When the delegates to the Republican National Convention arrive in New York City next week it won’t just be the hotel concierge that knows where they’re staying.
The Washington, DC chapter of the leftist Independent Media Center has published a list of personal information on over 1600 delegates to the Republican National Convention on its web site. The list included names, home addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and the hotels in which the delegates will be staying when they came to New York. The reasons they give for releasing the information are rather chilling:
We have verified much of this data, expanded upon it, and republished it more broadly.
Our objectives are to:
- Supply anti-RNC groups with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit.
- Supply a body of information that can be easily added to.
- Encourage the republishing and redistribution of this data.
- Facilitate making local connections. Many of these delegates are involved in politics and business on a town or county level. [emphasis added]
The "whatever way they see fit" becomes even more ominious considering the fact that these objectives follow this rant:
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, the self-appointed managers of the world will be discussing their party platform of racism, imperialism and the violent suppression of human liberty. They will proudly renominate the unelected president of an illegitimate government. For the past four years, in the United States, we have seen a terrifying increase in racism against Arabs and Muslinms, (sic) the passage of the draconian USA PATRIOT Act, handouts to the rich that would make Reagan blush, millions of lost jobs, and an accelerated continuation of the war against the poor and the oppressed. Abroad, the Empire has claimed the stage of history as its own, even ignoring many of its old imperial allies, invaded two sovereign states, started a bogus “War on Terror”, overseen a coup in Haiti, attempted to overthrow the Venezuelan government, overseen, aided, and authorized the brutal and illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, and generally accelerated and intensified an already belligerent imperial system of domination which threatens the Earth and all its peoples. In short, the violent expansion of this rotten system is on one side, and all of us on the other. We view the Republican Party as one of the most important organizations of the ruling class. [see note]
What makes this particular disturbing is that the political left has been increasingly open to calls for violent protest. Even those on the left are disturbed by what may lay in store for New York. "The potential for violence is worrisome, and the potential to have it boomerang against progressive policies is great," says John Passacantando, the executive director of Greenpeace USA. "People watching this convention will be judging the Bush administration on its policies, but they will also be judging the people in the streets."
And when Bill Millard, a New York writer and musicisn, posted a suggestion on an anti-RNC listserve that activists should respond to the media's fear mongering by pledging, "publicly, loudly, with absolute seriousness -- to avoid and repudiate idiotic actions like triggering blackouts, harming horses, etc.” he was met with derision:
"Denouncing violence is the equivalent of attempting to minutely define who makes up a NoRNC coalition that's actually quite diverse and hard to pin down," wrote Eric Laursen, a member the A31 coalition, a group calling for direct action against the RNC on Aug. 31. "It just complicates the story for a corporate media that can't handle much in the way of subtleties."
Rather than repudiate violence, the direct-action faction of the anti-RNC movement is trying to convince the media that violence is solely the fault of the police. "The best way to address this stuff is by working really hard in advance to use a little rhetorical jujitsu, pushing the violence issue back at the cops -- where it belongs," Laursen wrote.
In 2000, political cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall wrote an article for Mother Jones in which he expressed his dismay at his fellow leftists refusal to accept the inevitable, “Lefties just don't seem to get this fundamental truth of politics: Not only has there never been a revolution without violence, but there's never been meaningful social change without violence or at least the threat thereof.” Rall’s call to arms was written before the world’s attention shifted from globalization to global terrorism. But the anti-globalization protestors are ready to take the stage again, reinvigorated by the anti-war mood on the left. They are ready for a return to the type of action that that resulted in the "Battle for Seattle."
Many of the radicals have the same sentiment as Jason Flores-Williams, a political writer at High Times Magazine, who dreams of "a total expression of seething hatred that will go down in history as a moment in time when people stood up to the worst administration we've ever had." With such "seething hatred" for Bush and the Republicans the next violent attack on New York may be imminent. This time, though, it may look less like September 2001 and more like August ’68.
[Note: I didn't provide a link to this quote because the list of delegates is still accessible. I was able to download the list and verify that it did contain the information listed, though not in an extremely detailed format.]
(Hat tip: The Vatican of Liberalism)
Hmmm. When has a violent and unrestrained revolution ever succeeded? Or, for that matter, when a call to arms ever produced anything of value without first trying peaceful means, which are made exceedingly easier by the fact that they live in a free society where they are spouting off this garbage and making a "call to arms" without so much as inconvenieced by the police. Yeah, real oppressive...
