Submit your site


   Login
 
 
Forum Rules
  • Please refer to the Forum Rules Amended section for additional rules and modifications.
  • This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
  • Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
  • All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
  • Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
  • No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
  • Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists.
Subject: Why Isn't This Front Page News?
Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author Messages
Gunrights
Posts:672
Senior User
Senior User
Online Status:User is Offline
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

01/16/2008 2:35 PM  

Top of Form

If US casualties were up 80% don’t you think that would be front page news?


Iraq Casualties in December Down 80 Percent From Year Ago
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 16, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Combat-related U.S. casualties in Iraq were 82.9 percent less in December 2007 than they were in December 2006, according to an exclusive Cybercast News Service analysis of Defense Department data.

In December 2006, according to an analysis based on casualty reports released by the Defense Department, 82 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq as a result of enemy action. In December 2007, 14 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq as a result of enemy action. (Overall in December 2006, 90 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq, including not only those killed by enemy action but also those who died in non-combat-related accidents and for other reasons. In December 2007, 19 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq overall, including those who died for non-combat-related reasons.)

U.S. combat-related casualties in Iraq in December were the fewest of any month since March 2006.

At a Heritage Foundation forum last week, U.S. officials and national security experts credited the improving situation in Iraq to General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, for conceiving and implementing an effective counter-insurgency strategy, and to President Bush for following through with it.

Not everyone in the White House was keen on the troop surge, Mark Kimmitt, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Middle East Affairs, said during his presentation. He said some argued against a heightened U.S. military presence because they believed the troops would be exposed to escalating violence.

"No one last December 󞪆] had any idea we would see a Sunni awakening movement of such great scope and with such great effectiveness," he said. "No one expected the brilliant successes of our special forces against Al Qaeda in general. We have done better at the local level than we expected. But worse at the national level...The challenge for 2008 will be to link up these local efforts to the central government in a way that strengthens the latter while preserving the maximum space for local initiative."

 

You are not authorized to post a reply.
Forums > Local Personal Posts > A CALL TO ACTION! > Why Isn't This Front Page News?



ActiveForums 3.7
Sponsors
United Computer Service, Networking, Computer Repair, Virus Removal, Data Recovery
Advertise Here - 120x120