimizing the death toll, both from the military and the civilian perspective, and as unfortunate as war is, we should be grateful for that.

3.9% real growth vs. 1% real growth.

Have fun with the high-value Euro ;-)

We should be grateful that thousands of civilians have died instead of millions?
Either way its innocent people Krem