I delight in this release of information from the very people who have the audacity to excoriate the Patriot Act for its privacy clauses. Can you imagine a government full of these people? Exposure is exactly the prescription! What an astonishing bunch of rabid hypocrites.
I think a lot of people don't comprehend the ideological shift that the DNC went through after the fall of the old Soviet Empire, from Stalinist-Maoist socialism to Fascist Gramscian socialism.
It is hard to exagerate how hate-filled these people are, and how much they believe in using violence and any other means, to achieve the triumph of their group will to power.
The media coverage of all this could be an asset for the GOP if there really is such a confab of extremists outside the convention hall. Definitely a "bring 'em on" moment potentially.
One of the major themes running through the progressive ideological organs is that they represent the true majority in the U.S. This is fairly ubiquitous. These goofballs could upset that whole applecart.
I have seen nothing that indicates that this is a DNC sponsored event. Why do you assume they are Democrats? Are you actually stereotyping the DNC? Wow, a whole new "ism". What shall we call it? "Partyism", "Fringism"?
No doubt some of this lot are Dem's, but I would guess that a lot more are Communist, Socialist, Anarchist etc. The usual suspects.
And being "anti-Bush" isn't the same thing as being a Democrat. Let's face it, regardless of what you think of the man, Bush has not been a "uniter" as his 2000 campaign claimed. He has pissed off a lot of people, and a lot of them aren't Democrats.
Of course it's to the GOP's interest to portray nutty left fringe groups as the heart and soul of the DNC.
Just as it's to the DNC's benefit to portray the right fringe groups of the GOP, such as the Christian Nazi militias, the Abortion bombers, etc. as being an example of the heart and soul of the GOP.
There's plenty enough of nuts around that you don't need to go claiming that the other party stole your share.
Patrick, considering that the would-be first lady is -funding- some of these things, that Robert "Third" Reich and Ted Kennedy have effectively called for the removal of Christians from the political process (at the very least, they seem to favor Gitmo), yeah, I would say the DNC. And not just them, but a whole lot of the Democrat Party, though not in particular the farmers and blue collar workers who are hoping that someone will give them hope in this life.
FYI: Something about the "protesters" that you guys might want to take a look at:
http://www.smartmobs.com/archives/003750.html
Of course, you can--and should--also read the rest of the blog; despite some...[political] biases, it's a great source on information technology developments and how it relates to politics, culture, etc.
Patrick,
Not that you care, but Christian and Nazi are mutually exclusive terms. Are you prepared to say that Senator Ted Kennedy, Robert "Third" Reich, and at least one of the speakers at the Dem national convention are 'fringe'?
"Not that you care, but Christian and Nazi are mutually exclusive terms."
They may be to you, but they are not to everybody. Quite a few German Nazi's, for example.
As for whether I care, of course I do. Otherwise I wouldn't post on it.
Of course y'all are still bound and determined that I should see anyone who doesn't like Bush as the Devil Incarnate, instead of pissed-off indivuals. You know, people. Stop putting everyone into clever little categories, and turning real, honest, human beings into a "them" that can be more easily judged and hated.
I love the blindness of their rhetoric...
"the draconian USA PATRIOT Act"
These people don't have a clue what it is like to live under a truly draconian regime (nor do I) I doubt any of them could even tell you what is in the Patriot Act, only that they are against it.
This would be funny, or at least sad, if it weren't for the very real chance that one of these long haired hippie wannabees might actually do something crazy.
BTW Patrick, it seems the folks on the Left are the ones who are categorizing people as fascists and threatening violence against them.
I love the blindness of their rhetoric...
"the draconian USA PATRIOT Act"
These people don't have a clue what it is like to live under a truly draconian regime (nor do I) I doubt any of them could even tell you what is in the Patriot Act, only that they are against it.
This would be funny, or at least sad, if it weren't for the very real chance that one of these long haired hippie wannabees might actually do something crazy.
BTW Patrick, it seems the folks on the Left are the ones who are categorizing people as fascists and threatening violence against them.
"I doubt any of them could even tell you what is in the Patriot Act, only that they are against it."
Arthur, just because you'd give you up your Constitutional rights without hesitation because a bunch of fundie Bible-thumpers told you that if you didn't, a bunch of fundie Koran-thumpers would "come to get you" doesn't mean that those of us who aren't a bunch of cowardly diaper-wearing paranoid goosesteppers are any less patriotic than you. On the contrary, I love America and I look forward to loving it even more once we've removed the Notorious Stains from its highest offices.
Funny thing about these protesters. I marched with a few hundred thousand of them to protest the War on Iraq. I saw very few hippies and even fewer anarchists (maybe a a couple hundred people at most whose goal was to distract the cops and generate chaos for a few hours). Most of the people I saw were working class and professional men and women, with quite a few retired grandmas and grandpas thrown in. But the funny thing: most people, including quite a few conservatives and even neo-conservatives, now agree that WE WERE RIGHT.
In the same way, I'm sure that history will show that I am right when I say that George W. Bush is the Worst President Ever and that the corruption and incompetence at the core of this Administration is only now beginning to be exposed.
"This would be funny, or at least sad, if it weren't for the very real chance that one of these long haired hippie wannabees might actually do something crazy."
Yeah, we all know how politically violent hippies are. Remember Kent State when those hippies killed a bunch of Reservists?
Remember the skkkummy hippies that were bussed by the RNC into Florida to intimidate the vote-counters there? Who can forget that.
Patrick, the NAZIs or National Socialists, held to the ideology of fascism, which can be described in the following related three points:
1) The absolute rejection of any concept of a transcendant objective, signified.
2) The rejection of the concept of personal responsiblity as a bourgouis and 'Jewish' notion.
3) That thus the summum bonum (greatest good) is the group will to power.
This is a deliberate inversion of the Judaeo-Christian weltanschauung.
We believe in the transcendent objective, signified, both the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ Himself.
We believe in personal responsibility before the face of God -- Corum Deo.
We reject the will to power as the cardinal sin, whether individual(Libertarian) or group (fascism).
So you see, Patrick, a Christian cannot be a fascist, and vica versa, they are intentionally definitionally antithetical.
I seriously question if the 1500 GOP delegates are all or even majority in favor of the Infamous Act. I suspect that most of them, like the Representatives and Senators who signed the beast into law, have never read it.
Arthur, the only reason you don't see the draconian nature of the Infamous Act, is that we have a President who doesn't typically use it against the populace. For all that is wrong with the doppelganger pretending to be Senator Ashcroft, he is no Janet Reno, and Bush is no Hilary Clinton, Robert Reich or Ted Kennedy. Else political opponents would all be disappeared, instead of arguing on blogs.
"For all that is wrong with the doppelganger pretending to be Senator Ashcroft, he is no Janet Reno, and Bush is no Hilary Clinton, Robert Reich or Ted Kennedy. Else political opponents would all be disappeared, instead of arguing on blogs."
Ashcroft is beyond worthless at this point, after having overplayed his hand three for times too many and been busted doing so. On the other hand, given the chance to serve a second term without having to worry about electability, Gob knows what crap he'd pull. Probably he'd like to put a burka on the Statue of Liberty (cuz you can kinda see the shape of her rack under the robe she's wearing now).
"Arthur, the only reason you don't see the draconian nature of the Infamous Act, is that we have a President who doesn't typically use it against the populace."
Hahahahahhaahahahahahah. As if our President would let us know how he's using it. What a joke, puzzled. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. After you leave your home, I'll drop in for a little "sneak-and-peak", if you get my drift, which you probably don't.
Larry,
Before I start, look at this: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?vote_id=3110
I shall ask you the same question that I ask everyone I hear opining about the alleged draconian Patriot Act.
What specific provision of the act do you object to?
Hahahahahhaahahahahahah.
Methinks you need to adjust your medication!
IQ: yeah, I went overboard on the "hahahas". It happens.
JBP
"What specific provision of the act do you object to?"
Let's start with the sneak and peak provision and move on from there. Fyi, I also object to the sick slick name for obvious reasons, and the fact that hardly any of our great legislators read the damn thing before they signed off. Does that not make you ill as well?
ll said:
..just because you'd give you up your Constitutional rights without hesitation because a bunch of fundie Bible-thumpers told you that if you didn't, a bunch of fundie Koran-thumpers would "come to get you"
Bush isn't or anyone in his administration I know of, is a "bible-thumper."
Either way, I'd rather have a "bible-thumper," heck even a Koran thumper, than someone who thinks he is a monkey born from slime.
But what sense does my opinion make? I actually agree with LL on the Patriot act. :)
My, but everyone's polarized here. So if a site says they're going to protest the RNC, and make a lot of vague threats, they're obviously Democrats? Get a grip. These are WTO protesters, and God knows how efficient they've been over the years (joke, folks). Now I'll admit, up front, that I'm (1) Christian (2) Democrat (3) cynical as all get out when it comes to the government. Any government. For one thing, I teach history and I've studied too much of it. But I am absolutely fascinated at how SCARED conservatives get at the idea of protest. It's like they're absolutely sure that the peasants are coming over the hill with torches to get them, personally, and they have to be stopped NOW, because they might, oh, God, they might DO something...
How much property damage has actually been done in this country by liberal protesters? Some, yes -- the Weathermen blew up part of a brownstone in NY in the 60's, and the WTO protesters smashed some windows, etc. How much property damage has been done in the process of trying to STOP liberal protesters? Quite a lot -- the firebombing of the Symbionese Liberation Army (who were complete idiots, don't even think I'm supporting them) took out most of a city block and killed some people, as did the firebombing of the Moog house in Philly, as did the firebombing of the Koresh campground in Waco. (Again, I consider all of these groups wackos, and do not support them in any way; I am merely pointing out that the process of taking them out was far more destructive than what the groups themselves had done.)
On the other hand, prior to 9-11, the worst terrorist act in this country, and the most destructive, in terms of life and property, was the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, a right-wing extremist who made his very effective protest against the government without any advance warning at all, and certainly didn't post vague rants on a super-slick website.
For a long time now Republican events have been harrassed by well orchestrated left wing groups that have no interest in meaningful dialouge. These idiots do the egg tossing/pie throwing destruction of minor property and incoherent disrespect fueled by the hatred of the right. I knowe these people do not represent the largest contingent of the DNC because the majority of people in both parties are moderate and hover close to center. I have never fathomed how the supposedly open minded (anarchists, etc) often prove themselves to be the most ugly examples of closed mindedness. Eve I was amused that you include waco in your liberal groups since they were a radical rightwing group disrupted by a liberal president/atty general.
Point is if the republicans protest and disrupt the same way they are castrated by the press. A good example is trhe swift boat ads. Kerry calls for Bush to condemn the ad and he goes a step further and condemns all 527 ads and asks Kerry to do the same...and the DNC response (msnbc 2 days ago)was that moveon.org and like orginizations are responsible for the bush bashing ads and the Kerry admin has nothing to do with it. Amazing since arent the swift boat ads a private company also?
I would like to see the RNC get the same treatment as the DNC..it is only fair.
Larry,
You may be surprised to learn that I also disagree with the slick name. Since I work with the legislature, I can tell you such names are intended to put dissenters in the position of having to say, "I am against the Patriot Act or Campaign Finance Reform." Before we even know what these things are about, the name implies that being against them is equal to being against Patriotism or Honest Campaigns.
The reason such names are wrong headed is because they detract from the substance of the issue. This is why I asked you the question, because very few people know what is in the Patriot Act.
What is so wrong with searching a premises without informing the suspect of the investigation? Such searches has been done for many years in other contexts like child pornography. The investigators still have to have a warrant. In fact, by setting standards for such a warrant, one has arguably increased oversight in the process. Is this so different from wiretapping a phone line? We don't tell the suspect we have wiretapped their phones; this would make a wiretape useless. Or, do you think wiretaps are also wrong?
"Point is if the republicans protest and disrupt the same way they are castrated by the press. A good example is trhe swift boat ads. Kerry calls for Bush to condemn the ad and he goes a step further and condemns all 527 ads and asks Kerry to do the same"
Oh please. Among other differences between the Swift Boat Ads and the MoveOn ads: (1) the Swift Boat Vets are now known to be lying sacks; (2) funding for the MoveOn ads is transparent, whereas the Swift Boat funding had to be investigated and teased apart by journalists and it took them way too freaking long as usual.
Bush's calls for a ban on all these so-called 527s is a joke and a giant flip flop (yet another one).
"Bush bashing" = criticizing the President and his FAILED policies and his INCOMPETENCE and his and his administration's continual DISSEMBLING. It's what the American people are supposed to do if they actually care about where this country is headed, as opposed to caring about how much money Halliburton is earning this quarter.
The Swift Boat Liars is just Karl Rove pissing on our democracy once again, just like he pissed on John McCain four years ago. EXACTLY like that, actually.
Larry,
I neglected to address one point.
Does that not make you ill as well?
Yes I know. This is more widespread than you know. I work with legislators. Do you have any idea of the number of pages of legislation that are considered in a year? It is impossible to expect them to read them all. And even considering the amount of legislation that is passed is deceptively small. You have to consider the amount of bills that are introduced and how frequently they are rewritten and amended. I hate to kiss and tell, but they rarely read any of the bills they pass. Sometimes, the prime sponsor does not read the bill he proposes. The crazy thing is that they frequently muck things up more when they actually read the bill. They worry about some phrase and make you replace it with some grammatically suspect language that seems to mean nothing. I remember once when a bill dealing with medical records came before a committee. One section amended the criminal sanctions provisions, but did not actually change the old sanctions. A legislator decided to score some points by increasing penalties. She proposed an amendment changing such words as misdemeanor, felony, class, etc. The committee seemed to accept the change until a representative saw me nearly soiling my shorts. He beckoned me over and we had a little conversation on the side. He asked, "so what is the penalty she proposed."
"The death penalty," I replied.
He whistled, "Kind of severe, don't you think?"
"Yes, Sir,"
Thankfully, he was able to defeat the amendment. Legislating is an impossible job.
Lawyers who work with legislators frequently quote Bismark, who said, if you like either sausage of laws, it is better not to watch them being made. People like to bag on lobbyists, but at least they read the bills that interest their clients. Frankly, without lobbyists, the system would not work.
This criticism could be leveled at nearly any law.
How can you compare the swift boat ads, with their demonstrated, factual errors, their demonstrated lies, to the Move On ads? Which MOVE-on ads are factually incorrect--not just the ones you disagree with--but the factually incorrect ones?
By the way, when my husband and I along with dozens of my working class and upper-middle class coworkers and their children marched with tens of thousands of others in NYC against Bush's war on Iraq, the media made it seem as if the march was going to be an explosion of property damage and anti-police violence. It was not. It was a peaceful, awesome event that, while it did not change Bush's course, at least it did put it out there in the world that not all Americans were frothing at the mouth to unleash bombs on the Iraqi people.
where does it say in the radicals' statements that they are advocating violence?
did they get this information from private or public sources, i.e., what it already public information. if from public sources then they did not violate anyones privacy.
>>>"I doubt any of them could even tell you what is in the Patriot Act, only that they are against it."
Arthur, just because you'd give you up your Constitutional rights without hesitation because a bunch of fundie Bible-thumpers told you that if you didn't, a bunch of fundie Koran-thumpers would "come to get you" doesn't mean that those of us who aren't a bunch of cowardly diaper-wearing paranoid goosesteppers are any less patriotic than you. On the contrary, I love America and I look forward to loving it even more once we've removed the Notorious Stains from its highest offices.>>Let's start with the sneak and peak provision and move on from there. Fyi, I also object to the sick slick name for obvious reasons, and the fact that hardly any of our great legislators read the damn thing before they signed off. Does that not make you ill as well?
LL said:
"I mean, surely you know how many Americans were killed as a result of The Chimp's Master Plan just this past month. Right? Can you tell me how many? Or have you stopped paying attention?"
And just think... the war some people are so fond of comparing the Iraq liberation to... the Vietnam War for instance(???) lasted what, about 20 years? Total number of fatalities 58,000+. We would have to be fighting in Iraq for somewhere around 110 to 150 years to reach that total at the current rate. Your scare tactic may work on children, but you have missed your target here. If Saddam paying huge benefits to suicidal terrorist bombers killing Israeli civilians is not state sponsored terrorism in your eyes, maybe you should get them checked for anti-semitism.
What did you stand to gain from leaving Iraq in Saddam's hands? What did you stand to lose from his being deposed? Can you even understand the concept of the Good Samaritan parable?
Smmtheory writes
"And just think... the war some people are so fond of comparing the Iraq liberation to... the Vietnam War for instance(???) lasted what, about 20 years? Total number of fatalities 58,000+. We would have to be fighting in Iraq for somewhere around 110 to 150 years to reach that total at the current rate."
Brilliant math, smmtheory. I'm glad you stated your assumptions re "current rate." Now, please tell me: how many US soldiers were killed during the first year of the Vietnam War?
Smmtheory, bear in mind that as of today, more soldiers were killed in Iraq in 2004 than in 2003.
from kos:
More remarkably, the 488 killed thus far this year died in just 239 days (2.04 daily average), while the 482 killed last year died during fully 287 days (1.68 daily average), which means that not only has 2004 been bloodier than 2003 in absolute terms, but in relative terms as well.
In other words, smm, it's getting worse. But I suppose you know that it will never get as bad as Vietnam, right? Is that because Bush is smarter than Lyndon Johnson, in your opinion? Or is because there are more people like me willing to tell people like you to shove it when you make stupid args like "Iraq isn't as bad as Vietnam so what are you complaining about"?
Larry,
Well, since you are so verbally abusive, I guess I am suppose to accept the fact that I have to answer your questions even though would not even consider answering my questions of you. I am fully prepared to debate the facts with you provided you practice a bit of decorum and quit raving at everybody who happens to disagree with you.
Smmtheory,
Thanks for the lecture. Unfortunately, I didn't see any relevant facts in your post. Are you admitting that you can't justify your argument that comparing the first 1000 young men and women killed in Iraq to the first 1000 young men killed in Vietnam is unfair or misleading?
Sounds like it. After you wash your pants, you're free to come back and try again.
LL,
I see you are still being abusive by spewing your bitter invective. You probably think you are sufficiently armed for a battle of wits, but you are only half right Lorry.
Very well, here is fact one for you... you still have not answered the questions I asked, so now I will assume the answers. First of all, since it would have been easy in the extreme to say you had "nothing" to gain from keeping Saddam in power, then you are either hiding something or you have just totally not thought about it. Second of all, since it would have been easy in the extreme to say you had "nothing" to lose from Saddam being deposed, then you are either hiding something or you have just not thought about it at all. Lastly, since it would have been easy in the extreme to say "Yes" that you do understand the concept in the Good Samaritan parable, then it would seem you do not understand it. Since I am going to be generous to you (unlike you to me), I am going to assume that you are not hiding anything, you just have not given any thought to your gains or losses from deposing Saddam and that your motive for opposing the war is just so that you can continue to verbally abuse people with your invective.
Now, about the present war, the fatalities of U.S. soldiers was...
Year 1 (1991) - 293 deaths
Years 2 thru 12 (1992 to 2002) - 0 deaths
Year 13 (2003) - 482
Year 14 (2004 to date) - 490
The Viet Nam War, the fatalities of U.S. soldiers was...
Year 1 (1964) - 206
Year 2 (1965) - 1863
Year 3 (1966) - 6143
Year 4 (1967) - 11153
Year 5 (1968) - 16592
Year 6 (1969) - 11616
Year 7 (1970) - 6081
Year 8 (1971) - 2357
Year 9 (1972) - 641
Year 10 (1973) - 168
Year 11 (1974) - 178
Year 12 (1975) - 161
Of course, you will probably contend that the Vietnam conflict began in the 50's which would then modify the number of fatalities to 9 for years 1956 through 1960, 16 for year 1961, 52 for year 1962, and 118 for year 1963, completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. had only military advisers in country for those years. When comparing the conflicts according to times when the military was on a war footing (meaning a significant presence specifically designed to make war as opposed to advising), the Vietnam conflict played out more quickly. But you will probably argue that we are only in the second year of combat in Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that the Gulf War was left unfinished. Even allowing for that, we are still behind the number of fatalities from Vietnam. Here again you will presume to "know" that the current war in Iraq will get worse and produce at least another 1400+ fatalities in the next 4 months when you insist on comparing 2004 with 1965.
I obtained my facts on the Vietnam fatalities of U.S. soldiers at this site:
http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/vietnam_war_casualty_lists/statistics.html#year
I obtained my facts on the Gulf War fatalities of U.S. soldiers at this site:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/index.html
I obtained my facts on the current operation's fatalities of U.S. soldiers at this site:
http://icasualties.org/oif/